TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hussein Pointed to Iranian Threat
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Hussein Pointed to Iranian Threat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?nav=hcmodule
| quote: |
Hussein Pointed to Iranian Threat Specter of Arms Allowed Him to Appear Strong, He Told U.S. --- Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda. Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region." Former president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq six years ago on the grounds that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to international security. Administration officials at the time also strongly suggested Iraq had significant links to al-Qaeda, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Hussein, who was often defiant and boastful during the interviews, at one point wistfully acknowledged that he should have permitted the United Nations to witness the destruction of Iraq's weapons stockpile after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The FBI summaries of the interviews -- 20 formal interrogations and five "casual conversations" in 2004 -- were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute, and posted on its Web site yesterday. The detailed accounts of the interviews were released with few deletions, though one, a last formal interview on May 1, 2004, was completely redacted. Thomas S. Blanton, director of the archive, said he could conceive of no national security reason to keep Hussein's conversations with the FBI secret. Paul Bresson, a bureau spokesman, said he could not explain the reason for the redactions. The 20 formal interviews took place between Feb. 7 and May 1, followed by the casual conversations between May 10 and June 28. Hussein was later transferred to Iraqi custody, and he was hanged in December 2006. The formal interviews covered Hussein's rise to power, the Kuwait invasion, and Hussein's crackdown on the Shiite uprising in extensive detail, while the subject of the weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda were raised in the casual conversations, after the formal interviews. Blanton said this suggests that the FBI received new orders from Washington to delve into topics of intense interest to Bush administration officials. The FBI spokesman did not know why those subjects were raised in the later meetings. In an interview last year on CBS's "60 Minutes," George L. Piro, the agent who conducted the interviews, said he purposely put Hussein's back against the wall "psychologically to tell him that his back was against the wall," but he did not use coercive interrogation techniques, because "it's against FBI policy." The interviews released yesterday do not suggest any use of coercive techniques. During the interviews, Piro, who conducted them in Arabic, often appeared to challenge Hussein's account of events, citing facts that contradicted his recollections. He even forced Hussein to watch a graphic British documentary on his treatment of the Shiites, though that did not appear to shake the former president. At one point, Hussein dismissed as a fantasy the many intelligence reports that said he used a body double to elude assassination. "This is movie magic, not reality," he said with a laugh. Instead, he said, he had used a phone only twice since 1990 and rarely slept in the same location two days in a row. Hussein's fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq -- which is largely Shiite. "Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran," Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation. "The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq." Hussein noted that Iran's weapons capabilities had increased dramatically while Iraq's weapons "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions," and that eventually Iraq would have to reconstitute its weapons to deal with that threat if it could not reach a security agreement with the United States. Piro raised bin Laden in his last conversation with Hussein, on June 28, 2004, but the information he yielded conflicted with the Bush administration's many efforts to link Iraq with the terrorist group. Hussein replied that throughout history there had been conflicts between believers of Islam and political leaders. He said that "he was a believer in God but was not a zealot . . . that religion and government should not mix." Hussein said that he had never met bin Laden and that the two of them "did not have the same belief or vision." When Piro noted that there were reasons why Hussein and al-Qaeda should have cooperated -- they had the same enemies in the United States and Saudi Arabia -- Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq's enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies. |
bump
Well, aint it a predicable story? There's a reason why Iraq attacked Iran after the Islamic Revolution ... not because of the Iranian "threat", but because of Saddam's lunacy and fear of changes to its east. If anything, Iraq was a threat to everyone in the region, and now that Saddam is gone - Iran has been given carte blanche as the new superpower in the region.
It was common knowledge amongst educated Iraqis that he was trying to create this illusion as to not appear weak. Even if this meant letting his people suffer under the sanctions, he still proceeded with this agenda. This is why it was very frustrating to hear intelligence reports that he had weapons of mass destruction, very few Iraqi's were fooled by this, but the west swallowed it up, and now Iraq is "free".
It was also common knowledge that he did not associate with Bin Laden. I really think investigations need to be done in order to determine who was responsible for any manipulation to deceive the public. The CIA and MI6 are very competent organizations, so I really have a hard time believing this was purely a result of an error of judgment.
Using Colin Powell as a Scape Goat is not going to fix the underlying issues.
I really wish Bush administration officials would be held to account for their lies to go to war. While Nazis are executed for engaging in a war of aggression, the Bush Administration gets off scot-free.
Krypton, please stop comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis.
However faulty our former administration was on some issues I don't think this warrants a valid comparison to one of the most monstrous political factions of all time.
You may not get it but in some way you're implying that all the Americans who voted for Bush are nazis.
People seem to use the term nazi all too loosely nowadays with no regards to the severity of it all.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles People seem to use the term nazi all too loosely nowadays with no regards to the severity of it all. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Krypton, please stop comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis. However faulty our former administration was on some issues I don't think this warrants a valid comparison to one of the most monstrous political factions of all time. You may not get it but in some way you're implying that all the Americans who voted for Bush are nazis. People seem to use the term nazi all too loosely nowadays with no regards to the severity of it all. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Damerchi People also tend to throw around the word "fascist" where it clearly doesn't belong, particularly with labeling islamic regimes. EDIT I am inclined to believe you have made this error yourself. authoritarian theocratic regimes do not equate to fascism. "fascist" has a shock value attached to it, so networks like Fox often abuse the shit out of this term and mislead the public. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Exactly... every time I hear a conservative throw out "Islamofascist", I chuckle at their stupidity... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Damerchi "whats that? Far left ultra conservatives are in power in the middle east? I cannot compute that on my one dimensional scale of politics! FUCK IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!" -B.O.R. |
Great, so let's ignore the fact that Iraq was under severe sanctions with much of the free world, not just the US, prior to 2003. Let's ignore what Saddam did to his own people, and to Kuwait. Let's ignore his behavior after 9/11, regardless of whether he had anything to do with that or not. Clearly Sadam should have been taken out either by his own people or by some foreign government ages ago.
What happened followingSadam's surrender is that different factions of the Iraqi population vied for power. An inner political struggle began and the responsibility of restoring the peace to the country fell on the United States. Due to to the fact that some of those vying for power were leaders who were just as bad as Sadam I am GLAD that our troops and our government didn't just pack things up and leave.
You keep ignoring the fact that MOST of the deaths occuring in Iraq are between Iraqis killing other Iraqis. Had the US not been there does not mean that this could have been prevented.
Did you even follow the news at all a couple of years ago with the way some Iraqis burned other Irauis alive, out in public? And in relatiation other Iraqis were hanged? What about the suicide bombings?
So please, don't quote me the Nuremberg trials. I'm well aware of those trials, and know at least as much as you do about World War II.
Bush made a lot of mistakes with regards to the way he handled the situation in Iraq, and the way he handled the economy. It's still a long way off from being a Nazi criminal.
The Nazis, and the Soviets for that matter, didnt just invade Poland, they committed atrocious acts against humanity there. It wasn't an inner struggle among Poles that killed people, and it wasnt like Poland wasnt cooperating with the West prior to the invasion.
From there on the story gets more and more twisted and cruel, ultimately resulting in the death of 40 million people around the world. Poland was just the first casualty.
How many people in Iraq have died in the past 6 years? How many Iraqis died previously under Sadam? How many people were affected by Sadam's actions in neighboring countries during his reign?
There are several "leaders" in Africa that the pathetic international court in Hague hasn't gotten around to dealing with. Yet you want them to waste their time on the former Bush administration????
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Iran is one of the most socialized countries in the world. That is not fascism! LOL... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Stop defending countries like Iran where it's now even a crime to log onto "Western" websites like Tranceaddict. The foreign media has been kicked out. The Iranian government is so messed up they even claim the death of Neda was either fake, or was caused by Mousavi supporters. One of the most socialized countries in the world, please. You make it sound like it's Switzerland. THose in power have fucked up so bad that not only is unemployment high, but they havent even produced one new oil refinery in the past 30 years. Iran has one of the largest oil reserves in the world yet it has to IMPORT oil b/c it wastes its money on Hamas and Hezbollah rather than on progress towards its own people. |
look, Chrles, we are not arguing on behalf of the Iranian regime by any means, the semantics of terms that get thrown around is the issue at hand.
Socialism does not equate with success, so I don't know where you got off with that Switzerland comparison. "You make it sound like Venezuela" makes more sense if you want to use a more extreme example of socialism to compare Iran to, and this statement obviously does not do Iran any good, since Venezuela is far from paradise. For example, The pan Arab socialists, as the name implies, are socialists. That doesn't say anything about their quality of life, unemployment rates, longevity,etc.
Social democratic practices within Europe are an entirely different kind of socialism, and much more sustainable within that context.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Stop defending countries like Iran where it's now even a crime to log onto "Western" websites like Tranceaddict. The foreign media has been kicked out. The Iranian government is so messed up they even claim the death of Neda was either fake, or was caused by Mousavi supporters. One of the most socialized countries in the world, please. You make it sound like it's Switzerland. THose in power have fucked up so bad that not only is unemployment high, but they havent even produced one new oil refinery in the past 30 years. Iran has one of the largest oil reserves in the world yet it has to IMPORT oil b/c it wastes its money on Hamas and Hezbollah rather than on progress towards its own people. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Great, so let's ignore the fact that Iraq was under severe sanctions with much of the free world, not just the US, prior to 2003. Let's ignore what Saddam did to his own people, and to Kuwait. Let's ignore his behavior after 9/11, regardless of whether he had anything to do with that or not. Clearly Sadam should have been taken out either by his own people or by some foreign government ages ago. |
| quote: |
| You keep ignoring the fact that MOST of the deaths occuring in Iraq are between Iraqis killing other Iraqis. Had the US not been there does not mean that this could have been prevented. Did you even follow the news at all a couple of years ago with the way some Iraqis burned other Irauis alive, out in public? And in relatiation other Iraqis were hanged? What about the suicide bombings? |
| quote: |
| So please, don't quote me the Nuremberg trials. I'm well aware of those trials, and know at least as much as you do about World War II. |
| quote: |
| Bush made a lot of mistakes with regards to the way he handled the situation in Iraq, and the way he handled the economy. It's still a long way off from being a Nazi criminal. |
| quote: |
| The Nazis, and the Soviets for that matter, didnt just invade Poland, they committed atrocious acts against humanity there. It wasn't an inner struggle among Poles that killed people, and it wasnt like Poland wasnt cooperating with the West prior to the invasion. From there on the story gets more and more twisted and cruel, ultimately resulting in the death of 40 million people around the world. Poland was just the first casualty. |
| quote: |
| How many people in Iraq have died in the past 6 years? How many Iraqis died previously under Sadam? How many people were affected by Sadam's actions in neighboring countries during his reign? |
| quote: |
| There are several "leaders" in Africa that the pathetic international court in Hague hasn't gotten around to dealing with. Yet you want them to waste their time on the former Bush administration???? |
Alright, if I've misinterpreted what you said than I'll own up and apologize.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Alright, if I've misinterpreted what you said than I'll own up and apologize. |
| quote: |
| One of the most socialized countries in the world, please. You make it sound like it's Switzerland. THose in power have fucked up so bad that not only is unemployment high, but they havent even produced one new oil refinery in the past 30 years. Iran has one of the largest oil reserves in the world yet it has to IMPORT oil b/c it wastes its money on Hamas and Hezbollah rather than on progress towards its own people. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Damerchi "fascist" has a shock value attached to it, so networks like Fox often abuse the shit out of this term and mislead the public. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton CHRles, Iran is HEAVILY socialized. 60% of Iran's economy is centrally planned by the state. In a fascist state, the economy is essentially corporatist, in which state and business are practically one in the same. So to say Islamo-fascism, is wrong. Do you get it now? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo fuckin stupidest thing i ever heard here since, well...read my sig. let me ask you something, are the Taliban fascist? is Al Queera a fascist organization? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo quite right to narrow your definitions to fit your ideology. |
You out of anyone here, fit the very definition of a fascist.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Damerchi |
| quote: |
| Principled, consistent left-wingers do not base their politics on the unprincipled, inconsistent geo-political manoeuvres of western powers. We stand with the oppressed against their oppressors, regardless of what the west (or anyone else) demands or threatens. US sabre-rattling against Iran is worrying. A military attack must be resisted. However, opposition to Washington's war-mongering and neo-imperial designs is no reason for socialists, greens and other progressives to go soft on Tehran's despotism. Iran is an Islamo-fascist state - a clerical form of fascism based on a confluence of Islamic fundamentalism and police state methods. It differs, of course, from traditional European-style fascism, being rooted in religious dogma and autocracy. This makes it no less barbaric. Iran under the ayatollahs has a history of repression as bloody as Franco's clerical fascist regime in Spain. Sadly, it merits far less outrage by the left. Tehran's tyrannical religious state embodies many (though not all) the characteristics of classical fascism: a substantially corporatist political and economic system maintained by a highly centralised repressive state apparatus. This repression includes bans on non-Islamist political parties and free trade unions, and a regime of unfair trials, detention without charge, torture, executions, media censorship, gender apartheid, violent suppression of peaceful protests and strikes, and the persecution of left-wingers, trade unionists, students, feminists, journalists, gay people and religious and ethnic minorities. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...iran.middleeast http://www.marxist.com/iran/regime-...ed-students.htm http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk...roic_women.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ran.humanrights Even lawyers and human rights defenders - are imprisoned and tortured. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Baghi The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also pursuing a racist, neo-colonial policy against Iran's minority nationalities, such as the Arabs (who are abused even more harshly than the Israelis abuse the Palestinians), Kurds and Baluchs. http://www.petertatchell.net/intern...raciststate.htm http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE13/056/2006 http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...0882008eng.html http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...31042007en.html It used to be axiomatic that left and progressive movements fought fascism, wherever it is found and whatever its form. We do not appease or collude. Well, not until recently. Nowadays, there is a whole section of the left that has abandoned the freedom struggle in Iran. It goes to extraordinary lengths to ignore, downplay or apologise for the excesses of the tyrants in Tehran. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament invited the Iranian ambassador as a guest speaker to its 2005 annual conference. It preferred to host the representative of an Islamo-fascist regime, rather than the leaders of Iran's left-wing opposition and anti-nuclear peace movement. Indeed, CND members who objected to the feting of the ambassador of a dictatorship were forcibly ejected from the conference. A similar fate befell Iranian refugees who joined the Stop the War Coalition marches. When they backed the call "Don't Attack Iran" they were welcomed, but as soon as they also condemned Tehran's depotism they were denounced by some of the left and shoved out the of the demonstration by thuggish StWC stewards. We are told by these muscular leftists that Iran is a democracy and that President Ahmadinejad is elected. Nonsense. But even if this were true, so what? Tony Blair was elected but that did not make the Iraq war right. Israel is a democracy but this is no justification for its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and its occupation of Palestine. The truth is that Iran is no democracy. Liberal, secular, green, socialist and national minority political parties are outlawed. All candidates for election are vetted by a clerical council and those who dissent from the mullah's orthodoxy are barred from standing for public office. Moreover, the conservative state-controlled media favours establishment candidates and denies, or restricts, coverage of genuine reformists and progressive ideas. Iran is not a democracy. Human rights abuses in Iran are often dismissed by sections of the anti-imperialist left as "exaggerated" or "neo con fiction," despite incontrovertible evidence from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and from Iran's underground left-wing, student and trade union movements. This shocking denialism is wholly divorced from reality and is a sordid betrayal of the Iranian people's struggle for liberty and justice. Some left-wingers argue that since the US is the main upholder of the unjust imperialist economic system we must therefore support those who oppose the US. Because Tehran is against the US, we should support, or at least not undermine, the Iranian regime. This is a total perversion of anti-imperialism and internationalism. By this logic, the British left should have supported the Nazis during the Second World War, because Hitler was against British imperialism and his victory would have hastened the demise of empire. The left groups and activists who hold the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend are the mirror image of the neo cons. Their stance on Iran is determined by an international political agenda and power play, not by the interests and rights of the Iranian people. They have allowed opposition to US imperialism to trump social justice and human rights in Iran. For nearly 40 years I have campaigned in solidarity with the Iranian people, supporting their struggle against dictatorship - first against the western-backed Shah and then, since 1979, against the ayatollahs. The Shah was bad enough, but the Islamists who overthrew him are far worse. They have out-butchered the Shah many times over; executing or assassinating an estimated 100,000 Iranians in the last 30 years. Many of those murdered - usually after gruesome torture - were left-wingers, trade unionists and other progressive Iranians. The traditional socialist maxim used to be: fight the tyrants and support their victims, solidarity with oppressed people everywhere. This was the response of the entire left to the Shah's brutal misrule. It stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Iranian freedom struggle. But in 1979, defying all its historic values and ideals, large chunks of the Iranian and international left backed the Islamist revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. Their reasoning was that by supporting an anti-US movement this would help weaken US global hegemony. Many of us warned at the time that this opportunistic alliance with fundamentalist Islam would spell disaster for the Iranian left and progressive movements. Sure enough, beginning a couple of years after the Islamists seized power, tens of thousands of leftists, workers, secularists, students and women's rights campaigners were arrested, tortured and executed. Despite this bloody history of tyranny, some left-wingers and anti-imperialists still shy away from campaigning against the Tehran regime. The police-state oppression in Iran is some of the worst in the world. According to Human Rights Watch, in March 2008 an Iranian parliament member, Hossein Ali Shahryari, confirmed that 700 people were awaiting execution in Sistan and Baluchistan province, which is only one of Iran's 30 provinces. http://hrw.org/wr2k8/pdfs/iran.pdf Many of those on death row are Baluch political prisoners; sentenced to death for resisting Tehran's ethnic persecution. This staggering number of death sentences is evidence of the intense, violent repression that is taking place under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime's terror is wide-ranging. Student leader Meisam Lofti was executed in 2007 on false charges of being a gang member. http://kamangir.net/2007/07/24/stud...as-gang-member/ Members of minority faiths, like the Baha'is and, sometimes, Sunni Muslims, suffer severe harassment. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...,950013,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ran-humanrights The regime's crackdown includes the enforcement of harsh morality laws. In 2004, in the city of Neka, a 16 year old girl, Atefah Rajabi Sahaaleh, who had been raped and sexually abused by men for many years, was convicted of "crimes against chastity." She was hanged by the method of slow, painful strangulation, hoisted by a crane in a public square. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5217424.stm This strangulation technique, sanctioned by the Iranian President, is deliberately designed to prolong the suffering of the victim. The hanged person is left dangling and writhing for several minutes before they eventually asphyxiate and die. Truly barbaric. You can see for yourself Iranian justice in action. Watch here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657 On 5 December 2007, Makvan Mouloodzadeh, a 21-year-old Iranian man, was hanged in Kermanshah Central Prison, after an unfair trial. A member of Iran's persecuted Kurdish minority, he was executed on charges of raping other boys when he was 13. In other words, he committed these alleged acts when he was a child. According to Iranian law, a boy under 15 is a minor and cannot be executed. At Makvan's mockery of a trial, which was condemned by Human Rights Watch, the alleged rape victims retracted their previous statements, saying they had made their allegations under duress. Makvan pleaded not guilty, telling the court that his confession was made during torture. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/11/...e-juvenile-case He was hanged anyway, without a shred of credible evidence that he had even had sex with the boys, let alone raped them. The lies, defamation and homophobia of the debauched Iranian legal system was exposed when hundreds of villagers attended Makvan's funeral. People don't mourn rapists. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dlZzexeNSLg Labour activists are also victimised. Mansour Osanloo, leader of Tehran's bus workers syndicate, remains in jail - together with other trade unionists. He was sentenced to five years jail in July 2007 for his peaceful, lawful defence of worker's rights. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ransunionheroes Oppressing his own people is not enough for Ahmadinejad. His regime also exports terror abroad. It supports the Hezbollah fundamentalists in Lebanon, who, like Israel, indiscriminately attack civilian areas. http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/...s-under-assault In addition, many of the death squads in Iraq are trained, armed and funded by Tehran. http://www.channel4.com/news/dispat...or/death_squads http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...4-8-2007_pg4_21 These include ex-Badr Brigade members who, during the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, lived and trained across the border in south-east Iran. Nowadays, they assassinate political, sexual and religious dissidents; usually gunning them down in their house, workplace or street. No trial. No evidence. Summary execution, aided by Ahmadinejad's government. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...war-467784.html The case for regime change in Iran is overwhelming, but it must come from within - by and for the Iranian people themselves - not as a result of US neo-imperial diktat. Many Iranians hope for a non-violent Czech-style 'people power' democratic revolution, involving mass strikes and street protests by socialists, liberals, secularists, democrats, women, students, trade unionists, religious dissenters and minority nationalities. Others believe that the nascent insurrections by Arabs, Baluchs, Azeris and Kurds will burgeon into full-scale revolutionary war that will encircle and topple the Tehran regime. To those who accuse me of aiding the US propaganda war against Tehran and helping pave the way for a military strike, I say: not true. Support for democratic and left forces inside Iran can help undermine the case for war. Progress towards securing a democratic, progressive Iranian government is one of the best ways to thwart a possible military strike by Washington. Such a government would pose no threat to anyone. This would make it much harder for the neo cons to persuade the American public and military to go to war. They would no longer have the excuse that Iran is a terroristic, fundamentalist, anti-Semitic dictatorship that is striving to develop nuclear weapons and which poses a threat to international peace and security. If Iran ceased to be a fanatical religious tyranny, the case for war would be seriously weakened. The pro-war Republicans and Democrats in the US would lose the battle for hearts and minds. Most public opinion would desert them. Anti-war US politicians and activists would be empowered and enhanced. We must do everything we can to stop a US military attack on Iran - not because we want to save the Islamo-fascist regime but because such an attack would strengthen the position of the hardliners in Tehran; allowing President Ahmadinejad to play the nationalist card and portray himself as a heroic war leader. It would also give him an excuse to further crack-down on dissent, using the pretext of safeguarding national security and defending the country against US imperialism. This would set back the Iranian struggle for democracy and human rights. Moreover, a US attack on Muslim Iran would increase the sense of grievance felt by Muslims worldwide; radicalising Muslim youth, fanning the flames of fundamentalism, increasing support for Islamist parties and resulting in thousands of new recruits to the ranks of Jihadis and suicide bombers. Tragically, the leadership of the UK and US anti-war movements have been sleep-walking into making the same mistakes over Iran as they made over Iraq. They are silent about the regime's despotism and oppression. Mirroring the neo con indifference to human rights abuses in Iran, they refuse to show solidarity with the Iranian peoples' struggle for secularism, democracy, social justice, human rights and for the self-determination of national minorities. There is nothing remotely left-wing about this is sad and cruel betrayal. Put bluntly: it is collusion with tyranny. www.petertatchell.net[/i] |
I seem blind to what goes on under saddam? I lived under Saddam mate, and I'm a kurd/turkoman. He was a ruthless dictator belonging to a Pan-Arab socialist movement. I also like to think I'm pretty aware of the grave realities occur under the control of the regimes you mentioned.
I agree with the vast majority of the content of that article, when governing structures are referred to as "police state", "regime of terror", "tyrannical religious state", "dictatorship", "fanatical religious tyranny", etc. I am just at odds with Islamo-fascism because I feel it's an improperly used term. Besides, our disagreement on the term is just splitting hairs at this point, I think we share similar opinions regarding distaste for the Iranian regime/taliban so we should agree to disagree on this one!
nonetheless, thanks for the article.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.