MEDIA

Some see it different. They

Some see it different. They say If IRI wanted to have nuclear wepons they didn't have to make it themselves. They could get it from another country, As Israel is! Most people believe If the bulling and threats of the west didn't exist, no country would even wanted to have nuclear weapons, even Russia. Perhaps if IRI did have nuclear weapons it would balance the power and neutralize the threats as did with Korea and there wouldn't be any more threats and Israel and west would think twice before invading other countries in the region!!! History has shown that Our country and others in one way or another have been hostage to the west or east. That is what Iranians do not want. If westerns threat wasn't there, and If only IRI's domestic policy was as democratic as their foreign policy like the way IRI treated the captured Britishs, or even half of that, we wouldn't have any of the problems we are facing in Iran today and that is between Iranians and goverment and maybe human rights groups, UN or countries that are not corrupt by west. It is not the business of the countries who have committed the worst crimes themselves. About ahmadinezad's speak and treats? Most people say Countries and people should be punished for what they do, not what they say! One man in Iran has only said something, but Israel, United States,England are doing that same thing. So who is committing the accual crimes here? If Irael wanted peace they would go back to the border and agreements they violated 50 years ago instead of expansion/invasion. Then there will be peace in the region.

Anonymousk: thanks for the psychology advice, I understand

OK, I see what you mean: Up is down. Right is Left. Anti-War = Pro-War. You, the guy who cheerleads George Bush and a proven belligerant super-power is "anti war", but the guy who protests wants to see "Middle East on Fire."

My dear friend, these are views of a man who cannot recognize reality. Brainwashed is another word for it. You can't be anti-war just because you say so.

Contrary to your own diatriabe I am taking you seriously. And you are doing the same to me otherwise you would not have felt the need to respond at all.

Q: I can't really take any

Q: I can't really take any of your arguments seriously and I hate to break it to you, no one else will either. Your arguments are highly skewed and slanted toward war and war mongering...You might think you're anti-war but your words are "fighting words" and instead of trying to bridge the gap of insanties, you add fuel to the fire.

I will not sink to your level by calling you names but You have psychological problems, unfortunately, and are really like a ticking bomb ready to go off any minute so there is no point in arguing with someone who is not willing to take others point of view seriously while DEMANDING conformity to his values and perspectives.

Your attitude will only lead to war and destruction for Iranian. SOme of us still have families and we don't want them bombed...please stop the war mongering and revenge seeking!!! I have a feeling you will not be satisfied until you see the whole middle east on fire and the United state destroyed...

Lest the naive be fooled into believing that Q and Dariush et al are
some kind of a living martyr,
who is leading the charge against "injustice of Great satan" USA while ignoring atrocities and injustices pepetrated by the Islamic Republic.

War

thanks Soraya,

The Apocalypse (?!)
by Jim Kirwan
//www.whatreallyhappened.com/apocalypse.php

Dear Anonymousk,

unfortunately you seem brainwashed. Do you really think all these charges made the US are fair against Iran? Are you so blind as to not see the inharent absurdity of one party defining the terms of the conflict?

That's like saying Nazi invasion of Poland was justified because Germany said that Poland attacked first.

Gilda

I asked you a question from reading your latest posting, but when I read your earlier posting I got my answers. Thanks

Some people conflate Iran's

Some people conflate Iran's interest with the Islamic Republic's. They are not one and the same...

Iran's interest is not declaring war on an enemy much bigger than herself via terrorism or direct war...The Soviet Union and China have already taken that route and failed... The soviet Union had many proxies (just like Iran does now) throught the globe fighting "American Imperialism" across the globe. Americans are quite good at managing proxy wars against them...they actually thrive on it....The Soviet Uniion collapsed because it overstretched and overspent itself in Afghanistan, etc.

There are other ways to not become "slaves" and "independent" (although it no longer means anything in a globalized economy). The U.S. owes billion of dollars to China, Japan, and Korea. The war in IRaq is written off by the Chinese...Who'se the slave? And china didn't resort to terrorism, same applies to Russia....

Soraya: Excellent article, thank you

Madam,
I was surprised to read your article.
I did not know the connection between Murdock and Israel.
Your points were made with clear mind.
It was easy and interesting to follow.
Thanks for opening my eyes.

Dear Gilda

Just asking. Are you saying Iran or other countries should not defend themselves or do nothing so that west doesn't have an excuse to attack them? If so, then we should just hand them the country and forget about it. Because if we don't play by their rule, they will always make an excuse. Even if it is for a few homos. Homos who don't even get their human rights of getting married in U.S. Homos who must hide who they areb in U.S. army because they have been killed for it! Just when it comes to Iran, there shouln't be any flaws and Iran must be perfect. Running is not always the best option! With independence comes pressure and maybe war! Or we can live by their rule and be their slaves!

Well Done Soraya. Keep it up

Well Done Soraya. Keep it up

Iran: Student conference on

Iran: Student conference on World Without America

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9nY2u093QY

Kohbar Tower

It is amazing that hate is all that you think with. Osama bin Ladin was one of the plan's leading advocates. Stripped of his Saudi nationality in April 1994 for sharply criticizing the ruling monarchy for its submission to the Americans, he was accused of instigating the attack on the American military residence in Khobar - the Khobar Towers (soruce: Washington Post, April 11, 1997). Later it became to the advantage of the Americans to blame it on Iran. Afterall, of the 19 hijackers 15 were Saudis and the US attacked Iraq. So if they blame this on Iran, they can attack Iran.

SOME JUSTICE

Iraqi court has charged U.S. and British for massacre of Iraqi civilians of over 100,000 killed by shock and awe and a few hundred thousands killed since, and the rapes and tortures of Iraqi civilians. United States rejected the charges and denyed any wrong doings!!!

Nice to hear from you again Anonymous Observer

Dear Mr. Nouraee and Anonymous Observer first of all thank you so much for your kind and gentlemanly replies.  In response to your informative comment which I greatly appreciate I have a few minor points I would like to make.  There is no denying that Persians (though this ascription remains a little too abstract and vague) and certain Arab tribes, political movements and Arab governments have had their problems, and will continue to do so.  When I was talking about the lack of 'longstanding enmity' between 'Arabs' and 'Persians' I meant there was no quasi-metaphysical enmity between them as Saddam (e.g. all his babbling on about the Battle of Qaddissiya and his Schmittian attempts to create the perfect enemy out of the Persians, notwithstanding the profound skepticism of the majority Shia population regarding his lame counterpart, symbolically speaking, to Karbala  etc...) and hyper-ethnocentric Iranians would have us believe.  I think many of your points are important and legitimate.  The only thing that I might suggest is that, rather than 'Arabs', the Persian state since the Safavids had been at war with the Ottoman Sultanate which controlled Iraq, Syria, Palestine etc....  Baghdad alone ‘changed hands’ so to speak on several occasions.  The Ottomans and Persians were fighting constantly and of course the declaration of Shi'ism as Persia's state religion was in large part in order to set their dynasty apart from that of the Ottomans. Of course I am not telling you anything you don’t already know.  One more point.  And I am not throwing this out there in a pathetic kind of tit or tat.  I just thought you might find it of interest.  In our last exchange, which I enjoyed very much, you mentioned that Iran was kept out by the GCC by the Arab states exactly because they’re not Arabs.  But I have recently discovered that Iraq was kept out also, because the GCC didn’t want to be seen to be overtly favoring Iraq in the first Gulf war, even if Arab states (not necessarily members of the GCC) such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi and others obviously did and showed their preference in a multitude of other ways.  Thanks once again for your informative and learned reply.  Yours, Eskandar.  

Iran, Hezbollah charged in

Iran, Hezbollah charged in 1994 Argentine bombing

BUENOS AIRES: Prosecutors formally charged Iran and the Shiite militia Hezbollah on Wednesday in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish charities office in Argentina, which killed 85 people and injured 300.

"We deem it proven that the decision to carry out an attack July 18, 1994 on the AMIA (Argentine Jewish Mutual Association, a Jewish charities association headquarters in Buenos Aires) was made by the highest authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran which directed Hezbollah to carry out the attack," Argentine chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman said.

Prosecutors called for the arrest of top Iranian authorities at the time, including then-president Ali Rafsanjani.

. //www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/11/8fedc...

//www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1060216

Just curious

Why would an attack against an occupying army, in this case the US Marines in Beirut, be constituted as an act of terrorism? Why is this not classified as an act of armed resistance? Also, the US navy shelled the hell out of sections of Beirut it deemed as hostile, in the process killing and injuring hundreds of civilians. Why shouldn’t the relatives of those civilians bring suite against the US government? The Israeli army has used US-made helicopters and gunships to kill hundreds of civilians (of course it's never intentional!) in Lebanon and the occupied territories. Why couldn't the relatives of those poor bastards drag Uncle Sam's ass through the courts? We can say the same thing about the casualties of Nicaraguan Contras during the 80's which operated with explicit support of the American government. And what about the death squads operating in Central America with implicit and explicit support of the CIA? During the Iran-Iraq war the Americans provided satellite intelligence to the Iraqis. Wouldn’t the relative of dead Iranians have the right to go after American government? The list can go on and on but I stop. I think any reasonable person can see my point. Of course if it’s accepted that the world belongs to the United States then it all makes sense.

Anonymousk

Your point is well taken, but does not contradict anything that I said, if that was meant to be a response to my comment.

It is quite possible that those who carried out the attacks later joined Hezbollah. But, the point that I made was, Hezbollah did not even exist at that time, at least officially, and therefore blaming a non-existent organization for that is absurd.

I have a Lebanese student (who is Christian) and he was the one who actually pointed that out to me.

The fact that someone won a case against IRI in a US court for its support of Hezbollah does not mean that Hezbollah actually did that. In the evironment that exists in the US, almost anyone can win a case against Iran and Hezbollah in a US court.

If Soraya herself said something akin to that in the past, that is her mistake. People make mistake all the time. At the same time, once a popular perception takes hold, it is difficult to change it. On the eve of invasion of Iraq, 56% of the American people believed that Saddam Husein had ordered the 9/11 attack. A while ago another poll indcated that 46% still believe that. But, we know better.

Thank you.

khobar tower "The aftermath

khobar tower

"The aftermath of the Khobar bombing is just one example of how successive U.S. governments have mishandled Iran. On June 25, 1996, President Clinton declared that "no stone would be left unturned" to find the bombers and bring them to "justice." Within hours, teams of FBI agents, and forensic and technical personnel, were en route to Khobar. The president told the Saudis and the 19 victims' families that I was responsible for the case. This assignment became very personal and solemn for me, as it meant that I was the one who dealt directly with the victims' survivors. These disciplined military families asked only one thing of me and their country: "Please find out who did this to our sons, husbands, brothers and fathers and bring them to justice."

It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the Towers. This is astounding, considering that the Saudi Security Service had arrested six of the bombers after the attack. As FBI agents sifted through the remains of Building 131 in 115-degree heat, the bombers admitted they had been trained by the Iranian external security service (IRGC) in the Beka Valley, and received their passports at the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, along with $250,000 cash for the operation from IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi."

//online.wsj.com/article_print/SB115102702568...

Anonymous11

You have asked a completely legitimate question.

I have not made up anything. I knew all of them, but just to make sure, I first checked the internet and various sources in order to make sure that each case has a valid source. I did not give the exact addresses of the sources, because I am writing an article about Amir Taheri that I will soon post, under my complete name. I regularly publish political articles. Perhaps, if you knew my complete name, you would recognize me.

Taheri is a well-known fabricator. Do a little Google search with his name and words like fabrications, lies, etc, to see what you get.

To Mamad

Thank you a much better analysis of Taheri's article. We can debate on some points (e.g. Hizbullah didn't offcially exist until 1985 but Islamic Jihad - what became Hizbullah's military arm existed at the time of the bombings). Your piece can be engaged on the basis of sacts and cogent arguments, Ms. Ulrich's piece is completely devoid of any of the facts you've brought up and is therefore nothing more than a hateful propaganda piece.

Marine Barracks bombing

Behind the marine barracks bombing - Lebanon

By: Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

09/09/07 "ICH" -- -- As Americans we have a particular mindset. Our belief in our altruism would be tolerable were it not so dangerous, especially when White House occupants threaten the stability of the world. The danger lies in that we believe that no matter what the U.S. policy, be it coups, sabotage, or illegal wars, America is always in the right and it is the ‘other’ that is evil. Our irrational support of the government’s implausible and unacceptable actions has always been without scrutiny or self-examination.

In the latest fiasco, a US Federal court, ruled that Iran should pay $2.65bn to the families of the 241 marines killed by Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1983[i]. It is worthwhile making a simple parallel before delving into the policies and facts of the matter.

Iran’s support of Hezbollah is akin to U.S. support of Israel although Israel is supplied with an inordinate amount of military goods, including bunker-busters. Israel deliberately killed U.N. peacekeepers in last year’s 33-day war[ii]. Given that the U.S. deliberately stopped the cease-fire and supplied Israel not only with arms, but a carte blanche to kill at will, which country should be sued for the death of the peace keepers? The U.S., Israel, or is the U.N. the ‘other’ evil?

But this article is not dealing with the atrocities of Israel and American terrorism, for there are far too many of them to recount, it was simply stated as an analogy to invalidate the law suit against Iran. As to the facts…

Upon taking office, Ronald Regan decided to launch a ‘second Cold War’ in the Middle East. He moved combat forces into the region and armed ‘allies’ while initiating a strategic cooperation agreement with Israel. The assassination of Sadat made the U.S. jittery and it rewarded those Middle Eastern governments that joined the ‘Strategic Consensus”. This displeased Israel as it enjoyed the status of being the predominant ally of the U.S. The administration’s campaign against “international terrorism” provided ‘justification’ for Israeli strikes into Lebanon under the pretext of challenging terrorism. The ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ signed by Weinberger and Ariel Sharon in Late November set the stage for a joint military collaboration between Israel and the U.S.[iii]

Israel occupied Lebanon, but its invasion met with a wave of protests from within Israel. June 25, 1982, Haaretz editorial: Professor Yehoshwar Porat openly challenged the rationale for the Israel’s attack on Lebanon.

“it did not even result from the need to retaliate against Palestinian shellings of the Galilee, because there was no such shelling since and agreement [cease fire agreement between the Palestinians and the Israeli government]. So what was the reason? I think the Israeli government’s {or more precisely, its two leaders’) decision resulted from that cease fire.”[iv]

The papers printed many such protests. Perhaps this is why the academia in this country is under attack from the current White House occupants.

Initially, on August 20, U.S. Marines landed in Beirut with a clearly defined mission - to supervise the evacuation of the PLO guerillas. This was accomplished at the end of the first week of September. There was no longer a need for a peacekeeping force. ‘Mission accomplished’. However, 19 days later, after the Israeli invasion and occupation of West Beirut, and the brutal Sabra – Sahtila massacres under the supervision of Ariel Sharon, a larger US force returned to Beirut – this was with a very different mission in mind. Theirs was not only to secure the airport, but to help the new Gemayel regime ‘consolidate’ power .

Per the Reagan strategy, the additional forces were showing a permanent US presence in the Middle East, more pertinent to the events, some 100 field grade US Army and Special Forces officers were training “the most highly motivated” Lebanese brigades, that is, those with strong Phalangist militia components[v]. According to the ‘Britannica Concise Encyclopedia’, these were the same militias who under Sharon’s supervision massacred 800- several thousand women, children and elderly at Sabra and Sahtila.[vi] ‘Peace-keeping’ had clearly taken on a new definition.

By September 1983, U.S. warships were shelling Syrian and Druze militia positions outside Beirut, and Marine ground forces were trading artillery and sniper fire with Shi’a [the Hezbollah are Shi’a] and Druze fighters[vii]. On October 23, 1983, two trucks hit a building housing US Marines killing most – ‘peace-keepers’

Iran’s implications in the incident may be that the Islamic regime had proven itself capable of challenging the world’s superpower with a simple religious ideology – Islam. The Hezbollah had borrowed from the same ideology and resisted the American/Israeli occupation by looking towards Iran as a source of inspiration, but to hold Iran accountable is not only irresponsible, but outrageous.

There is never any justification for taking the life of another. The US claims the Marines were simply peace keepers, and in an effort to sweep the dirt under the rug, given its hostilities with Iran post the 1979 revolution, it has allowed the families to sue the government of Iran. As expected, the U.S. judicial system has sided not with the law, but with politics, a slap in the face of the people of this county – for policies change, as do international dynamics, but violating our laws to suit the whims of administrations’ policies is tragic for the nation.

It is time for the American public to open their eyes to the abhorrent policies of their government and as a democratic society direct the actions of the policy makers. Only then will we seize to cover the mistakes of our government by vindicating the ‘other’.

"Palestinian group Hamas

"Palestinian group Hamas admits that its fighters are trained in Iran"

//www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle...
Iranian daily, Entekhab, quoted Ahmad Yussef, Hamas's political adviser, denying to reporters in a press conference in Gazza that Iranian built rockets reach Hamas through intricate underground tunnels from Egypt. "Iranian rockets in fact reach us through the Mediterranean Sea" Yussef finished his statement with.

Even the Iranian daily can't hide its displeasure with Yussef's claim and finishes with this paragraph:
" سخنان این دشمنان دوست نما که روزگارشان با بیت المال ایرانیان سپری می شود، قرابت بیشتری با سخنان مقامات صهیونیسم دارد تا ایران.اما نکته مهم آن است که گروه حماس و اعضای بلندپایه اش از اعلام این دست اخبار چه قصدی داشته و چه هدفی را دنبال می کنند."

//www.entekhab.ir/display/?ID=57675&Send

Slickville Marine leads

Slickville Marine leads lawsuit against Iran

It was Oct. 23, 1983, when the largest non-nuclear explosion ever detonated sent Marine Lance Cpl. Terry Valore, of Slickville in Westmoreland County, flying into a wall as his barracks disintegrated around him in Beirut, Lebanon.

Valore was a member of the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit, which was part of a multinational United Nations peacekeeping force assigned to Lebanon when Hezbollah terrorists, backed by Iran, drove a truck filled with explosives past a Marine checkpoint. They crashed the truck into the barracks, killing 241 Marines, soldiers and airmen.
//www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_5...

Iran fined for $2.65 billion

Iran fined for $2.65 billion for terrorism

"WASHINGTON - Iran must pay $2.65 billion to the families of the 241 U.S. service members killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, a federal judge declared Friday in a ruling that left survivors and families shedding tears of joy.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth described his ruling as the largest-ever such judgment by an American court against another country. "These individuals, whose hearts and souls were forever broken, waited patiently for nearly a quarter century for justice to be done," he said.

Iran has been blamed for supporting the militant group Hezbollah, which carried out the suicide bombing in Beirut. It was the worst terrorist act against U.S. targets until the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Hundreds of people crowded into a federal courtroom to hear Friday's ruling. Parents have grown old since their children were killed. Siblings have grown into middle-age. Children have married and started families of their own.

Weeping spectators stood and erupted in applause and hugs as Lamberth left the bench.

//www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-08-ira...

Kaveh

It is the policy of this site that you don't call names. That is why they delete your posting! That is their right. Calling names as you have will not prove any of your points! So please calm down and use logic! Thanks

you underestimate...

You obviously underestimate the reach of American popular culture. I even know stuff like "cats" and "kittens" and "daddyo." Ok, let's call it a draw and everyone will be happy.

Anon-today

Dude? Jerk off?

Oh yeah, you're DEFINITELY in the U.S.

Comments on Mr. Eskandari's Comments

Dear Mr. Eskandari,

I enjoyed reading your analysis on the Iranian impact on Islam. However, I must respectfully disagree with you that Iran's impact on Islam is per se evidence of lack of enimty between Arabs and Persians.

I agree with everything that you said about the development of Shi'ism, which is essentially and Iranian creation. Even the epic of Hussein can be traced back to the Persian folk story of Siavash. In fact, I will even go one step further and say that the development of Islam proper was highly impacted by Persian culture and beliefs. Persia was the first major, advanced culture that fell to the Muslim invaders. I do not think that anyone will dispute the fact that the Muslim invaders, at that time, had a very basic societal and cultural structure. Their encounter with the much more devloped, sophisticated and advanced Persian culture (actually Iranain culture will be a better term since Persia was at that time, as it is today, a melting pot of different races and ethnicities) had a vast impact on their relatively new, and rather fluid, religion. Many of what we know today to be Islamic beliefs, even those that are directly mentioned in the Quran, have Zoroastrian origins, and in some cases are copied directly from Avesta. Examples of these are the five daily prayers, descriptions of heaven and hell, balancing of deeds after death and many more.

All of the above being said, however, I believe that the Persian influence on Islam's development was not because of any willing collaboration between the Arab and Persian cultures, but rather despite it. Indeed, Arab cultures, for the most part, have been vehemently opposed to the Iranian Shi'a ideology, partially because it's Persian in origin. You can see daily examples of this when the new Shi'a government in Iraq is called a "Safavid" government by its Sunni opponents. One does not really need to dig deep to see that one of the main causes of Sunni Arab hatred of Shi'ism is its Iranian foundations.

None of the above should, however, be a reason for Iran not to have friendly relations with its Arab neighbors. We share many cultural, familial, business, religious and historical ties. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of anti-Iranian sentiment in Arab countries, fueled by the Naserian (Gamal Abdel-Naser) Arab supremacist ideology, which culminated in Iraq's attack on Iran. As I have mentioned before, I have also lived in an Arab country before, and although I always felt welcome there and was never mistreated, I did notice that there was a great deal of Arab racism that was evident in their dealing with other nationalities.

So, I wouldn't go as far as saying that there is no enmity between Iranians and Arabs. I think that there is a great deal. I also think that a lot of it has to do with Iran's current situation, where Iranian culture is under attack. Please visit Iranian government's news sites and you can see that there is very little, if any mention of Nowruz. Instead it's now called "Saal-e No Avari" and "Aghaz-e Bahar". Also, there is very little, if any, mention, of "Sizdeh Bedar". It is being replaced with "Rooze Tabiaat"!!!! This is certainly creating a backlash which is manifesting itself in anti-Arab sentiment.

Nouraee, You're still pathetic

Dude, you're foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog. I didn't delete your post and if you'd bothered reading my previous posts before barking out more nonsense you'd realized that. But judging by the garabage you've spouted in your last post you deserved to be deleted and whoever did it obviousely was in possession of sound judgement. You have not responded to any of my points and instead have continued to act like a bitch . I leave others to judge who had who. Keep you're precious USA, jerk off. It's all yours.

Anon-today....

Is that the best you can come with, you pathetic idiot?

The "generalizations" as you call it that I have made regarding Arab culture are in the context of how they have tried to shove all of the negative aspects down the throats of Iranians for centuries. Do you know what context is? CAN YOU EVEN READ?

No, I'm not going to call you an Arab lover. I know you have this itch, but I'm not scratching it for you, because frankly, based upon your writings, we all know your head is lodged so deep in your ass, so God only knows where the rest of you has been.

I was in the US in the late 1970s and early 80s. I was in numerous fistfights with Americans, many of whom spoke English with a heavier accent than me. Where the hell were you? Probably back in Tehran yelling "marg bar shah", waiting to kiss Khomeini's ass in Shahyad Square when he flew back to Tehran 29 years ago hanging onto every word that degenerate said like a lovestruck teenager, not paying attention that this asshole was saying "fuck America" while riding through Tehran in a Chevy Blazer.

I called you a Basiji because you think you have the right to police me or to delete a post. Don't fall under this delusion that you are represent any sort of challenge to me or anyone else. Intellectually, you are a one-legged participant in an ass-kicking contest. You live in the US, so don't even try to deny that one before I embarrass you to the point that you'll soil yourself and cry for your pacifier.

Yes, I said get out. You are clearly one of those people that act as if you are owed something the moment you arrived. You come to the US and enjoy all of the freedoms and curse the provider at the same time. At least have the balls to own up to it. Now, go crawl under Soraya's skirt and ask her to make you some kallehpacheh. Maybe she'll even read you a bedtime story, because God knows YOU can't read.

To be done with me is to have me first, which you never did. You don't even have you.

You are just DONE.