Friday, September 08, 2006

Some sane voices speaking up in the region...

In Iran, one of the highest-ranking Shi'a clerics openly spoke against Khamenei's drive to attain nuclear weapons. Of course, if you asked Khamenei, he would tell you that Iran is only interested in nuclear energy. Moreover, whoever said that the highest ranking clerics were the most influential decision makers? I wonder how Iraq would have turned out, for example, if Sistani actually had real power. Anyways, the AFP reports,
The development of nuclear weapons goes against the teachings of the Islamic faith, a senior Iranian cleric said Friday in an interview with Portugal's Lusa news agency.

"The nuclear bomb goes against Islam. Including producing and storing it. To use it would be much worse," Grand Ayatollah Yusuf Saanei, 79, told the agency at his seminary at Qom, Iran's clerical capital just south of Tehran.

"If the government wants to produce this type of weapons it is going against Islam," he added.

Iran failed to meet an August 31 deadline set out by the United Nations Security Council to stop enriching uranium, which Washington says is aimed at producing nuclear weapons but which Tehran says is to fulfill civilian energy needs.

Saanei, one of five senior clerics in Qom, Iran's spiritual nerve center, is known for his pro-reform positions. He has called for dialogue with the West and has issued rulings banning workplace discrimination against women.
On another front, King Abdullah of Jordan is beginning to make some noise with regards to peace in the region. He was interviewed by TIME magazine, and in essense, said that peace-makers of the region have been sidelined for the past several years. He offered an ominous warning to hawks in both the US and Israel. Reuters reports,
The world will be "doomed" to years of violence in the Middle East if there is no major effort by 2007 to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jordan's King Abdullah warned in an interview published on Thursday.

"I believe the Lebanese war dramatically opened all our eyes to the fact that if we don't solve the Palestinian issue, the future looks pretty bleak for the Middle East," the monarch told Time magazine.

Blair is nothing more than a lame duck. Olmert is heading in that direction. However, they both seem to agree with the king of Jordan, and appear to be taking the necessary steps to ameliorate the problem. The AP reports,
Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said Friday that although the agenda for Blair's meeting with Olmert had yet to be set, the two men were likely to discuss options for resuming peace efforts with the Palestinians.
And finally, I wish to point out a development that is more insane than sane: It appears that Morocco is a new runner-up to developing "nuclear energy" capabilities. Frankly, and politics aside, this new global interest in nuclear energy is scaring me. Forget nuclear weapons. Just the fact that people have no clue of what to do with the waste generated by nuclear power plants should give people enough reason to think twice. Anyways, read and weep!
Russia's state-owned nuclear power company said on Thursday that it would bid to build Morocco's first nuclear plant, while Russian President Vladimir Putin signed co-operation deals with the Moroccan king as part of an economic mission to expand Russia's African reach.

62 comments:

Bad Vilbel said...

I wish these "sane voices" were publicized more, both in the West and locally.

This kind of declarations by the ayatollah need to be plastered all over the MSM, if you ask me. I'm so tired of the whole "Islam is a religion of terror and savages" notion that constantly creeps up so often in the West.

The people of the Middle East also need to hear this kind of thing over and over. The "Arab street" and the "Muslim street" need to realize that what they keep hearing from their warmonger leaders, under the guise of religion and "honor" has actually nothing to do with said religion.

Andrey said...

I have one piece of good news to you (well, us), too: High-ranking Russian source says Moscow will stop building Iran's first atomic power reactor if Islamic Republic expells UN nuclear inspectors as part of its dispute with West .

Andrey said...

By the way, there was a fatwa against nuclear weapones, published in Iran, a couple of years ago, I think it was by Khamenei, and it was a part of their of decieving the world.

Andrey said...

from wikipedia: August 9, 2005: The Iranian Head of State Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

Sherri said...

Where is the justice in allowing some to have nuclear power, and not others? Who judges who is allowed to have this privilige, and who is denied the right to have this privilige? Is nuclear power a right or a privilige? Isn't it obvious that as all countries advance in their technology, more amd more this issue will arise?

I do not have the answers.

In the past, some countries have secretly developed nuclear programs and some have gone through international channels. The actions of some who have developed nuclear power and nuclear weapons secretly has been ignored. At the same time, the world tries to prevent those who openly want to develop nuclear power solely for domestic power purposes.

We need an approach that has some semblance of balance and fairness to it. We need justice. Injustice fuels extremism and violence and wars.

Raja said...

sheri,

First, "justice" is an extremely OVER-USED concept. It's getting old, frankly. Furthermore, there are so many definitions of that word, that it has become meaningless (unless you point out which school of thought you prescribe to).

Second, nuclear technology is one of the most dangerous in the world. If it were up to me, and a lot of other people, it would be done away with. But that just ain't gonna happen. So considering that unfortunate reality, I would much rather the least number of regimes have access to it (and preferably the most stable regimes, for that matter).

The fact that an unstable military dictatorship like Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons is, quite frankly, enough to make me shudder at the thought! Humanity definitely doesn't need more of those around.

Chas said...

I am very torn on this issue. On one hand I don't want to see any more states, of any persuasion, developing nuclear weapons.
On the other hand the US is in a very poor position to preach to anyone on non-proliferation.
I would find their position a lot more persuassive if they lead by example rather than bullying.
Oil is worth more in the ground. (In Texas new wells are capped). Assuming than Iran is sincere in its frequently repeated statements that it does not intend to develop weapons, nuclear power is not a foolish choice for Iran.
But if they can only have nuclear power by remaing technologically dependant on the west or Russia then it does not appear so attractive. (to Iran)
Surely there is a middle way that would allow Iran to control the fuel cycle by trading that off against rigorous inspections?
Since it seems that the west cannot stop them, why not at least use it in negotiations before events make it worthless?

Peace, Chas

Lirun said...

sheri i think u have now outdone yourself.. seriously.. are you now advocating nuclear proliferation?

actually please dont respond..

i am glad you have noticed the changing tones and voices.. i have too

most of my last posts on www.emspeace.blogspot.com reflect the same sentiment.. especially with respect to the arab league of nations.. but yes gradually even with the self-righteous.. sorry i meant to say my compatriots.. did i say that out loud? ;)

Fearless said...

+++JORDAN TIMES 8-9 Sept. '06:"Old divide dogs Lebanese search for
consensus" by Jonathan Wright, Reuters
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"conflict with Israel is inevitable as long as ... Israel even exists"

"Lebanon should withdraw from any conflict and be neutral"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
Beirut:- Abu Abbas..., has ready answers to the litmus-test question which
has traditionally split his country down the middle - whether it should opt
out of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Lebanon is an inseparable part of the Arab world, he says, and conflict with
Israel is inevitable as long as any Arab land remains under Israeli
occupation or Israel even exists. ... the 30-year-old bachelor, who supports
the Shiite Muslim movement Hizbollah.
Abu Abbas lives in the southern suburbs of Beirut, where hundreds of
thousands of Shiite Muslims from the south have settled over the past three
decades and where the Shiite movement has a large and loyal following.
Shiites say Hizbollah and its weapons are needed to defend Lebanon against
Israel, but many disagree in a country where politics have always been
shaped by sectarian divisions, which fuelled a long civil war.
Many Christian, Sunni Muslim and Druze leaders are part of a coalition which
wants Lebanon to distance itself from any conflict with Israel.
Poorer than average, under-represented in the religion-based system which
governs Lebanese politics, but demographically on the rise, the Shiites feel
empowered by the outcome of the one-month war between Israel and Hizbollah
in July and August.
.....Less than 3km (two miles) away, in the middle-class
Christian-dominated district of Ashrafiyeh, the mood is rather different
after the latest round of conflict with Israel.
During the civil war, which lasted from 1975 to 1990, this was a stronghold
of right-wing Christian militias with a world view diametrically opposed to
that of Hizbollah.
Many of the militias played down Lebanon's Arab identity, emphasising the
Phoenician and Mediterranean elements in the country's heritage. They took
up arms largely in response to the armed presence in Lebanon of Palestinian
refugees, who were dragging their country into conflict with Israel.
Some cooperated with Israelis, on the principle that my enemy's enemy is my
friend. But in the end, they failed to impose their vision on the country as
a whole or create a viable enclave in the territory they controlled north of
Beirut.
Ashrafiyeh Christians now offer a more diverse range of opinions, reflecting
the political divisions within the Christian community and their more modest
ambitions.
Far from promoting secession or reliance on a sectarian militia, some
Christians said they favoured strengthening the Lebanese state. Others said
Hizbollah had fought for a just cause and had shown impressive military
prowess against Israel.
But Tony Khouri, a driver in his 50s, said: "Lebanon should withdraw from
any conflict and be neutral. Bigger states like Egypt have pulled out and
Egypt has 70 million people." "All of us are for the state, a strong state
and a strong army, and we don't care for the political parties. Hizbollah
should close down and its fighters join the army," he added. ....
The war also exposed the weakness of the Beirut government.
Critics of the system say a stable and strong state requires an end to the
sectarian system of government in which official posts are assigned on the
basis of religion.
...For us, jihad [holy war] is a duty and as long as Israel exists there
cannot be peace. People are proud of their martyrs.
In fact, the martyrs don't die. It is us who are dead," he said.

abubalboola2 said...

Sherri,
Forget justice while you're reading this as It's obvious to whom you refer when you say "but they can".
Answer this question: Do you think it's safe to give Iran nuclear power?
Please answer with yes or no and not with a monologue about other countries who have it already.
Waiting for your answer...

Fearless said...

A question for you Lebanese:
How come the Hizballah "heroes" never fougt the Syrian occupation of Lebanon?

Fearless said...

From a friend working in the Beirut airport:



Iran resumed weapons airlift to Hizballah via Beirut Friday as soon as Israel ended its air blockade

September 9, 2006, Iran’s first post-blockade arms flight departed Dubai Friday, Sept. 8, to test the ground at Beirut international airport for Israeli air force or UN reactions. Military sources report that the forbidden goods were unloaded and sailed through the airport unhindered. Tehran therefore determined to send two further bulk consignments in the next 48 hours aboard commercial flights from the Persian Gulf.

My sources report the arms crates listed were on the documents as “computer equipment. Handle with care.” They were offloaded onto trucks which drove in convoy to Hizballah headquarters in Baalbek.

Fearless said...

More Bull from Gorilla Boy
September 6, 2006


Iran are claiming that they have developed a way to contain AIDS.
Scientists in Iran have succeeded in developing a drug for AIDS containment, the Iranian news agency FARS reported. Last week, the Iranian health minister promised good news on the matter, yet no information regarding the drug and the treatment method has been released.

On Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a speech at Tehran University implying that: "There is a development on the issue, and if we announce it this would mean a tremendous development, but for now we lack the ability to answer all questions and we must continue dealing with different aspects of the matter."

U-huh. Just as I thought. They have developed nothing.

chuck said...

pfffffff,
yha, right...
they r looking for something that will preoccupy the world with the question wether iran is actually building a neuclear power plant in order to "save the whole world from contagious and uncured deseases".

i see it more like,
"hey, ahmadi, what does the world needs most ? we need to make ourselves needed by the world, so they won't try to attack us. ho what do u say ? aids doesn't have a cure ?? ok, so we'll go with that. let's tell them we have the cure. that way they will think twice before attacking."

won't that be something ?
iran developing a cure...
oky doky.

Chas said...

Abubalboola,
if the question were about "giving" Iran nuclear power it would be a very different issue.
Surely the whole basis for the problem is that Iran is developing the technology themselves?
And will continue to do so .. I think the best anyone can hope for is that they will remain signatories of NPT and that there can be a sufficient monitoring under the treaty to inhibit weapons development.
I cannot see a realistic way that a better outcome can be achieved .. and even that outcome depends on engagement, not cofrontation.

Peace, Chas

Shmulik said...

Chuck

Your lack of faith is astounding. OFF-COURSE Iran is developing a cure for AIDS. The cure involves large amount of radiation and a very loud BOOM. They even intend to try it out in Israel. I have even heard it's good for cancer and tonsilitis. Isn't Iran the greatest?

Fearless said...

No self respecting State in this world would accept a supposedly political party that has an armed militia, that makes it's own decisions on war and peace. That, serves FOREIGN powers. That undermines the democratically elected government. That flaunts internatinal resolutions like 1559 accepted by the government, elected by the people of Lebanon. It is now or never or we can say bye bye to Lebanon which will turn into a fief of armed gangs serving their own purposes and interests and those of foreign alliances.

Fearless said...

How Lebanon served as a hub for terrorism allied with the former USSR. That was the cause of the 1982 Israeli sweep and now also Moscow's footprints are to be seen in the present war
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=

August 24, 2006 6:55 AM

Russian Footprints
What does Moscow have to do with the recent war in Lebanon?

By Ion Mihai Pacepa

The Kremlin may be the main winner in the Lebanon war. Israel has been attacked with Soviet Kalashnikovs and Katyushas, Russian Fajr-1 and Fajr-3 rockets, Russian AT-5 Spandrel antitank missiles and Kornet antitank rockets. Russia’s outmoded weapons are now all the rage with terrorists everywhere in the world, and the bad guys know exactly where to get them. The weapons cases abandoned by Hezbollah were marked: “Customer: Ministry of Defense of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.”






Russian Footprints 08/24

Who Is Raúl Castro? 08/10

Romania’s Rebirth 07/27

Bolton’S Bravery 06/16

Welcome, President Basescu! 03/08

No Peter The Great 09/20





Zalenski: September 10, 2006

Goldberg: Learning the Hard Way

May: Getting Serious

Bowyer & Agatston: Bush: A Pension Reformer with Results

Factor: Time to Bulk Up on Accomplishments

Lukas: UnReasonable

Editors: Window on The Week - 9/8/2006

Editors: Judge This

Lowry: Five Years Safe

Seipp: A Bit of Respect

Miller: Blacklisting ABC

Hanson: Is the Western Way of War Dead?





Today’s international terrorism was conceived at the Lubyanka, the headquarters of the KGB, in the aftermath of the1967 Six-Day War in the Middle East. I witnessed its birth in my other life, as a Communist general. Israel humiliated Egypt and Syria, whose bellicose governments were being run by Soviet razvedka (Russian for “foreign intelligence”) advisers, whereupon the Kremlin decided to arm Israel’s enemy neighbors, the Palestinians, and draw them into a terrorist war against Israel.

General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who created Communist Romania’s intelligence structure and then rose to head up all of Soviet Russia’s foreign intelligence, often lectured me: “In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon.”

Between 1968 and 1978, when I broke with Communism, the security forces of Romania alone sent two cargo planes full of military goodies every week to Palestinian terrorists in Lebanon. Since the fall of Communism the East German Stasi archives have revealed that, in 1983 alone, its foreign intelligence service sent $1,877,600 worth of AK-47 ammunition to Lebanon. According to Vaclav Havel, Communist Czechoslovakia shipped 1,000 tons of the odorless explosive Semtex-H (which can’t be detected by sniffer dogs) to Islamic terrorists — enough for 150 years.

The terrorist war per se came into action at the end of 1968, when the KGB transformed airplane hijacking — that weapon of choice for September 11, 2001 — into an instrument of terror. In 1969 alone there were 82 hijackings of planes worldwide, carried out by the KGB-financed PLO. In 1971, when I was visiting Sakharovsky at his Lubyanka office, he called my attention to a sea of red flags pinned onto a world map hanging on the wall. Each flag represented a captured plane. “Airplane hijacking is my own invention,” he claimed.

The political “success” occasioned by hijacking Israeli airplanes prompted the KGB’s 13th Department, known in our intelligence jargon as the “Department for Wet Affairs” (wet being a euphemism for bloody), to expand into organizing “public executions” of Jews in airports, train stations, and other public places. In 1969 Dr. George Habash, a KGB puppet, explained: “Killing one Jew far away from the field of battle is more effective than killing a hundred Jews on the field of battle, because it attracts more attention.”

By the end of the 1960s, the KGB was deeply involved in mass terrorism against Jews, carried out by various Palestinian client organizations. Here are some terrorist actions for which the KGB took credit while I was still in Romania: November 1969, armed attack on the El Al office in Athens, leaving 1 dead and 14 wounded; May 30, 1972, Ben Gurion Airport attack, leaving 22 dead and 76 wounded; December 1974, Tel Aviv movie theater bomb, leaving 2 dead and 66 wounded; March 1975, attack on a Tel Aviv hotel, leaving 25 dead and 6 wounded; May 1975, Jerusalem bomb, leaving 1 dead and 3 wounded; July 4, 1975, bomb in Zion Square, Jerusalem, leaving 15 dead and 62 wounded; April 1978, Brussels airport attack, leaving 12 wounded; May 1978, attack on an El Al plane in Paris, leaving 12 wounded.

In 1971, the KGB launched operation Tayfun (Russian for “typhoon”), aimed at destabilizing Western Europe. The Baader-Meinhof, the Red Army Faction (RAF), and other KGB-sponsored Marxist organizations unleashed a wave of anti-American terrorism that shook Western Europe. Richard Welsh, the CIA station chief in Athens, was shot to death in Greece on December 23, 1975. General Alexander Haig, commander of NATO in Brussels was injured in a bomb attack that damaged his armored Mercedes beyond repair in June 1979. General Frederick J. Kroesen, commander of U.S. forces in Europe, barely survived a rocket attack in September 1981. Alfred Herrhausen, the pro-American chairman of Deutsche Bank, was killed during a grenade attack in November 1989. Hans Neusel, a pro-American state secretary in the West Germaninterior ministry, was wounded during an assassination attempt in July 1990.

In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me, a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.

According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch.

Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims’ religious fervor, Andropov sermonized. We had only to keep repeating our themes — that the United States and Israel were “fascist, imperial-Zionist countries” bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidels’ occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our characterization of the U.S. Congress as a rapacious Zionist body aiming to turn the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

The codename of this operation was “SIG” (Sionistskiye Gosudarstva, or “Zionist Governments”), and was within my Romanian service’s “sphere of influence,” for it embraced Libya, Lebanon, and Syria. SIG was a large party/state operation. We created joint ventures to build hospitals, houses, and roads in these countries, and there we sent thousands of doctors, engineers, technicians, professors, and even dance instructors. All had the task of portraying the United States as an arrogant and haughty Jewish fiefdom financed by Jewish money and run by Jewish politicians, whose aim was to subordinate the entire Islamic world.

In the mid 1970s, the KGB ordered my service, the DIE — along with other East European sister services — to scour the country for trusted party activists belonging to various Islamic ethnic groups, train them in disinformation and terrorist operations, and infiltrate them into the countries of our “sphere of influence.” Their task was to export a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world. Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, my DIE had dispatched around 500 such undercover agents to Islamic countries. According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the whole Soviet-bloc intelligence community had sent some 4,000 such agents of influence into the Islamic world.

In the mid-1970s we also started showering the Islamic world with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tsarist Russian forgery that had been used by Hitler as the foundation for his anti-Semitic philosophy. We also disseminated a KGB-fabricated “documentary” paper in Arabic alleging that Israel and its main supporter, the United States, were Zionist countries dedicated to converting the Islamic world into a Jewish colony.

We in the Soviet bloc tried to conquer minds, because we knew we could not win any military battles. It is hard to say what exactly are the lasting effects of operation SIG. But the cumulative effect of disseminating hundreds of thousands of Protocols in the Islamic world and portraying Israel and the United States as Islam’s deadly enemies was surely not constructive.

Post-Soviet Russia has been transformed in unprecedented ways, but the widely popular belief that the nefarious Soviet legacy was rooted out at the end of the Cold War the same way that Nazism was rooted out with the conclusion of World War II, is not yet correct.

In the 1950s, when I was chief of Romania’s foreign intelligence station in West Germany, I witnessed how Hitler’s Third Reich had been demolished, its war criminals put on trial, its military and police forces disbanded, and the Nazis removed from public office. None of these things has happened in the former Soviet Union. No individual has been put on trial, although the Soviet Union’s Communist regime killed over a hundred million people. Most Soviet institutions have been left in place, having simply been given new names, and are now run by many of the same people who guided the Communist state. In 2000, former officers of the KGB and the Soviet Red Army took over the Kremlin and Russia’s government.

Germany would have never become a democracy with Gestapo and SS officers running the show.

On September 11, 2001, President Vladimir Putin became the first leader of a foreign country to express sympathy to President George W. Bush for what he called “these terrible tragedies of the terrorist attacks.” Soon, however, Putin began moving his country back into the terrorist business. In March 2002, he quietly reinstituted sales of weapons to Iran’s terrorist dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei, and engaged Russia in the construction of a 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr, with a uranium conversion facility able to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. Hundreds of Russian technicians also started helping the government of Iran to develop the Shahab-4 missile, with a range of over 1,250 miles, which can carry a nuclear or germ warhead anywhere in the Middle East and Europe.

Iran’s current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had already announced that nothing could stop his country from building nuclear weapons, and he stated that Israel was a “disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world” that would be eliminated. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to eradicate Nazism and its anti-Semitic terrorism. Now we are facing Islamic fascism and nuclear anti-Semitic terrorism. The United Nations can offer no hope. It has not yet even been able to define terrorism.

A proverb says that one fire drives out another. The Kremlin may be our best hope. In May 2002, the NATO foreign ministers approved a partnership with Russia, the alliance’s former enemy. The rest of the world said that the Cold War was over and done with. Kaput. Now Russia wants to be admitted to the World Trade Organization. For that to happen, the Kremlin should be firmly told first to get out of the terrorism business.

We should also help the Russians realize that it is in their own interest to make President Ahmadinejad renounce nuclear weapons. He is an unpredictable tyrant who may also consider Russia an enemy at some point in time. “If Iran gets weapons of mass destruction, deliverable by a missile, that’s going to be a problem,” President Bush correctly stated. “That’s going to be a problem for all of us, including Russia.”

—Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. His book Red Horizons has been republished in 27 countries.



LA MAIN DE MOSCOU A MODELE LA SITUATION ACTUELLE AU MOYEN ORIENT



Par Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review, 24 août 2006.


"Aujourd'hui, nous faisons face à l'islamofascisme et à la terreur nucléaire et antisémite. L'Onu ne donne aucun espoir, elle n'a même pas été capable de définir le mot terrorisme"

Il est probable que la Russie soit le principal gagnant dans la guerre du Liban. Israël a été attaqué avec des Kalashnikovs, des Katiouchas, des missiles russes Fajr-1/3, des missiles russes anti-tank Spandrel AT-5 et Kornet. Les arsenaux russes sont aujourd'hui ouverts à tous les terroristes du monde, et tous les voyous du monde savent où trouver ces armes! Les caisses prises au Hezbollah portaient ces inscriptions "Client: Ministre de la défense de Syrie- Fournisseur: KBP, Tula, Russie"

Le terrorisme d'aujourd'hui a été conçu à Loubianka, quartier général du KGB, dans les années qui ont suivi la Guerre des six Jours. J'ai assisté à cette naissance, lors de ma précédente vie, lorsque j'étais un général communiste. Israël venait d'humilier l'Egypte et la Syrie dont les gouvernements bellicistes étaient dirigés par des agents du KGB, conseillers expédiés par le Kremlin, qui avait également décidé d'armer les Palestiniens, pour les amener à un conflit terroriste contre Israël. Le général Alexandre Sakharovski, qui a créé la structure du Renseignement en Roumanie et qui a fini par diriger tout le Renseignement extérieur soviétique, me faisait souvent la leçon "dans ce monde que nous vivons, quand les armes nucléaires rendront obsolètes les forces armées, le terrorisme deviendra notre principale arme"

Entre 1968 et 1978, l'année où j'ai rompu avec le communisme, les forces de sécurité roumaines expédiaient chaque semaine aux terroristes palestiniens au Liban deux avions cargo pleins d'armes. Après la chute du communisme, les archives de la Stasi (Allemagne de l'Est) ont révélé qu'en 1983 seulement, ce service de renseignement avait envoyé des AK-47 pour près de 1,9 millions $. Selon Vaclav Havel, la Tchécoslovaquie communiste a expédié plus de 1000 tonnes d'explosif Semtex-H (qui ne peut être repéré par des chiens renifleurs) aux islamistes, les approvisionnant pour 150 ans de terreur.

La guerre de la terreur proprement dite a commencé à la fin de 1968, quand le KGB a transformé le détournement d'avions en une arme de guerre. En 1969 seulement, il y eut 82 détournements dans le monde, menés par une OLP financée par le KGB.

En 1971, lorsque j'ai visité A Sakharovski dans son bureau de la Loubianka, il a attiré mon attention sur une mappemonde plantée d'une myriade de petits drapeaux rouges, se vantant d'être l'inventeur de cette nouvelle arme, le détournement d'avions.

Le succès politique obtenu par le détournement d'avions israéliens a encouragé le KGB (1) à organiser des assassinats publics de juifs à travers le monde, dans les aéroports, les gares, et les places connues. En 1969, Dr Georges Habache, une marionnette du KGB, expliquait:

"Tuer un seul Juif très loin du champ de bataille est plus efficace que tuer des centaines de Juifs sur le champ de bataille, car cela attire plus l'attention!"

A la fin des années 60, le KGB était impliqué jusqu'au cou dans le terrorisme de masse contre les Juifs, opérations menées par diverses organisations palestiniennes clientes. Voici quelques opérations terroristes sous l'égide du KGB, alors que j'étais encore en Roumanie.







nov 1969: attaque armée contre un bureau d'El Al à Athènes, 1 mort 14 blessés





30/05/72: attaque à l'aéroport Ben Gourion, 22 morts 76 blessé





déc 74: bombe dans un cinéma de Tel Aviv, 2 morts 66 blessés





mars 75: attaque dans un hôtel de Tel Aviv, 25 morts 6 blessés





mai 75: bombe à Jérusalem, 1 mort 3 blessés





04/07/75: bombe au squ Zion à Jérusalem, 15 morts 62 blessés





avril 78: attaque à l'aéroport de Bruxelles, 12 blessés





mai 78: attaque d'un avion d'El Al à Paris, 12 blessés





En 1971, le KGB lança l'opération "Typhon" dans le but de déstabiliser l'Europe Occidentale.

Le groupe Baader-Meinhof et la Faction Armée Rouge et d'autres organisations marxistes parrainées par le KGB ont fait déferler une vague de terreur anti-américaine qui ébranla la région.

L'agent de la CIA à Athènes, Richard Welsh fut assassiné le 23 décembre.

Le général Alexandre Haig, commandant de l'OTAN à Bruxelles a été blessé lors d'une explosion de sa voiture blindée en juin 1979.

Le général F J Kroesen, commandant des forces armées en Europe a à peine survécu à un missile lancé en septembre 1981.

Alfred Herrhausen, le président pro-américain de la Deutsche Bank a été assassiné à la grenade en novembre 1989.

Hans Neusel, le Secrétaire d'état de l'Allemagne Occidentale a été blessé lors d'une attaque visant à le tuer en juillet 1990.

En 1972, le Kremlin décida de retourner le monde islamique contre Israël et les Etats-Unis. Comme le président du KGB Youri Andropov me l'a confié, "un milliard d'individus montés contre l'Amérique peuvent faire plus de mal que quelques millions. Nous devons instiller dans le monde islamique une haine du Juif comparable à celle des nazis, afin de transformer cette arme de l'émotion en un bain de sang terroriste contre Israël et les Etats-Unis. Personne dans la sphère d'influence américano-sioniste ne doit se sentir en sécurité!"

Selon Andropov le monde islamique était un humus en attente de fertiliser la haine de l'Amérique, nourri de la pensée marxiste-léniniste et de l'antisémitisme islamique. Les Musulmans avaient le goût du nationalisme, du chauvinisme et surtout de la victimologie. On pouvait exciter leurs foules opprimées et illettrées jusqu'aux dernières limites. Il me disait que "la terreur et la violence contre Israël et son maître, le sionisme américain, allaient couler naturellement de cette ferveur religieuse. Il suffit de répéter nos thèmes à l'infini, que les Etats-Unis et Israël sont des états fascistes et impérialistes, financés par des Juifs riches. L'Islam est obsédé par l'évacuation de sa terre par les Infidèles et il est ainsi réceptif à nos accusations d'un Congrès américain rapace et vendu aux Juifs, cherchant à judaïser le monde".

Le nom de code de cette opération était "SIG", ou "gouvernement sioniste" et se trouvait dans ma sphère d'influence roumaine, du fait qu'il incluait la Libye, le Liban, la Syrie. SIG était à la fois l'affaire de l'Etat et celle du parti. Nous avons construit avec ces pays des hôpitaux, des logements et des routes, et nous leur avons envoyé des médecins, des ingénieurs, des professeurs et même des spécialistes de la danse. Le but était de prêcher la parole que les Américains étaient arrogants et hautains, judaïsés par de l'argent juif et menés par des politiciens juifs, dans le but d'asservir tout le monde musulman.

Au milieu des années 70, le KGB, a donné ordre à mon service le DIE, et à d'autres services analogues de l'Europe de l'Est de ratisser le pays pour trouver des activistes de confiance dans le parti, appartenant à divers groupes ethniques musulmans. Le but était de les entraîner à la désinformation et aux opérations terroristes pour les infiltrer ensuite dans les pays de notre zone d'influence. Il s'agissait bien d'y implanter l'horreur du sionisme américain, en s'appuyant sur la haine ancestrale du Juif. Avant que je ne quitte la Roumanie pour de bon en 1978, ma DIE avait déjà envoyé 500 agents émissaires dans les pays islamiques. Selon une estimation reçue de Moscou, l'ensemble du bloc soviétique avait infiltré plus de 4000 agents d'influence en Islam.

Au milieu des années 70, nous avions commencé déjà à inonder l'univers islamique d'exemplaires des "Protocoles des Sages de Sion" en arabe (2). On aussi parsemé les pays d'une documentation "fabriquée" en arabe racontant qu'Israël et son soutien les Etats-Unis étaient des pays sionistes cherchant à convertir par leur culture le monde islamique en une colonie juiveŠ En fait on cherchait à conquérir les esprits, incapables de les conquérir militairement. On ne peut pas connaître les véritables retombées de l'opération SIG. Mais la masse d'une fausse littérature de propagande distribuée dans le but de diffamer ne peut pas être sans effet.

La Russie actuelle n'est plus la même, mais la croyance que le funeste héritage soviétique a disparu à la fin de la guerre froide est utopique. Dans les années 50, alors que j'étais le chef de l'antenne du Renseignement Roumain en Allemagne Occidentale, j'ai été le témoin de la destruction du 3ème Reich hitlérien : police, armée, idées : on a tout démoli. Alors qu'en Allemagne la dénazification a sévi, il n'y a pas eu de "désoviétisation" en URSS. Il n'y a pas eu de procès pour juger ceux qui ont assassiné des centaines de millions de gens. Toutes les institutions soviétiques ont été laissées en place, avec des nouveaux noms, et toujours dirigées par les mêmes personnages communistes.

En 2000, les anciens dirigeants du KGB et de l'Armée soviétique ont pris d'assaut le Kremlin et le gouvernement de la Russie. L'Allemagne n'aurait jamais été une démocratie si la Gestapo et les officiers SS avaient continué à gouverner.

Le 11/09/01 Vladimir Poutine a été le premier chef d'état à exprimer sa sympathie au président G W Bush, pour "cette terrible tragédie due aux attaques terroristes". Pourtant aussitôt, il réengageait son pays dans "les affaires" du terrorisme. En mars 2002 Putin a réadmis la vente d'armes à l'Iran et lui a vendu un réacteur nucléaire de 1000 mégawatts à Bushehr, avec la conversion possible de l'uranium pour des armes nucléaires. Des centaines de techniciens russes ont commencé à aider l'Iran à développer le missile Shehab-4, ayant une portée de 2000 km, pouvant emporter une charge nucléaire ou bactériologique.

Aujourd'hui, le président Iranien Ahmedinejad persiste dans sa volonté d'enrichir l'uranium, malgré des années d'efforts verbaux pour l'en empêcher, diffamant Israël à toute occasion, le traitant de "vilaine tache au milieu du monde islamique, qu'on doit nettoyer". Rappelons que lors de la 2ème guerre mondiale 405 399 Américains sont morts pour éradiquer le fascisme nazi et sa terreur antisémite. Aujourd'hui nous sommes confrontés à un fascisme islamique et un terrorisme nucléaire et antisémite. L'Onu ne donne aucun espoir, elle n'a même pas été capable de définir le mot terrorisme.

Un proverbe dit qu'un feu élimine un autre feu. Le Kremlin pourrait être notre meilleur espoir.

En mai 2002, les ministres des affaires étrangères de l'OTAN ont accepté un partenariat avec la Russie, un ancien ennemi. Le reste du monde a cru que l'ère de la guerre froide était close. Kaputt! Aujourd'hui la Russie veut entrer à l'Organisation du Commerce Mondial (OCM).

Avant de l'accepter on pourrait lui demander de cesser "les affaires" du terrorisme. Et l'aider à comprendre qu'il ne va pas de son intérêt qu'Ahmedinejad ait une bombe nucléaire, car même la Russie pourra un jour être considérée comme un ennemi. Et comme l'a dit le président Bush, "le jour où l'Iran aura l'arme nucléaire, ce sera un problème pour tous, même pour la Russie".



Ion Mihai Pacepa, lieutenant général, ex-responsable des services secrets roumains dont le livre "Horizons rouges" a été publié dans plus de 27 pays.

Notes

(1) Plus précisément le 13ème Département ou en jargon le Département des Affaires humides, là où il y a du sang

(2) un faux tsariste utilisé par Hitler comme fondement de sa philosophie antisémite

Sherri said...

raja and chas,

I made a mistake when I phrased the issue of who should have the right to have nuclear technology as a matter of justice. We have to deal with the world the way it is today, and fairness concepts would not lead us to a safe world.

Peaceful nuclear tecnology (used for domestic power needs) needs to be distinquished from nuclear technology used to develop nuclear weapons. The former should be allowed, assuming it is monitored and the methods used are determined to be safe and assuming it is established the technology is not being used for developing nuclear weapons. The more monitoring and inspections, the better.

Nuclear technology to develop nuclear weapons should be limited. It would be nice if all nuclear weapons could be destroyed. Look at Hiroshima. Almost 250,000 have died from the time the bomb was dropped until today. Every year thousands more die from radiation related causes.

The difficulties lie with countries who have nuclear weapons who are viewed as threats to safety in the world, such as North Korea, Pakistan, and India. And those countries who may try to develop such programs, such as Iran. There are not any easy solutions.

But I think dialogue, negotiations, and passionate diplomacy should be sought. Open
communication with those making the decisions about nuclear weapons
is critical. Alienation does not benefit the world, because we know less and less about what is really going on within the countries we do not talk to and alienate. For every day we are talking to each other about conflicts, the day we start trying to kill each other is put off for another day.

Concerning justice, it may be illusive and hard to define, and increasingly harder to achieve every day, but I think it is still a goal worth striving for.

I also still view standing up against injustice and speaking up against injustice as worthwhile endeavors.

Sherri said...

abubalboola2,

If Iran establishes its nuclear power program is safe and meets international guidelines and there are procedures in effect to insure nuclear power is not used to produce nuclear weapons, I do not see a problem with Iran having nuclear power. Nuclear power to use for peaceful purposes.

It is better for the world if Iran remains a party to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and remains subject to conditions and inspections.

Your specific question was,
Is it safe to give Iran nuclear power? This is not the relevant question. The question is have they developed safe methods to make nuclear power for domestic power purposes and can they establish that to those responsible for monitoring nuclear power programs.

If you mean by your question,
do I trust Iran with nuclear weapons, the answer is no. But I do not trust many of the countries who presently have nuclear weapons with them.

Chas said...

Sherri,
More or less with you.
In the current situation pushing Iran into a corner is about the stupidest thing you could do.

Chas emspeace.blogspot.com

Lirun said...

ahh hang on..

iran is the same country that doesnt show what it has developed even though it claims to have done..

iran is the same country that is publicly calling to wipe out another?

i dont think this one requires a genius.. this is some very clear one plus one stuff..

Fearless said...

Hiballah and the FUTURE of Lebanon

By now it should be painfully obvious that the recent Israel-Hizbullah war was as much about the identity of Lebanon as it was about Hizbullah’s dispute with Israel. Hizbullah’s attack was double-pronged; it wanted to hit Israel hard while mounting what was tantamount to a coup d'état in Lebanon. Hizbullah wanted to kill Israelis and gain the release of other Arabs who have killed Israelis, but it also wanted to drag Lebanon back into the Arab-Islamic mire of jihad, martyrdom, and genocidal fantasies about killing all the Jews. Hizbullah wants Lebanon to remain a front-line state in the never-ending Arab-Islamic war against Israel. Indeed, Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrullah asserted in no uncertain terms that "Hizbullah is fighting a war on behalf of the [Islamic] umma, whether the Lebanese like it or not."

Of course, this is not the first time Lebanon is faced with a violent movement that views the country in purely exploitative terms; in the 1970s, the Palestine "revolution" was based here, arrogantly insisting that Lebanon's "duty" was to be a staging area for Palestinian attacks against Israel. It is tragic that in both instances, the Lebanese state could not bring itself to clamp down on the troublemakers, and it took an Israeli invasion to precipitate talk of the inevitable.

Fortunately, some people understand what this is all about. Like most Lebanese politicians, Walid Junblatt is a shameless opportunist, switching sides every so often to stay in the game. Yet occasionally, Junblatt will make a surprisingly perspicacious remark. A few years ago, he declared that Lebanon had to decide whether it wanted to be the Hanoi or the Hong Kong of the Middle East. Hanoi refers to the North Vietnamese city which Vietcong rebels used as a staging ground for attacks on US-backed South Vietnam, thereby inviting massive US retaliation which devastated the city several times, while Hong Kong refers to one of the East Asian "Tigers," a tiny territory which became ridiculously wealthy by concentrating solely on developing its economy.

Though it was unclear whether someone like Hizbullah MP Ali Ammar, one of many who dismissed Junblatt’s statement out-of-hand, understood the analogy when he rather endearingly countered that "Lebanon is neither Hanoi nor Hong Kong; Lebanon is Lebanon," Junblatt’s observation is as true today as it was then. Hizbullah not only wants Lebanon to remain the Hanoi of the Middle East—a launching pad for anti-Israel attacks, a miserable no-man’s-land fated to never break free of the vicious cycle of Arab-Israeli violence—but it is opposed to the cultural transformation that has long been underway in the country.

Make no mistake; Hizbullah wants to halt the Westernization of Lebanon. When Hizbullah members and supporters were offended by a depiction of Hassan Nasrullah on a well-known LBC comedy show, they descended en masse on Achrafieh’s trendy Monot Street. Lined with bars and nightclubs, Monot is the antithesis of proper Islamic values. Though the hooligans were halted in their tracks by alert security forces, their choice of target was quite telling.

Indeed, Hizbullah doesn’t want alcohol, unveiled women, sexual freedom, civil marriage, secularism, peace with Israel, and friendly ties with the US/Great Satan. Hizbullah openly aspires to a Shiite Islamic state on the Iranian Wilayat al-Faqih model (its opening communiqué in 1982 openly called on all Christians to convert to Islam). Yes, it is more "moderate" than other Islamic organizations in that—up till now—it has not used violence to achieve its aims, and promises that it will wait until a clear majority of Lebanese want an Islamic state before making a move in that direction. And yes, it has softened much of its sectarian rhetoric and its opposition to a unique Lebanese identity; in the 1980s, during the civil war, reports cited Hizbullah demonstrators as burning the Lebanese flag alongside the Israeli flag, but in the 1990s, all such reports ceased as the Lebanese flag began to be treated with reverence.

Yet the party’s ultimate goals remain unchanged. And now Hizbullah has made that initial move toward keeping Lebanon firmly within the Arab-Islamic orbit. We may not be witnessing the Islamization of Lebanon, but we are witnessing the start of an open struggle between those who want Lebanon to sink ever deeper into the Arab-Islamic rot, and those who want it to emulate the West. Culturally, post-civil war Lebanon was becoming too lax and permissive for Hizbullah. Politically, it was becoming too opposed to Syria, Hizbullah’s ally and lifeline to Iran. Nasrullah and cohorts evidently hope that their latest not-so-diplomatic démarche will effectively pull the reins on a westward galloping Lebanon.

They have their work cut out for them. Aside from Hizbullah (and its resistance-intoxicated lackeys among other sectors of the populace), most Lebanese do not long for "jihad" and "martyrdom," and most do not thirst for Jewish blood. In this Arab country, most people do not fantasize about "liberating" Palestine, and many would not be averse to a peace agreement with Israel. And despite what is being broadcast on the Arab satellite channels, most Lebanese mothers do not wish to "offer" their children as a sacrifice on the altar of the great jihad against the "Zionist entity." It’s too bad that these Lebanese—the majority—often aren’t deemed suitable enough to be interviewed by the jingoistic Arab media.

Most Lebanese cringe at the totalitarian ideologies of Arab and Syrian nationalism, communism, and political Islam. Most Lebanese, Christian and Muslim, do not seek the establishment of an Islamic state, and many openly aspire to a Western secular and liberal model of governance at variance with the totalitarian ideologies that hold sway in the Middle East. It is thanks to them that Lebanon has never been captured by the Baath, Nasserists, Palestinian resistance, SSNP, Communists, Sunni Islamists, Hizbullah, or any other totalitarian political party of the kind that came to power in virtually every single other Arab country. Yet radical Islam has now made its first bid for Lebanon. Will the Lebanese stand up to Hizbullah, or keep silent in deference to its role as the much-vaunted "resistance"? The immediate future of Lebanon will likely be determined by this decision.



Rayyan Al-Shawaf is a writer and freelance reviewer based in Beirut, Lebanon.

Dimitry said...

sherri

You method was exactly the policy in regards to North Korea and Iran. The result is that they promise the world, get in exchange a lot, and then give everybody the finger and continue developing, until they're noticed, and then they again negotiate, promise the world, etc. etc. etc.
Don't you think that this way has colleced poor enough record? Or will it take mursroom cloud above Tel Aviv to say "oops, well, perhaps a method that works would be better"?

Chas said...

Dimitry
I think Iran's policy, methods, and governance are very different from N.Korea.
Attempting to draw parallels between the two oversimplifies a complex situation and makes a solution less likely.
I am at loss to divine what you mean by a "method that works".
It seems pretty clear that attempting to sway Iran by vieled threats and intimidation does not work.
There is a refusal to regognise the inherent contradiction in making military threats to a country in order to prevent it developing weapons!
That said, I do not myself see any easy solutions in the current climate.
Other countries (Libya and SA) have abandoned nuclear weapons development, so it is not impossible.
Peace, Chas

Chas said...

Fearless
Intersting post, Thank-you.
Chas

Dimitry said...

Chas

Here's the clear fact: all the diplomatic attempts were used by Iran as nothing but smokescreen while they keep working furiosly. Talks should be a tool, not an aim, and when the tool doesn't serve its porpuse, it should be put aside.

Fearless said...

Le bluff français


Le porte-parole de la Défense, Jean-François Bureau, a souligné lors d'un point de presse que cette force navale temporaire allait assister la marine libanaise, notamment en matière de fourniture de renseignements, et n'avait pas de mandat de l'Onu pour employer la force. (...)

"La réponse en cas d'intrusion dans les eaux territoriales ne sera pas coercitive. La force navale n'est pas en situation d'interdire le passage à un bateau de vive force", a-t-il précisé.

"L'essentiel est de faire vite pour que le blocus (israélien) soit levé", a-t-il ajouté, en précisant que la "question des règles d'engagement de la future Finul navale" qui sera dirigée par les Allemands, était "en cours de discussions" à l'Onu à New York.

Cela s'ajoute aux nombreuses déclarations cette fois spécifiquement sur la FINUL de Douste, de MAM, de Chirac, de Koffi Annan, et autres Pellegrini sur le fait que les casques bleus ne pouvaient prélever des armes que si elles leur tombaient dessus et que leur mission n'était surtout pas de mettre une trop grande ardeur à la tâche.

Et ces questions, lancinantes et naîves qui reviennent après ces déclaration toutes plus renversantes les unes que les autres: "c'est quoi finalement votre mission M. les casques bleus ? A quoi servez vous ? C'est quoi exactement cette notion d' "assistance" ? Comment comptez vous empêcher concrètement une réapprovisionnement en armes du Hezb alors que le gouvernement libanais a clairement fait entendre qu'il ne désarmerait pas la milice lui non plus ?".

Fearless said...

Iran Nucleaire

Iran - France : des manoeuvres pour gagner du temps !
10.09.2006


Le 9 septembre, la France a mis en garde vendredi cune réunion du Conseil de Sécurité qui n’aurait pas de « perspective de pouvoir décider » d’éventuelles sanctions et ne ferait qu’étaler « les divisions » des cinq membres permanents.


Selon le Quai d’Orsay, « il faut préparer ces prochaines étapes en ayant le souci de l’unité de la communauté internationale pour que cela puisse se faire dans de bonnes conditions ».



Cet appel de la diplomatie Française nous ramène en Avril 2006 !

Le 30 Mars 2006 également, les 5 Grands avaient lancé un ultimatum de 30 jours à l’Iran (le texte de la déclaration) (l'analyse de la déclaration).

Le 31 Mars, c’est-à-dire le premier jour de l’ultimatum d’un mois accordé aux mollahs afin qu’ils renoncent à la maîtrise de l’enrichissement, Douste-Blazy avait d’emblée évoqué la nécessité d’un consensus unanime de tous les membres du Conseil de Sécurité.

Décodages | Il s’agit en réalité d’une exigence permanente de la France. Ce Consensus est impossible à réaliser et cette mission impossible entraînerait nécessairement des retards... Pour une fois, il ne s’agit pas d’une manœuvre dilatoire des mollahs mais d’une nouvelle tentative française dans ce domaine.

Cette exigence d’unanimité équivaut également à éviter de passer par le chapitre 7 de la Charte des Nations unies qui traite des menaces contre la paix et des actes d’agressions et autorise, en dernier ressort, l’emploi de sanctions ou de mesures coercitives sans un vote à l’unanimité. Une telle résolution passerait, si Moscou et Pékin n’exerçaient pas leur droit de veto, mais s’abstenaient tout simplement. Le recours au chapitre 7 contrarie les intérêts Européens en Iran.

L’Europe qui donne la priorité à ses intérêts économiques nous fait perdre un temps précieux pour imposer des sanctions aux mollahs. L’Europe n’en veut pas car les sanctions peuvent déstabiliser le régime en très peu de temps et l’Europe a peur que le nouveau régime résilie les contrats pétroliers particulièrement injustes de type Buy Back et du coup, l’Europe résiste en exigeant un impossible consensus.



Discussions "constructives" entre Javier Solana et Ali Larijani
L'Express - Il y a 21 heures
Javier Solana, porte-parole de la diplomatie européenne, et le négociateur iranien Ali Larijani ont eu samedi à Vienne une rencontre qualifiée de "constructive" et se retrouveront dimanche dans l'optique d'un règlement de la crise sur le nucléaire ...


Iran : Washington souhaite des "éclaircissements" sur les propos de M. Solana 8.09.2006



AFP, Washington, 8 septembre - Les Etats-Unis souhaitent des "éclaircissements" sur les propos anti-sanctions contre l'Iran du haut représentant pour la politique extérieure de l'Union européenne Javier Solana, a indiqué vendredi le département d'Etat.

"J'ai vu des propos partiels de M. Solana. Je n'ai pas vu l'ensemble de ses déclarations. Il est certain que nous souhaitons des éclaircissements", a déclaré le porte-parole du ministère américain des Affaires étrangères.

"Nous avons un accord. Nous escomptons de tous les membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité qu'ils respectent cet accord", a ajouté M. McCormack.

A Copenhague, M. Solana a déclaré qu'il "n'y aura pas de mouvement à New York (vers des sanctions) tant que dureront les réunions avec M. Larijani", le chef des négociateurs iraniens.

Or les Etats-Unis estiment qu'une résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU prévoyant des sanctions contre l'Iran pour son programme nucléaire contesté devrait être préparée dès la semaine prochaine.
Mandaté par les Européens et le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, M. Solana doit rencontrer M. Larijani samedi, dans un lieu tenu secret, pour s'entretenir du dossier nucléaire iranien.

Le diplomate en chef de l'UE a aussi espéré l'ouverture de négociations entre l'Iran et les six pays impliqués dans les discussions sur le dossier nucléaire iranien (Etats-Unis, Russie, Chine, France et Grande-Bretagne, ainsi que l'Allemagne).

Or les Etats-Unis, qui accusent l'Iran de faire traîner les négociations pour gagner du temps pour que ses scientifiques poursuivent leur enrichissement d'uranium, ont posé comme condition préalable à toute négociation avec l'Iran qu'il suspende d'abord l'enrichissement.

Chas said...

Dimitry,
As of yet Iran has done nothing that contravenes the NPT. The diplomatic efforts were in fact efforts to prevent them from carrying out re-processing and enrichment processes permitted under that treaty.
So, from their perspective, "keeping working furiously" was legitimate and I don't think they made any attempt to hide that.
I am not suggesting that this is a desirable state of affairs, but I still don't get your "methods that work" point. What are the methods that work? I, for one would be very grateful to see such a method.
The only thing I can think of is, as posted above somewhere, is to accept Iran's rights to develop nuclear technology, as allowed under the NPT, but to make the price for that acceptance the imposistion of a rigorous and verifiable inspection and monitoring program.
The problem is that it is almost too late for such a deal as the Iranians will soon have the capabilities they desire without yeilding any concessions.

Peace, Chas

Fearless said...

Le Premier ministre israélien a affirmé dimanche avoir proposé en vain une rencontre à son homologue libanais pour parvenir à la paix. Réponse de l'intéressé : il n'a jamais reçu un tel appel... et n'y aurait de toute façon pas répondu. Sur le terrain, le contingent italien de la Finul est à pied d'oeuvre.


Créé le 03 septembre 2006
Mis à jour le 04 septembre 2006 à 15h05



Pour aller plus loin
Infographie : l'Histoire du conflit israélo-libanais (26/07/2006)

Infographie : le poids du Hezbollah (20/07/2006)

Infographie : le poids des chiites au Moyen-Orient (21/08/2006)

940 millions de dollars pour le Liban (31/08/2006)

L'armée libanaise occupe le terrain face à Israël (01/09/2006)

800 soldats italiens renforcent la Finul au Liban (02/09/2006)

Liban : "On envoie nos hommes dans la gueule du loup" (25/08/2006)

Liban : retrait d'Israël d'ici le 22 septembre (07/09/2006)

Liban : levée du blocus maritime (08/09/2006)

Liban : les soldats français débarquent (09/09/2006)

Mahmoud Abbas et Ehmud Olmert prêts à se rencontrer (10/09/2006)




Controverse Olmert-Siniora

Une controverse est apparue dimanche entre les chefs de gouvernement israélien Ehud Olmert et libanais Fouad Siniora : le premier a affirmé avoir proposé en vain une rencontre pour parvenir à la paix entre les deux pays tandis que le second assurait ne rien avoir reçu. "Comme il aurait été simple et naturel si le Premier ministre libanais avait accepté que nous nous rencontrions, que nous nous serrions la main et que nous mettions fin une fois pour toute à la haine qu'une partie de son peuple éprouve envers nous", a dit Ehud Olmert évoquant de "multiples appels à une rencontre".Le bureau de Fouad Siniora a rétorqué "que de telles invitations n'ont jamais été transmises et qu'elles seraient, dans tous les cas, catégoriquement rejetées". Les deux pays sont toujours officiellement en guerre depuis 1948, en dépit de la signature d'un accord d'armistice en 1949.

Le Qatar, premier pays arabe de la Finul
Le Qatar a annoncé lundi qu'il serait le premier pays arabe à participer à la Force intérimaire des Nations unies au Liban, en envoyant un contingent de 200 à 300 hommes. Cette décision a pour but "de dire au monde qu'il y a une présence arabe, même réduite, et de dire à Israël que nous croyons en cette résolution et que nous voulons l'appliquer", a déclaré le ministre qatari des Affaires étrangères, cheikh Hamad ben Jassem ben Jabr Al-Thani, dans une référence à la résolution 1701 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.

L'annonce a été faite lors de la visite de Kofi Annan dans le pays. Le secrétaire général de l'Onu poursuit sa visite en Arabie saoudite.

Qatar Airways reprend ses vols vers Beyrouth malgré le blocus
Le premier vol direct de la compagnie aérienne Qatar Airways à destination de Beyrouth a quitté Doha lundi à la mi-journée avant d'arriver à Beyrouth un peu plus tard. La veille à Jérusalem, un porte-parole militaire israélien interrogé sur l'annonce de cette reprise des vols avait répondu que le blocus imposé au Liban depuis la mi-juillet était "toujours en vigueur", sans toutefois préciser la mesure que son pays pourrait prendre pour le faire respecter.

Début de la mission pour les soldats italiens

Les soldats italiens venus au Liban consolider une trêve le long de la frontière avec Israël étaient à pied d'oeuvre dimanche après avoir débarqué près du port de Tyr et à Beyrouth. Acheminés par cinq bâtiments de la Marine, dont le porte-aéronefs Garibaldi, quelque 900 militaires ont débuté leur mission sous les ordres du général français Alain Pellegrini, chef de la Finul.

Les Allemands reportent...
Berlin va reporter sa décision, qui était prévue lundi, sur l'envoi de troupes pour participer à la Finul renforcée, a indiqué dimanche le porte-parole du gouvernement allemand, le Liban n'ayant pas encore selon lui adressé aux Nations unies les "demandes nécessaires". Le gouvernement allemand "n'envoit des soldats seulement à certaines conditions et si le Liban s'engage explicitement pour cette mission auprès du secrétaire général des Nations unies ", a insisté le porte-parole.

Fearless said...

Saturday, September 9, 2006
Syria has not accepted European border guards to supervise the Syrian-Lebanese borders

President Assad Discusses with Italian Premier the Technical Assistance To
Syrian Border Guards
Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 10:45 PM
Damascus, Sep. 09 (SANA - Syrian News Agency)-
www.sana.org/eng/21/2006/09/09/64887.htm
In the framework of continuous consultations between Syria and Italy, a
phone call was made tonight between President Bashar al-Assad and Italian
Prime Minister Romano Prodi in which talks dealt with the technical
assistance intended to be offered to the Syrian border guards, including the
training.

Meanwhile, the reports circulated by some news agencies that Syria accepted
European border guards to supervise the Syrian-Lebanese borders were
unfounded.

Ahmad F. ZAHRA

Shmulik said...

Chas

How was Iraq stopped from developing nuclear weapons?

Sherri said...

chas and dimitry,

I just read a news report concerning talks between Iran and the EU, that sounds like a promising development on the Iran nuclear power development issue.

It indicates Iran may be prepared to suspend nuclear enrichment activities for up to 2 months for further talks, and that progress is being made in these meetings, which started yesterday. Details regarding their discussions are not addressed.

We will have to wait and see how this plays out over the next few days.

I also read a summary of a news report that indicated developing countries are supporting Iran's right to develop nuclear power.

There are some serious concerns we should all have over talks stopping with Iran and a halt to inspections of their nuclear power facilities, outside of the concern of them secretly developing nuclear weapons within Iran.

First, there is the issue of the safety of Iran's nuclear power program. This program is being developed without western involvement and much development using information obatined on the black market. This was an issue I heard raised by a political activist recently released from jail in Iran, who was being interviewed on Democracy Now last week. His primary concerns were that a Cherbynol type incident may occur in Iran, if they were hurriedly trying to complete development of the program.

Second, have you noticed the meetings being held in the past 6 months or so between officials in Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. In particular, I recall news reports of meetings between Iran and Sudan and reports they were discussing sharing technologies with each other. The Sudanese government is a very dangerous government, engaging in acts of genocide against its people for the past 20 to 25 years, first against Christians and other groups in south Sudan, and more recently in Darfur. I believe I read about 2.5 million were killed in the 20 year conflict in the south. If Iran is pressured to halt their openly disclosed nuclear power program, what will stop them from secretly developing a joint program somewhere like Sudan or Sudan developing a secret program with technology transferred by Iran and/or North Korea. Another point about Sudan, I recently read they have very substantial oil reserves. And they continue to defy the United Nations attempts to send in a UN Force to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Further attempts to isolate and alienate Iran just encourage the development of dangerous alliances and agreements between Iran, Sudan, and North Korea.

The situation in North Korea is an example of what results with continuing alienation of a country over their nuclear program and refusing to have dialogue with them. There are no inspections, noone knows where their program is at, and the situation becomes more and more dangerous, with noone knowing how to resolve it.

The answer is in keeping communications open with Iran, which means if necessary reaching an agreement on the development of a peaceful nuclear power program within Iran, and setting in place rigorous monitoring and inspection procedures.

My wishes and prayers are for peace,

Sherri

chuck said...

check this out,
a funny one :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EnnjKP1Xok

Chas said...

Sherri,
I read the same news, and like you, find it encouraging.

Your point about safety is well made and well taken.

Schmulik,
Well according to some they did not stop, but that point aside, I believe their research was amateurish compared with Iran's.

I believe they stopped after the Israeli attack on their research facility, but to tell the truth I do not recollect the whole story or sequence of events.

I hope that you are not even imagining that the same approach would work against Iran now.

The thing that needs to be understood about the Iranian system is that it is not a "one man show" run by a tin pot dictator. It is a complex system of decision making that accepts inputs from many sources. I am sure they have proofed their nuclear research program against any such simple military strike. Apart from the obvious fact that the political and military dangers of such action far outweigh the benefits.

Peace, Chas


Peace, Chas

abubalboola2 said...

Chas,
I dont differ much between "giving" or allowing Iran to develop nuclear power.
You are talking about NPT, monitoring etc. But these processes require an honesty prerequisite which is not an attribute of the Iranian regime (and that is according to Muslim and Arab countries. not according to the US).
So skipping this condition is a weak point which fails your argument.

Perhaps if you think about Iranian regime with nuclear power NOW and re-asses this imaginary situation, you will see differently what are realistic options in the current real situation.
"better" or "worse" needs to stand versus this imaginary situation above. I believe you are putting those "better" and "worse" versus the current real state and then.. yes, it means that things will go worse. But, they will prevent the situation that most of the world does not want to reach.

engagement, talks.. even those need to be put in a pragmatic view does not follow idealism all the way. at some point, force needs to be used.

To make clear what is my basic assumption - The Iranian people, are under the rulership of a fanatic regime with a luni president. this regime is a master at maximizing its benefits of western diplomacy but has opposite values to the values that drive that diplomacy. Any promise given by the Iranian regime can not be taken as it is.

When dealing with the Iranian regime, the worst scenario should be the first consequence that needs to be weighed.

Since I am giving here quite a strong opinion, I would like to balance myself that I see Iran different then any other country in the region. Please see this opinion as differnt then on other matters.

Peace.

abubalboola2 said...

Sherri,
You are saying things which make sense to me too.
Unless! first Please read my response to Chas. I dont see the Iranian regime as one that you can count on to play according to the rules.
what you see as rules, they see as solvable obstacles on the way to reach nuclear weapons.

Just like you, I do not see a problem with Iran having nuclear peaceful power. only I dont think it will be the end of it.

That is why my question IS relevant. Since I see a fatal error in your implicit assumptions.
Can they cooporate with inspection? surely they can.
Can they sign any NTP agreement? surely the can.
But, can you trust them on those? No!!! They already decieved and hidden what they have. They are already considered a risk by other countries.

I think you should make a separation between Iranian regime to any other. and then you need to stay with the last part of your answer "do I trust Iran with nuclear weapons, the answer is no.". But make it a final non-conditional no.

And by the way, you can stick with "abubalboola". The 2 is a login problem trick only :->

abubalboola.

Chas said...

Abubalboola,
thanks for your response. I qualified my responses, initially with the statement that I did not see easy solutions to this problem and with regard to inspections that they be "rigorous and verifiable". (ie that they would be conducted more thoroughly and to a higher standard than for other countries).
Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and could teach Iran all about duplicity and concealment in the development of nuclear weapons. Israel also aided SA in its illegal attempt to make or obtain nuclear weapons. So the question of trust and openess is not limited to any one country here. Israeli nuclear facilities are still not open to any inspection by the IAEA.
However, for some reason that I cannot fathom, I am supposed to be completely at ease about that. (I am not btw!)
Iran is already a signatory to the NPT, and after some initial concealment during early research, did bring themselves into compliance. Including monitoring over and above what is required by the treaty. This monitoring program broke down at an early stage of the current dispute.
I don't want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons .. by most estimates it is 10 years away from such a development. Perhaps that time could be used constructively rather than attempting an unworkable strategy of confrontation?
Peace, Chas

Chas said...

abubalboola,
Just a wanted to add something relevant but a little off topic. The nuclear situation that really does concern me is Pakistan.
I realize Iran is the "hotbutton" issue right now .. but Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Pakistan has had few normal transitions of government since its inception. Musharrif is living on borrowed time and the increasing instability in Afghanistan, and the radicalization of most of northern Pakistan makes it a much more serious nuclear threat.
The main danger with Iran is, I think, that someone will do something stupid in response to its stance.
Peace, Chas

Sherri said...

abubalboola,

Whether there is trust cannot serve as the deciding factor as to whether a country is allowed to develop nuclear power. How can such a policy be implemented?

And If lack of trust is such a big issue, isn't it better to have an open nuclear power program that is subject to rigorous inspections and monitoring of the program.

As to your comments about the fanatical nature of Iran's regime, first, the President has little power in Iran, so we should not give a lot of importance to his comments. The supreme religious leader has the power there.

Second, step back and look at the facts. Iran has been in existence for 27 years. They have not started a war with anyone. I have read many articles which express an opinion that Iran has not even decided yet whether they want to develop nuclear weapons. Some religious clerics have even given opinions that nuclear weapons, their production or storage, violate Muslim principles. Comments about not recognizing Israel, they have in common with many Arab countries, because of the Palestinian issue and Israel occupying Arab lands. They have never said they plan to attack either Israel or the US, except as a matter of self defense if attacked.

How can the world institute a policy that requires a belief that a regime can be trusted as a prerequsite to allow them to have nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Let me ask you some questions, now. Do you trust Pakistan? Do you trust China? Do you trust North Korea? If no, what do we do about it?

I am from the US and I do not even trust my present government under the Bush Presidency. What do we do about it?

Lirun said...

iran has clearly stated its hostile ambitions. sherri.. seriously u cantdeny having heard that.. that would be too much..

pakistan has made friendly overtures to israel and spoken of regional harmonisation.. it is encouraging when a country does that.. and it rings very differently to being called pigs and sons of apes that should have been wiped out by hitler and sent back to germany..

i agree that is difficult to coerce another country to shape its policies based on how much you trust them.. but countries should not be irresponsible enough to run a nuclear program.. fund regional terrorism.. stage remote controlled battles on weak democracies.. call for your destruction and reveal to you time and again how the inspectors are not getting full access and then kick them out..

sherri - this is not the conduct of a bengin regional hegemon.. it is the ultimate passive agression one could imagine..

anyway.. i hope they do align themselves with international requirements..

i have some great persian friends and would like to seem them and their homeland open into a progressive and prosperous state..

www.emspeace.blogspot.com

abubalboola2 said...

Chas,
As for the condition you laid that the inspections be "rigorous and verifiable". I agree that this is the right way BUT not applicable in the case of Iran.
(I'll write my answer to Sherri right after this one and talk about the "trust" issue).

As for what you are saying about Israel:
Israel already has those weapons long time ago and never ever was there a concern that they would be used. Do not mix the Palestinian conflict or even the war in Lebanon with a nuclear conflict. You may assume that Israel is THE agressor in all those cases etc etc (which I dont) but these are far from any situation which brings the word "nuclear" to the discussion.
Israel is not a signatory to the NPT indeed and does not play the fair game but Israel does not have on its agenda anything like "wiping off" the map other countries.
Israel having nuclear power is to prevent a second attemp of the Jewish nation anihilation. Only somthing in that scale.
Looking at the past you can clearly see that no usage was ever considered.

You say 10 years. As far as I read, it's 3-5; Anyway I agree when you say "Perhaps that time could be used constructively" but see the negotiation tactics of the Iranian.. it's brilliant! They are masters in stolling any process.
This is not a tactic of negotiating to improve ones stand. This is deceiving and stolling. Saying the right words to one side, and giving threats to the other side. etc etc. Add to this their basic approach on the fate of other countries and even their citizens.. you ought to see here the standalone problem of the Iranian regime decoupled from any other connection.

Great response buddy; love talking to you!

abubalboola2 said...

Chas,
As for your second response regarding Pakistan.. I did think about it last week.. I dont have enough knowledge to form a coherent opinion yet.

But then you go back to Iran and say that the main danger is that someone will do something stupid in response to its stance.
I think you are looking at the short term only and you need to look further ahead to calculate risks and benefits (well.. "benefits" is not a good word here but I want to keep on typing.. you know what I mean).
So what I told you before should answer your statement: "Perhaps if you think about Iranian regime with nuclear power NOW and re-asses this imaginary situation, you will see differently what are realistic options in the current real situation."

Btw, I know quite alot of expatriot Iranians and some of my opinion is based on what they say each one with his own personal story. I believe in optimism but in the case of Iran, it is a luxury the world can not afford.

abubalboola2 said...

Sherri,
(one more reply today and I really have to do some work... :->)

I disagree completely with your statement that "trust cannot serve as the deciding factor". ANY process requires the cooporation or otherwise that process is only a single scenrio plan without no contingencies.
What do you mean by "how can the world institute a policy that requires trust"?! If I take your question further, that means that in any case where there are conflicting words or statements with actions - that country will get away because trust is not a factor and not a judgement criteria! I think you dont see that most policies already have this requirement implicitly or explicitly.
For example, this is even one of the defined goals in the progress of most Israli-Palestinian talks - specificly defining and targeting "building mutual trust relations" by "trust building actions". Same in Israel-Egypt. Same in Israel-Jordan. (And hopefuly soon Israel-Lebanon).

Perhaps I should term it "trust and credibility" to define it better.
It's not only better to have rigorous inspections and monitoring but it is must. But again, I'm talking only about those who qualify the preconditions.

As for the president and religious leaders power balance.. good point for me to read. I'll get back to you on that.

"Some religious clerics have even given opinions that nuclear weapons violate Muslim principles" - true. but what is the weight of those clerics in the case where Iran will have those weapons? these are too low sane voices in a cacophony of insane voices.
Do you see Iran as a state of Islam? I have too much respect any religion to say that. It's a state where religion power went out of control and is abusing its own religion.

About not recognizing Israel: It's been long time since any other president of an Arab country said that. Saying "wiping off the map" is not something you hear much, right? when other countries used to say that, they DID try. what makes you think Iran would not try also with their new toy?

"They have never said": wow! stop here! this is exactly the point where I talk about trust! they say and say and say but they are SAYING conflicting words to different audiences!! This is a serious deficiency in your opinion as I see it.

As for your questions:
Do you trust Pakistan? Dont know enough.
Do you trust China? Not my favourite regime but far way more sensible then Iran.
Do you trust North Korea? No and this is a good parallal to Iran. Crazy leader, regime which kills its own people etc.
what do we do about it? lets open another debate about each of them. at the moment we talk about Iran. Still, if you dont want them to have those powers, wouldnt you think it needed to be prevented from them? You are actually confirming the fact that Iran should not have those weapons. and you youself put Iran in the same catagory as those countries!

"I am from the US and I do not even trust my present government under the Bush Presidency. What do we do about it?" - I am Israeli and I fully trust my government to NEVER use those weapons unless there is a risk of TOTAL ANIHILATION of Israel!! Am I clear on this? ONLY to prevent TOTAL ANIHILATION which is worlds away from "self defence" which you say that is the right of Iran. "self defence" is not far away enough.
And even then, only under certain conditions and restrictions.
US and nuclear power - that's another possible debate.

abubalboola
http://mideastoptimism.blogspot.com/

Shmulik said...

Sherri

You wrote:
"How can the world institute a policy that requires a belief that a regime can be trusted as a prerequsite to allow them to have nuclear power for peaceful purposes."
Please don't tell me you believe that Iran, a country that has hugh oil and natural gas reserves and has developed balistic missiles (shehab-3) for example), simply decides to throw away billions of dollars and risk sanctions or worse just to develop nuclear technology for PEACEFUL purpose.
BTW although it's true that as you say "Iran has been in existence for 27 years. They have not started a war with anyone", it hasn't stopped them from fighting their enemies by proxy (Hizbollah Vs Israel, Sader Vs US).

s101comment said...

Yes, under the NNPT, Iran has a right to enrich uranium, as long as it is doing so for peaceful purposes.

But Iran's program makes no sense if it was only to develop nuclear energy for solely peaceful purposes.

There are really only two peaceful uses of nuclear energy -- the generation of electricity and the production of radioisotopes for medical purposes.

Designing and exporting nuclear reactors for producing electricity is expensive and difficult. Only a few countries in the world do this --- U.S., Russia, France, Germany and Canada. Except for the Canadian CANDU system, the reactors run on low enriched uranium. This low enriched uranium is supplied to the country buying the reactor by long term contract, with the spent fuel going back to the country that produced it.

There is no impediment to developing nuclear energy for electricity if you do what any country without a nuclear weapons program does --- buy fuel that is already enriched and ready to go.


The low enriched uranium is produced by the same processes that can be used to create high enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

There is no economic reason for Iran to make its own low enriched fuel. The Iranians have a long term contract with the Russians for the supply of all the low enriched fuel they need for the Russian reactors they are building.

The Iranians have very small amounts of natural uranium. There is not enough to fuel the Russian reactor they are already building...so they will still have to import uranium if they're really to have enough to create fuel.

The Iranians are also building a 'research reactor' that is apparently based on an Indian 'research reactor' which is based on a small research reactor supplied by Canada. All these reactors and all Canadian CANDU reactors (such as those at Pickering, about 20 miles away from me) use natural uranium with heavy water as a moderator/coolant.


These reactors have another thing in common --- they're all wonderful at producing high grade plutonium.
They produce very high purity pu239 plutonium. India's plutonium for its nuclear weapons program was produced from its research reactor and other reactors using natural uranium.

On the other hand, the spent fuel from a reactor that doesn't use natural uranium has plutonium with a mixture of plutonium isotopes ---which isn't good for building bombs.

As for radio isotopes for medical purposes, the size of the natural uranium reactor they are building is much larger than needed for this purpose. And I don't think there's really a large untapped market that isn't already being served through other methods or by the Canadian reactors in Chalk River, Ontario.

So the only conclusion to be drawn is that purpose of the Iranian approach to the atom is to develop the capability to create U235 and Pu239 for weapons purposes.

Will Iran actually build bombs? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Just having pu-239 plutonium isn't enough as the plutonium bomb is somewhat tricky to build. Building an enriched uranium bomb is very simple. It was so simple that in 1945 the Americans tested it by dropping in Hiroshima. The Pu-239 bomb was tested in New Mexico.


Two excellent articles are:
http://tinyurl.com/fhf5j
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5278806.stm

I really love this quote from the BBC article:
"But, says Mr Lewis, the argument that the research would advance Iran's scientific progress is undermined by the fact the technology involved is "about as old as a refrigerator"."

Building a large centrifuge cascade teaches you one thing --- how to build a large centrifuge cascade.

luckent47 said...

hitler built heinkels first as "high speed mail planes" and you did nothing even though you had the versailles treaty. billions since have been spent on the kleptocrat u.n. and its blood drenched killer elite. now youre too leftist and blind to stop a gang of petty thugs from pointing a nuke at you.
you pitiful weak morons.
you almost deserve to glow.
keep confusimg yourself with your post-modern relativism, the u.s. will save your utopian delusion...

guess what: self defence ain't murder and youre all about to start dying a la 1938, except youre going to ruin the planet for your "revolutionary allah"

great job.

luckent47 said...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-sharansky12sep12,0,6872275.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

power to the proxies!!!

you didnt work for truth today because jews were breathing your air.

Fearless said...

Nasrallah cries victory!

[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2765/ahezbvictoryxc7.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Fearless said...

The Truth of South Lebanon.

Hezbollah tackles rebuilding challenges

By ALFRED de MONTESQUIOU, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 12, 5:30 AM ET

SRIFA, Lebanon - Jamal Farhat fled his town in southern Lebanon after an Israeli airstrike destroyed more than a dozen homes there, killing some 30 people.



Although his home was destroyed, along with his mother's and his sister's, Farhat drove back twice a week to bring food to Hezbollah fighters. He recently received $30,000 from the militant group for the leveled homes, he said.

"Hezbollah even gave me $5,000 for my grandmother because she's 101 years old and I take care of her," he said.

Yellow Hezbollah banners float over much of the debris in Srifa and across southern Lebanon, where residents are starting to dig out from Israel's 34-day bombardment.

The region — pockmarked with bomb craters and lined with pictures of slain Hezbollah fighters — now teems with engineers from the group's Jihad al-Bina, or "construction for the sake of the holy struggle."

The Israeli campaign flattened some 300 of Srifa's houses during the war. Another 800 homes — more than half the town — were seriously damaged, said town council governor Afif Najdeh.

Shortly after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire halted the fighting on Aug. 14, Hezbollah head Sheik Hassan Nasrallah vowed to rebuild every broken home in Lebanon within a year, and to financially support war victims.

Many Srifa residents say they are confident that Hezbollah engineers — who have visited each house and distributed $10,000 for each one destroyed — will rebuild their town within a year.

But not everyone is so sure.

"All the infrastructure is destroyed. It will take years, and millions, to rebuild," Najdeh said.

Srifa council member Hassan Ramadan said the rebuilding was mostly in the hands of Hezbollah and Amal, another Shiite Muslim group in an alliance with Hezbollah. Ramadan, an Amal member, said Hezbollah gave his party large sums of cash for its help rebuilding.

"The money comes in large piles of dollars from Beirut," said Ramadan. "It's meant to be a secret, but everybody knows Hezbollah receives it from Iran," he said.

He said Hezbollah's reconstruction efforts would build on its already strong support ahead of municipal elections in 2008.

Some Srifa residents were unswayed.

Abou Hassan said he hadn't supported Hezbollah or Amal and received no money for his damaged home or his mother's house, which was flattened.

"It's a mafia — if you don't support Hezbollah or Amal, you get nothing," he bellowed. "America and Iran are fighting their little war in Lebanon, and I don't get a dime for my broken house," he said, echoing a widely held opinion among Lebanese that their country was caught in a broader Mideast power play.

Mohammed Hussein, tasked with lifting slabs of concrete at one excavation site on the outskirts of Srifa, said the town council paid him $10 a day for the work.

"For me, it's good money," said the 19-year-old who'd made plans to go to university before the war broke out.

Najdeh, who described himself as apolitical, was elusive about where rebuilding funds were coming from. He said he couldn't raise local taxes because his constituents were too poor, and lost their largest asset when Israeli attacks destroyed tobacco fields that fuel the local economy.

He said the bulk of reconstruction was being handled by the central government, which hired a contractor to clear the rubble.

Ramadan's son Raed, whose damaged Internet cafe entitles him to compensation money, said he'd seen a heavily protected cash convoy arrive in Srifa two days earlier.

"A Hezbollah man with a big beard carried it in a large bag on his shoulder, like Santa Claus," he said.

Hezbollah chief spokesman Hussein Rahal declined to provide details on the group's reconstruction efforts.

"We don't have an exact budget for now. There are many steps and it will take a long while," he told The Associated Press by telephone from Beirut.

Chas said...

Lirun, Abub. and 101,
I am sorry I missed this developing discussion. I think answers to this and the issues it raises shine an light on many world and regional problems.

Thanks 101 for technical info. I understand that enrichment for power generation involves reaching 10% whereas for weapons 90% or so is needed. It is way more than 9 times more difficult to get to 90%.

There are 3 possibilities, as I see it.
1) Iran really wants nuclear weapons. If that is so it is hard to see any rational method to stop them. It would be crystal clear to the Iranians what a dangerous move this would be. I don't think that is what is happening.
2) Iran wants to have, or to be thought to have the capability to produce weapons. Similar dangers as for (1). However the effect on the regional balance of power would be such that they may be prepared to take the risks.
3) Iran has embued the whole issue with such an aura of national pride, and has linked to so many other issues that it simply cannot and will not back down under threat. It may well however respond to serious and unconditional offers of talks. I think this is the most likely.

Iran is in a very strong position. The US has very generously got rid of their two most troublesome regional enemies (Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban/Al-Queda in Afghanistan.)
It has oil, and a large population, many young and well educated. In other words it has a lot to hope for in the future. I do not think it is about to throw that away.

Lirun,
Israel does not get away that easily. Illegally obtained nukes may seem totally reasonable to you, but I doubt if they seem as benign to others .. and Israel was prepared to assist an apartheid regime in SA obtain those weapons. Hands not squeaky clean at all in this area.
Suppose, as part of the resolution of the Iran issue, Israel was prepared to publicly acknowledge its program (I don't think that has happened) and allow IAEI inspection of its facilities? That would be a powerful and persuasive gesture. Even more so if Israel said it would, at some future date, sign on to the NPT.
As far as Pakistan goes, it is not the current regime, which may well be friendly, it is the fact that Pakistan is inherently unstable and there is no way of knowing what may come next.

Abub. Iran is obviously not your favorite regime, but it is not comparable to N. Korea. It has relations and trade with most of its neighbours, is a member of the UN and has a political system which although, not tolerant by western standards does allow debate and does have checks and balances.

Peace, Chas.

chuck said...

u know, another point that should be considered is how much iran realy needs nuclear power facilities. does it need such power so desperatly ?
is it worth endangering the world with nuclear threat, just so iran could fulfill it's right to have nuclear power ?

chas,

i don't think iran is in such a strong position. the only one who's saying iran is strong is iran. the international community is trying to be compationate and understanding (as much as the international community could be compationate and understanding) and let's iran enjoy the benefit of the doubt, for now.
when the sanction will actually start then maybe something will change. and if that wouldn't help that engaging war would be inevitable.

and another thing,
iran doesn't share the same symptoms that Israel has.
Israel is being threatend on a daily basis by many countries surounding Israel. nuclear power is something that Israel feels is neccessery to keep the element of intimidation which keeps others from attacking Israel. that's why so many countries look the other way when it comes to nuclear weapons in Israel's posession.

it isn't so in iran's case. the fact that the US has managed to get rid of irans enemies, as u said, takes away any legitimacy to obtain nuclear weapons.
declaring that iran needs such power and weapons is merely for showing off, the honor thing...

Sherri said...

chuck,

The issue is the right of Iran to decide whether or not they wish to have or develop nuclear power. Their sovereignty needs to be respected.

Cocerning their strength, just look at the power they can exercise in Iraq. The prime minister is a fellow Shiite and they have good relations with Kurd leaders too. They just met with the Iraq Prime Minister in a very friendly meeting. As the US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to deteriorate and fail, Iran just grows stronger.

And the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is drastically deteriorating, from day to day.
In Iraq, day after day, dead, mutilated, tortured, bodies recovered, often headless, in ever-increasing numbers.
What hate and rage this depicts.
How much of this is a response to anger over Lebanon, I wonder?

You say they (Iran) have no reason to need nuclear weapons. This is not an issue over nuclear weapons, it is an issue of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

You say Israel needs nuclear weapons for security and that is why everyone looks the other way. Everyone looks the other way because Israel already has nuclear weapons, so noone knows how to do anything about it. In addition and most importantly, Israel is protected by the United States.

chuck said...

u must respect irans sovereighnty as long as they respect other countries sovereighnty.
and threatening other countries sovereighnty and calling for the destruction of other countries and for genocide doesn't qualify as respect to others.

if u truly had a wish for peace, sherri, then u would be calling for iran to stop developing nuclear power that they don't need.

how can u claim again and again that iran wishes to have a nuclear power for peacfull reasons ? how can u ??
u must be blind to fail to see that iran wants nuclear power just so they can be a threat to the US.
ofcourse this is an issue of nuclear weapons !
this is what it is all about !!
if iran truly wanted peace they wouldn't be so demanding to have nuclear power and settle for other means of generating power.
this is actually all about nuclear power.

the world would be a less secure place when iran will possess such power. and Israel would have to live with fear each and every day.
this would be the nightmare of the guy with the anctious finger on the red button.
it would mean the cold war all over again. every slight earth quake would be a sign of nuclear war.

not seeing that is just looking the other way, ignoring what might happend.
u'd rather risk having a nuclear war so that u (and iran) could say that iran fulfilled it's sovreighnty ??

Israel, in contradiction to iran is not a totalitarian regieme, is not a fanatic religious regime, and is verry much in need for the international communities support.
without an international support we wouldn't survive.
therfore, Israel as a lot to loose if it will go against the international community and use such a weapon other then in a matter of an existential threat.
the international community looks the other way in this matter because they understand the need of such a weapon for the survival of Israel in an area of hostile countries.
and another thing, Israel doesn't wish for the destruction of any country. u will find no such call from no one in Israel, no religious or non religious leader.
and any leader who will say so will be severly criticised.

one of the worst fears that we had in this country, as a resault of the palestinian conflict, was a formation of a fanatic jewish group that will take actions to it's own hands and retaliate by attacks over Iseraeli arabs and palestinians and even blowing up the temple mount. taking actions like the islamic fanatics.
we see it as a threat to our democracy.

and please don't connect afghanistan and iraq with lebanon.
this is just an insault to inteligence.

chuck said...

sherri,

u seem to be looking the other way about everything that iran is doing, and all the statements and declarations of war that ahmadinjhad is giving to the public.

he is going around universities, making conventions and press conferences, saying that Israel shouldn't exist, the holocaust is a mere invetion of jews, although it is understandable why the germans wanted to eliminate jews, and to bad they didn't succeed, and other words of incitment against the west and the US,
and yet, u manage to see his inner wish for peace on earth.

u have to be either blind or a psychyc to see that.

Sherri said...

chuck,

In his speech before the United Nations, Iran's President said Iran desired peace with all countries and stood against oppression and injustice around the world.

While I do not disbelieve they desire peace, I find it a little ironic that their own residents suffer injustice and oppression. I am referring to the lack of freedoms and rights within Iran itself and the failure of the government to address internal problems, like the economy and drug abuse and high unemployment.
How do you have a priority to fight oppression and injustice around the world and subject your own people to oppression and injustice?

Iran is certainly not the only country to spend its resources on affairs outside of their country, while ignoring the plight of their own residents. Look at the US. Millions do not have health care. People in New Orleans still do not have homes rebuilt that they can return to after Katrina. And the amount of debt the US owes is ridiculously high.

Still, Iran has the right to have nuclear power if they can establish it is to be used for peaceful purposes.

Iran has not threatened to attack either the US or Isarel, unless it is first attacked by them.

Iran is not the only country that does not recognize Israel and there are reasons for this. I listened to a good discussion about this issue on Mosaic News on LINK. A Palestinian woman who lived in UK said: Why should we recognize Israel's right to exist as a country when they do not recognize Palestinian rights? A Palestinian man stated he was willing to recognize Israel on the condition that the Palestinians had their own state, and were allowed to return to homes they were forced to flee from previously. Israel was created with specific borders, but now illegally occupies Arab land. Israel took Arab land in the 1967 war and the United Nations in United Nations Resolution 242 directed Israel to give up the occupied land. Israel refused and continues to refuse to honor international law and recognize the rights of Arabs whose lands were taken and the Palestinians (who are oppressed and subjected to war crimes by Israeli forces and live with injustice every day of their lives).

Why should Arabs or Muslims or Arab groups or Muslim groups or Arab countries or Muslim countries recognize Israel's rights when Israel does not recognize the rights of Arabs and Muslims?

Peace requires compromise by all parties. Recognize the rights of Arabs and Muslims, and they will recognize Isarel's rights. Why can't Israel recognize that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to exist, govern themselves, and have justice too?

Sherri said...

chuck,

I was rereading my last comment and realized I really do seem to come down hard on Israel about things. It is really not personal. It is the plight of the Palestinians and recurring innocent civilians harmed by Israel's actions that motivate everything I say.

I know Hamas and Hizbullah cause suffering and harm, too. But I cannot help but see their actions as defensive. And the number of casualties inflicted is so disproportionate. Can you tell me any point in Israel's history as a nation where for every Israeli life taken there was not a 4 to 1 ratio or higher casualties inflicted on the Arab or Muslim side in response?

I know as far as actual lives lost there are many governments that cause more harm to others than Israel. I know Syria engaged in a barbaric massacre of their people in the recent past and Sudan is responsible for the genocide of over 2 million people over the past 25 years. The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, people dead so far in Hiroshima are close to 250,000 (thousands continue to die every year from radiation related causes). I do not know the casualty figure for Nagasaki, but suspect it is at least 100,000.
In the Congo, over 100 people a
day still die from war related causes, even though the civil war is officially over.

Noone can change the past. But we all have the ability to affect the future. We can start recognizing each others genuine rights to exist, see all people as human beings created by God, recognize we have differences with each other, but genuinely strive for peaceful resolutions to our conflicts. We can care about the welfare of each other, even if we share different ethnic backgrounds and religions.

In many ways, wars are the easy way out and are used selfishly. Rulers everywhere use wars to unite people behind them, using wars for their own political motivations. Wars create loyalty to the nation. If people are fighting outsiders, they will rally behind their leaders and not oppose their leaders.

It is peace that is difficult, because it requires compromises and consensus as to what the compromises should be. The difficulty of peace and its illusiveness should not serve to operate to stop us from reaching to obtain it.

War is a choice. Peace is a choice. Let us choose peace over war, and demand that our leaders genuinely seek peace.

Koffi Annan, in his speech before the United Nations, spoke of the Israeli Palestinian conflict as being one of the most harmful threats to world peace today. This is because of the continuing animosity and hate this unresolved conflict generates between Muslim countries and Israel and the US.

Is lasting peace in the Middle East even possible without the resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict?

I continue to pray for the cease fire to hold between Lebanon and Israel and peace all over the Middle East and Africa.

I know my religion (Christianity) recognizes that the future will see many wars and rumours of wars. But my religion teaches that blessed are the peacemakers. Nowhere does Jesus direct me to participate in or support violence or wars.

chuck said...

sherri,

i'm truly surprrised.
this is the most objective comment u wrote untill now.
i respect what u say, and i support most of it.

i do have a few questions for u.

u listened to ahmadinjad's words in the ungathering, did u listen to the Israeli foreign minister's words too ?
did u hear that she was quoting Sharon's words and political agenda, which says that the state of Israel is willing to acknoledge a palestinian state ?
and Sharon actually wasn't the first one who said it. in oslo the agreement was already formed and was ready to be signed.
and today, Olmert is also calling for the right of the palestinians to have their own state. the whole purpose of the "whithdrawl plan" was to return to the border of '67, and dissconecting Israel from the palestinians, so each could live in peace.
but it is understood today that such action couldn't be handled only onesidedly.
the Israeli foreign minister was calling for meetings with the fatah leader, abu-mazen, so that talks about peace could be
re-established between the palestinians and Israel. while the un convention is being held, the Israeli foreign minister took the advantage and called for such peace talks, and she met
abu-mazen, and will probobly continue to negotiate with him in the next days.
and these talks r only possible because abu-mazen is willing to negotiate, unlike the hamas leaders.
hamas not only says they wouldn't recognise Israel, but they also don't recognise all the agreements that were made between the palestinians and Israel along the years. every single step that was achieved in the road to peace, hamas simply wipes out and dissowns.
and even when there is a slight chance that they will form a government of unity with fatah and abu-mazen, in order to save the palestinians from the difficulte state that they r in,
still hamas manages to break these talks and keep the current state as it is.
do u think this is fair to the palestinian peopel ?

Sherri said...

chuck,

I agree that a Palestinian government must recognize Israel to have a resolution to the conflict and their own state and a governing body should honor past agreements. But is it really necessary there be agreements on these issues before a governing body among the Palestinians is even recognized as a party Israel can hold discussions with. Can't a governing body, who was elected, be allowed to exist and talks with a representative for them go forward? Why do people keep having to suffer, from the withholding of government revenues? People have no money to live, and are suffering more and more every day.

It just appears to me that many arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles to peace are being set.

And these actions are causing needless suffering and dying of people in the Occupied Territories and Israel every day.

And why are there two different groups operating with two different peace plans (I am referring to the Arab plan and the quartet plan), each operating separately from each other? Is this helpful? Don't they need to work together, if one group really is pro-Israel and one group pro-Palestinian? Why do the 1967 borders control? What about the impact of United Nations Resolution 242, does Israel ever plan to abide by this United Nations Resolution?

chuck said...

sherri,

as for resolution 242, it is not such a simple matter for Israel to fulfill this resolution. this is something that will cause a lot of divisions within the Israeli society, as u might have seen in the one sided evacuation from gaza. the thing is that such return to the bounderies of '67 might have been approved by the majority of the Israeli public if it would have shown to be productive. but it seemed to only create a stronger will to fight Israel, rather then make them more willing to negotiate for peace. this was proved by the election of hamas to government, a party which was known for it's political aspiration to fight Israel and which was and still is, engaging acts of terror against Israeli citizens (talking about suicide attacks, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and the rockets launching towards Israeli cities each and every day).
and this election of hamas happened while there was some progress in negotiations between abu-mazen and Israeli officials. hamas stoped all of that, and further more, backed out of any resolution that was acheived before with the palestinians. so in electing hamas not only that there has been no progression in peace talks but there was actually a regression to the basics of negotiations that were going on for more then 50 years.

by the way, not all arab cities would like to be included in such a settelment in which they will be dissconected from Israel and become under palestinian authority.

so this is a verry complexed situation, as u can see.
simply saying that Israel should withdraw to the full '67 border is not so realistic under the circumstances, and might take a lot of time and brainstorming to find a suitable solution. but first it needs to be clear that the palestinians truly wish for peace and fully obligated to follow agreements and not break all the rules whenever they feel like it. otherwise Israel will have no motivation to just handover land and get a fist in the face in return.

Israel had made a lot of concesions during negotiations with the palestinians over the years. heck, we even gave them weapons so they can maintain control and authority within the territories, had a joined patrols with Israeli soldiers and were even supposed to be trained by Israeli army.
eventualy these weapons were turned against Israel and Israeli citizens were getting killed by an Israeli weapons in the hand of palestinian terrorists.

as for the arab sugestion for resolving the situation in the middle east, i was said that ulmert had a secret meeting with saudi leaders in order to discuss these issues. i don't know how much will come out of these discussions but at least it shows that there is an Israeli will to solve the situation with the palestinians.
this happenes while on the other side, the palestinian side, here r anti tanks and anti aircraft missiles that r being smuggled in through ejyptian border, as the palestinians r getting ready towards what seems to be a war
'a-la hisballa' way.

chuck said...

another introspection of iran's intentions from 1988:

"Iran mulled nuclear bomb in 1988
By Frances Harrison
BBC News, Tehran



Ayatollah Khomeini wrote the letter during the Iran-Iraq war
A letter from 1988 in which Iran's top commander says Iran could need a nuclear bomb to win the war against Iraq has come to light in Tehran.
The commander is quoted in the letter, written by the father of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, to top officials in the final days of the war.

It has only now been made public - by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani.

The letter seems at odds with Tehran's statements that Iran is not seeking a bomb because it is against Islam.

Sensitive

The letter from Ayatollah Khomeini lists the requirements of military commanders if they are to continue fighting against Iraq.

It mentions more aircraft, helicopters, men and weapons, and also quotes the top commander saying Iran would within five years need laser-guided and atomic weapons in order to win the war.

Some Iranian news agencies have, however, deleted the reference to atomic weapons in the letter.

It is sensitive because Iran has always said it is not seeking a nuclear weapon and leading clerics say an atomic bomb would be against Islam.

Ayatollah Khomeini's letter also reveals how challenged Iran's economy and military were by the eight years of war against Iraq.

The letter quotes the prime minister of the time saying the economy was operating at a level below zero and volunteers for the front were in short supply.

Ayatollah Khomeini's letter has been made public at a time when Iran is preparing for a possible confrontation with the US over its nuclear programme.

But it also comes against a background of an argument between Mr Rafsanjani and a top military commander over who was instrumental in persuading Ayatollah Khomeini to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq that the Ayatollah himself likened to drinking a poisoned chalice.


taken from :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5392584.stm