Stop Warmongering on Iran

by ? Tue May 09, 2006 16:25

Any pictures of the demo, how did it go?

by Tank Girl Fri Apr 28, 2006 19:35

I have looked more carefully at Iranfocus and it does carry a lot of US propaganda. It doesnt mean that particular story was untrue though. Why make it up when the Iranians hang teenagers? I wont however use Iranfocus as a source again.

The Washington Post poses a more difficult problem: yes they have gotten things wrong and in general they pursue a pro capitalist line. But there are few if any mass circulation papers which are not run by capitalists. Usually papers like the Washington Post, Irish Times, The Guardian do not knowingly lie. Even the Independent Group Papers use reports by Robert Fisk. If you doubt everything you read in the ordinary media then you are on the road to madness. You will end up getting your news from conspiracy sites.

Sorry I marked you down as a SWP clone but they are tiresome and ubiquitous on Indymedia.

by anon Fri Apr 28, 2006 19:18

I did mean The Washington Post it took the governement line on the Iraq lies too.

by Mr. T. Fri Apr 28, 2006 19:10

... which is owned by the Moonies cult and is generally considered to be the most right wing newspaper in the States. The Post is a slightly left of centre newspaper and is not owned by a wacko religious mind control cult.

I consume many genuine and reliable mainstream journalistic and academic sources, along side many independent yet highly suspect sources of information as well. Usually somewhere in between lays the truth. Genuine journalism is published in the Guardian, NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Sacramento Bee, and the Independent (UK). If you want a lot of agit-prop and long-winded (often hilarious screed) launched against mainly slightly differently shaded radical leftists check out the SocialistWorker, NPRK news.

And by the way, I consider myself a progressive but certainly not a Marxist - I think using free markets and capitalism to generate adequate funding for progressive social programmes can work most efficiently. I do not share many common views with SP, SWP or even (especially) SF. Labour is preference, although I'm less than enthused about the current leadership.

Anyway, you're trying to duck my challenge - you still haven't responded with any evidence as to why IranFocus.Com is not a reliable source.

by regular joe Fri Apr 28, 2006 18:57

TankGirl wrote: The reformists have not gained ground, they are in tatters.

I presume the above is in relation to,

2) The reformists (the genuine non-Iranian-Shah/Chalabi gangster type) have gained ground and the young people are with them

Well the above should have been time-framed as of course since >recent events< in the region the reformists and those pushing against the conservatives were gaining ground, (albeit with some hiccups). If you compare it to the Iran of the 80s then Iran today has certainly changed and, given that it had a fledgling democracy prior to the elected Mossadeq being snuffed out I fully believe that (sans neo-con belligerence) it can return to that in the medium term. And of course I support oppressed groups within Iran and those genuine reformists.

At a time when the greatest threat to those persecuted, and those wishing to see a progression away from theocracy, is an external one, the last thing they need is usefully naive helpers/parsers of that very same threat. Also, I’m not a member of the SWP….

Mr T re, your eh CFR excerpts http://www.cfr.org/about/ … that article I linked to included a section* on Hezbollah. Funding Hezbollah or not Iran has not initiated a war with another nation and it looks more like it wants to take a ‘do we or don’t we have it’ defensive approach. It’s record with respect to external aggression and funding of imperial terrorists is of a far lesser level than those beating the war drums.

I’m against nuclear weapons and power but the way the NPT world order is set up then Iran is perfectly entitled, according to the NPT, not just to nuclear power but to be assisted in developing nuclear power by other signatories to it! So until that changes then the two-faced ball game is still in play* Also, having nuclear power does not equate to instantly having a fully workable bomb or the required amount of bomb-grade uranium (we’re talking years here)or the willingness to use it offensively.

*
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=10128
…(Conversely, the widely-discussed claim that Iran might retaliate against the U.S. by "turning loose" Hezbollah to commit rampant terror attacks around the world appears to be grounded less in facts than in febrile Washington imaginations. Such a scenario assumes that Hezbollah, a decades-old anti-occupation movement in Lebanon created to resist Israel's 1982 invasion, is nothing more than a cat's-paw of the Iranian regime that Tehran can deploy at will. It denies the reality of Hezbollah's independent, popular legitimacy, including its powerful representation in the Lebanese parliament, and the fact that despite long-standing Iranian support, Hezbollah's strategic imperatives are driven by Lebanese, not Iranian, realities.)…

**
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/09/21/proliferatio...eaty/
…The IAEA, its statute says, should assist “the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities” to non-nuclear states. It should train nuclear scientists and “foster the exchange of scientific and technical information”.(4) Its mission, in other words, is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, while spreading nuclear technology to as many countries as possible. It is also responsible for enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has the same dual purpose….

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10015
Iran is being set up for “an unprovoked nuclear attack”
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
March 30, 2006

Professing to be the greater civilization, the intellect is deliberately disassociated, sanity is interned so that greed may proceed and allow the savagery of the greater to prey upon the less. While mankind strives for nobility, there are some among us who contemplate such base decisions that would threaten the existence of another nation. Those same powers who would refute that man is born under one law, and so they bound him by another, targeting him with nuclear weapons.
Alarmed at such baseness, Philip Giarldi, A former CIA officer, in an August 1, 2005 issue of The American Conservative warns that Dick Cheney has issued a request for using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. More troubling is that the use of nuclear weapons is not conditional on Iran being involved in the act of terrorism against the United States. Otherwise stated, Iran is being set up for “an unprovoked nuclear attack”.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10069
The Iran Plans
by Seymour M. Hersh
April 10, 2006

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”

Iran’s Oil Bourse: A Threat to the U.S. Economy?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/041306_world_...shtml

by Curious Fri Apr 28, 2006 18:43

Will McCann commit to cease from writing for capitalist newspapers. After all who more than they spread the imperialist creed?

by anon Fri Apr 28, 2006 18:31

Well atleast Tankgirl is not quoting the Council on Foreign Relations! :) , atleast she usually attempts at getting reports of people who would reject money from either side. But I suggest she uses a source for her articles which isn't getting this ' $75 million for Democracy (see Free market Capitalism with conincendental short term benefits) in her attempt to back them up. That fact that Iranfocus is mostly about reprinting Washington Post articles is enough for me to discount it.

by Mr. T. Fri Apr 28, 2006 16:49

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists. They direct the activities of, fund and lend tactical support to Hezbollah, certainly one of the bloodiest and most disruptive terrorist groups in the middle east. This reason alone should give pause to anyone weighing the evidence regarding Iran and its quest for nuclear technology. Even more worrying is Iran's recent statements that it will share its nuclear technology with other states - Sudan was mentioned.

Note the following analysis from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10539/reading_ahmadineja....html
[ ... ] Nor will Iran promote peaceful coexistence with Israel, which Ahmadinejad calls a "fake regime that cannot logically continue to live (Independent)." Iran's president also just announced that Tehran would consider sharing nuclear technology with Sudan (NYT). But Ahmadinejad is just one piece in the multilayered puzzle that makes up Iranian foreign policy. Not every senior leader within Iran's foreign policy elite agrees with President Ahmadinejad's demands to "wipe [Israel] off the map." Within Iran's conservative leadership class, cleavages are reported to exist on a wide range of foreign policy issues, from nuclear arms to Iranian relations with Hezbollah to its influence over Iraq (Asia Times). "This rivalry will intensify with the approach of fall elections for an 86-member clerical body—the Assembly of Experts—and for municipal councils," writes RFE/RL's William Samii. These internal divisions lead to a foreign policy that often comes across as muddled and far from monolithic, as this CFR Background Q&A explains. [...]

I wish I could share your optimism for the reformers, but they were supposed to have been swept into office every election since the mid-90's. Yet in July 2005 but that fascist retard Ahmadinejad won by a landslide. Five or six years ago students were demonstrating in Tehran's streets and it looked ripe for revolution - yet in the time since the Mullahs and Islamofascists have shoved their boot further up the educated middle classes arse, and that movement is dead, Ahmadinejad's election being the final nail in the coffin. I think you'll be waiting a long time for the moderate middle class to overthrow the oppressive yolk of the fascist mullahs. Long time as in decades, if the planet still exists at that time.

... from the same source as before:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10396/#5
Are these [ruling bodies] bodies always in agreement on matters of foreign policy?
No. In fact, their policies can often appear contradictory. For example, when Larijani and others say Tehran's uranium-enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, these statements are undermined, experts say, by Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the elimination of Israel. Reformists within the Majlis often accuse the executive branch of taking stances that are too confrontational. Also, Iran's foreign ministry has a sometimes conflicting agenda in Iraq with its Revolutionary Guards, particularly on the issue of Tehran's relationship with anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The foreign ministry prefers not to deal with Sadr, while the Revolutionary Guards have reportedly established close contacts with Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, and even provide his troops with financial and material support. But William Samii, an Iran expert with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, says the examples cited above are more emblematic of a lack of coordination than a rift within the ruling elite.

Invasion or military attack on Iran would be a tragedy and catastrophe of the highest order amost certainly leading to a costly, bloody war that will destabilize the region and possibly the world for decades to come. But to permit Iran to acquire military grade nuclear technology (and all nuclear technology is dual use) would be a far greater tragedy, quite probably of apocalyptic proportions.

by Tank Girl Fri Apr 28, 2006 15:59

The reformists have not gained ground, they are in tatters. The conservatives control parliament, the presidency and the judicary. Students and other young people are no longer protesting through fear. The reformists you talk about are not prepared to challenge the concept of the clerical state, that is why they have crumbled. Why are you giving a false picture?

All imperialist aggression should be opposed but the war being carried out within Iran by the Kurds and other progressive forces should be supported. Iran is not a democracy and the Iranian Regime must be removed by internal action. If you oppose the struggle of the Kurds then you are supporting Islamic fundamentalists. Pardon my cynicism but I suspect that you are in the SWP. Why do you support Turkish Kurds but not Iranian Kurds?

by regular joe Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:29

As regards nuclear power. What exactly is Iran in breach of? Is it the NPT? Far from it....

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?aid=1190&iid=...ud=41
Nuclear double standards
by David Morrison
Thursday, February 2, 2006

The EU and US are seeking UN action against Iran over its nuclear fuel programme, even though there is no evidence it is being used for weapons production. Furthermore, Israel has a programme for manufacturing actual nuclear devices, and Pakistan and India are allies of the EU and the US, despite having acquired nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And the EU itself is in breach of the treaty. By David Morrison


http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iran/iran-reported.htm
Iran “reported” to the Security Council

There is a lesson there for Iran. It is: leave the NPT, since if you’re not a member of it, you can’t violate it. Iran is being hauled over the coals for allegedly “violating its safeguards commitments with the IAEA”. Israel isn’t a member of the NPT and therefore hasn’t got any “safeguards commitments with the IAEA” to violate. It’s free to build whatever nuclear facilities it likes within its own borders, without let or hindrance from “the international community”.

It has exercised this freedom, not just to develop civil nuclear facilities, but to arm itself with nuclear weapons, perhaps as many as 200 devices. And you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s got missiles armed with these devices targeted on every state in the Middle East, including Iran. And “the international community”, which is apparently so concerned that Iran might develop nuclear weapons, has never said boo to Israel about the actual nuclear weapons it has aimed at Iran.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iran/index.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=10128
At the end of the day Iran has been pretty clear about what it wants. It doesn't seem to want an actual nuclear weapon (both the late Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor have issued religious prohibitions, or fatwas, against such weapons) although there's little doubt that President Ahmadinejad appears to believe that posturing aggressively about "going nuclear" will help his flagging domestic ratings. (Sound familiar?) What Iran really wants, and has asked for, is serious negotiations with the U.S., based on equality, not humiliation. And at the end, a security guarantee that neither Europe nor the UN, but only the U.S. itself ¬ the world's "sole super-power" and the only nuclear weapons state threatening to actually use its nuclear arsenal ¬ can provide.

I also refer to Mr T’s original post on this thread when he said that if Iran obtained a nuke

Mr T wrote,
….even if it the only way to stop them is to have the Yanks carpet bombing every inch of their country.

Remember whatever you think of the theocratic elements within Iran 1) It’s has not started a war with anyone (Iraq, at the behest of the US, attacked Iran) 2) The reformists (the genuine non-Iranian-Shah/Chalabi gangster type) have gained ground and the young people are with them 3) An attack runs counter to wishes to improve the situation within Iran and to allow unrestricted elections. 4) Unrestricted elections with a climate as it is could very well return similar results as without those restrictions.

by Mr. T. Thu Apr 27, 2006 21:20

You listed a number of links in one of your submissions with URLS to web pages of collaborative sites - Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a well documented history of publishing contested content, with many documented instances of publishing outright fabrications. I know nothing about this zmag - neither anything good nor anything bad so I can't judge it. HRW I think can be trusted but whatever comes out of the WCPI as far as I'm concerned is untrustworthy as a news source - they are, after all, a political party.

I reject your anecdotal accusations against IranWatch.com. So I ask again and perhaps you can provide a factual response: besides your "gut" feeling or what you may have heard from someone in a pub - where's the proof that IranFocus.Com is anything but a legitimate news source?

by anon Thu Apr 27, 2006 18:43

Iran focus which looks like it just filters all stories about Iran uncritically including warmongering fabrications direct from US papers which undermines your stories about human rights violations which we have seen have been made-up and exaggerated ( even when they don't have to be like in Irans caseI agree ). The site is run by the opposition loyal to exiled king who is in the pay of the US now.
And that story about the girl has no further source links and gets picked up by the neocon jihad-watch as quick as by you... why don't you double check your stories with HRW or the WCPI. Why point people to a the Iranian version of the INC and Alawai?

by Tank Girl Thu Apr 27, 2006 17:28

I only used Iran Focus for this news story. Are you saying it is untrue? Why make up something this minor when the Iranians openly hang teenagers for engaging in sexual activity?

What about the Amnesty & HRW websites? They have articles about the terror that the Iranian Regime inflicts on women, gays and others. Are they making this up?

Finally what about the WCPI, they clearly oppose the US imperialist campaign against Iran but they are also fighting to overthrow the mullahs. Are they lieing as well?

by Mr. T. Thu Apr 27, 2006 17:19

To Anon -

You imply IranFocus.Com is somehow a propaganda organ - for whom, for what organisation or government and for what purpose?

What evidence do you have to support this charge?

by anon Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:45

Iran
author by Tank Girlpublication date Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:55Report this post to the editors

Yeah I support a picket at the American embassy but the Iranian one should be picketed as well. Just look at this little gem. The vermin even oppress ten year old girls. We need some GirlPower there fast.

Iran’s police stop 10-year-old girl for “mal-veiling”

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 07 – Iranian police held up a 10-year-old girl in Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport for “mal-veiling”, state-run Persian-language websites reported on Friday.The incident took place Tuesday afternoon as the unnamed girl and her father were in the airport heading to the city of Kerman.

Security officers held up the girl and accused her of wearing too short a manteau – the knee-length over-garment that all women must wear outdoors under Iran’s Islamic laws. The report said that the girl’s father became incensed at the officers’ conduct towards his daughter and began to yell that his daughter knew more about Islam than they did. “What crime has my daughter committed?” he yelled, as he slapped her once out of frustration.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?story...=6629

by Tank Girl Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:06

http://www.amnesty.org/

http://hrw.org/

http://www.hekmatist.com/english-index.htm

If you see Amnesty, Human Rights Watch , Worker-communist Party of Iran as imperialist sources then you are truly beyond any help.

This is what the WCPI say:

"No to US Warmongering!

On the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, amidst the current death, destruction and carnage and the catastrophe that has engulfed Iraq, the fear of another war, on a much larger scale with unimaginable consequences which will make the war in Iraq seem like a child’s play is growing. The US is fanning the flame of yet another war, this time against the people of Iran. The US warmongering is not out of compassion for the Iranian people or its desire to stand up to political Islam. Whoever stands in the way of the US government’s interests will be subjected to the wrath of US military might. "

http://www.hekmatist.com/k4.no%20to%20warmongering%20.htm

by Workers Opposition Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:05

"because you use imperialist sources to back your new found criticism of Irans Theocracy"

Same argument was used by the stalinists to discredit their own dissidents in the USSR.
When is Eamon McCann going to stop writing for capitalist newspapers/magazines?
Are they not a tool of imperialism?

by anon Thu Apr 27, 2006 15:51

Why is it some "anti war" people try and smear anyone who criticises the Iranian Theocracy?

because you use imperialist sources to back your new found criticism of Irans Theocracy

by Mr. T. Thu Apr 27, 2006 15:17

When the concept "democracy" is applied to Iran, I trust it must be in the same mode as DPRK uses the term in their name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea. You know: wink, wink ... nod, nod.... say no more, say no more...

Perhaps a better analogy is the 3rd Reich's political party's official name: National Socialist German Workers Party ... they're socialists, right? And they're the party of the working class - correct? So they're progressive comrades to be supported...

Only a mindless running dog imbecile falls for childish propagandist word games. Is Iran a democracy? Ask me bollocks... they'll tell you plainly ... "not only is Iran a democracy Wink but they're up along side of the most eminent populist democracies North Korea and Belarus. Better still, Iran's social policies are nearly as progressive as those of the exemplary 1930's and 40's German National Socialists.

Remember, repeat a lie often enough and eventually it will becomes indistinguishable from the truth.

I'm against US imperialism.

I'm against war of any sort.

I'm against unjustified aggression.

I am not Anti - War. Some causes are worth fighting, dying and killing for. For example, just as Nazi Germany had to be confronted and resisted using military aggression, so Iran must be thwarted from ever deploying nuclear weapons.

Hopefully the UN Security Counsel or IAEA will successfully resolve the matter using non-violent means. However, if they are unsuccessful, the military option must be used sooner rather than later. The day - no... more like moment - Iran gets the bomb, you should all just kiss your arses goodbye.

by Tank Girl Thu Apr 27, 2006 13:54

I have made it abundantly clear that I oppose any imperialist intervention in Iran. Why is it some "anti war" people try and smear anyone who criticises the Iranian Theocracy?

You really think Iran is a partial democracy? If all candidates for the Dail were vetted by the catholic church and laws passed by the Dail could be overruled by the Bishops conference would you regard Ireland as a democracy?

The Iran regime must be overthrown from within this entails support for those who are currently fighting to overthrow the mullahs. No reason why you cannot adopt this position and simultaneously oppose imperialist intervention; the two positions are complementary.

by regular joe Thu Apr 27, 2006 13:16

@ TG

“The Shah was a dictator but its difficult to see how he was worse than the Islamic dictatorship.”

The Shah was appointed after the British and US toppled the democratically elected Mossadeq in 53. He was one of the most brutal dictators that suppressed any form of dissent and there certainly was less of a democracy under the Shah then, than there is now. The unfortunate flag of rebellion that was Islam in 79 was directly due to his rule supported by the US all the way. The reformists within Iran have made head ground since 79 and should be supported. And btw this is from an atheist.

@ TG

“Only a charlatan or a fool would claim that any sort of democracy exists in Iran.”

Any sort? Can you not see some form of imperfect democracy in Iran today? Prior to full emancipation many developed nations had a very restrictive form of ‘democracy’ where only property owning white males over 30 could vote and had unelected upper houses restricting laws and this was well into the 20th Century in many nations.

As I said I recognize the problems with religion in Iran, but the best way to solve it is to listen to the reformists and allow them to change from within not to reign down a self serving US led shock and awe disaster of no benefit to Iranians of whatever sex or hue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations
http://www.zmag.org/iranwatch/iranwatch.cfm
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060421_demonising_ir...n.php

by Tank Girl Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:36

I'm not sure what you are on about. Iran boasts about the fact that it executes teenagres for having sex outside of marriage. Why do you think they would not harass a 10 year old? If you have any doubts about the way the Iranian Rgime treats women, gays, trade unionists, Kurds, political opponents then I suggest you consult the Amnesty and HRW sites.

http://www.amnesty.org/

http://hrw.org/

http://www.hekmatist.com/english-index.htm

by Tank Girl Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:23

"Note: The Shah's dictatorship did not even have the imperfect democracy that exists in Iran today."

Note: under the Shah women were not treated like animals, they did not have to wear veils. They were not stoned to death for adultery. That might be irrelevant to a man but its important to women. The Shah was a dictator but its difficult to see how he was worse than the Islamic dictatorship.

Like the Shah the Islamists repress the Kurds and outlaw trade unions. Only a charlatan or a fool would claim that any sort of democracy exists in Iran. All candidates are vetted by Islamic clerics, anyone who questions the Islamic regime is not allowed to stand. Therefore, socialists, communists, liberals and even western style conservatives are barred from standing for election. The (unelected) Supreme Ayetollah and the (unelected) Council of Guardians can also veto any legislaton passed by parliament.

by anon Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:20

TG is your reason for your recent interest in Iran different from the one the BBC describes?

by regular joe Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:08

Michael mentioned that US fave dictator of yore the Shah. In the 70s, the US, via Henry Kissinger, advised the Shah that with the price of oil being so high and with Iran's uranium ore resources, it made economic sense for Iran to build nuclear power plants and to export it's oil..

Of course it would be US engineering and construction firms that would have been involved in the building of the plants.

Note: The Shah's dictatorship did not even have the imperfect democracy that exists in Iran today.

Also, this is not picking on the 'easy target' as the history of the US and Iran are so closely tied together. Many believe that the conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not have been elected if it were not for events next door...

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:22

Agree with you TG - they are vermin. On that one we are together.
What I have a problem with is the Empire deciding to invest millions to subvert the country and threatening to nuke the place in order to carry out what they call 'regime change'.
That's like fire- bombing a house that has a couple of rats in the garden and a cabal of cockroaches in the garage.
The struggle against the type of political control exercised in Iran is a matter for the Iranian people and its organisations. Progressive people can help, can show solidarity, can criticise + condemn the regime's actions/crimes.... changing it is the Iranian peoples job not a responsibility of the Crusaders. Surely the Iraqi killing fields show us daily the fallacy and barbarism of such an exercise.

by Tank Girl Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:00

I have made it clear that I oppose any Imperialist attack on Iran but that does not mean that I have to support a Theocracy. The SWP do support the Mullahs they have called Iraqi and Iranian Socialists "Islamophobic" just because they raised the issue of womens rights. The SWP have mocked Peter Tatchell when he got death threats from Islamists.

Any US aggression against Iran must be thwarted. The Iranian Islamo-Fascist Junta must be driven out like the rats and vermin they are.

Michael I consder the Islamists who treat a 10 year old like that and who hang 16 year olds for having sex outside of marriage to be vermin. What would you call them?

by rob Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:27

"Light a fuse and all the rats and vermin come crawling out"

You sound a bit like a mullah there yourself....

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Apr 27, 2006 00:02

Hey,

1. Iran is a large independent country - it already had one democratic government in the '50s overthrown by the US....they installed the Shah...a popular movement overthrew him and in came the mullahs on the wave of opposition.
2. The US armed Saddam to the teeth, gave him intelligence and he attacked Iran......no go.
3. Iran is a signatory to the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and has a right to develop nuclear capacity - Israel, Pakistan and India all have nuclear weapons in the area. Iran doesn't. Even the most aggressive warmongers are talking about Iran "developing weapons in a 5-7 year period".
4. Supporting the Iranian people, its exiles, its feminist movement, its socialist opposition against aggression by the Empite is not and cannot be equated with supporting its theocratic regime.
5 Any bull about the SWP supporting the mullahs is ignorant and malicious nonsense - and this comes from a non SWP member who is not particularly enamoured with that organisation's politics.
6. And finally an anti-war stance is an anti-war stance. It's a non aggression stance. It's a stance against the foreign policy of the Empire. The rest is hot air and a diversion. Nobody stops anybody from picketing the Iranian or any other embassy if they wish. We are going to the US Embassy on Saturday May 6th. Period.

by sean Wed Apr 26, 2006 23:40

1 religous fundamentalist is better than an other, is that what you mean mr t.
Also of course theres massive human rights abbuses in Iran and a lack of dem rights. And theyre is a big movement for womens liberation, democratic rights ect at grassroots level in the country. Any attempt at an imperialist power on Iran will stifle this movement. Thats what happens, every1 falls behind the state to fight the bigger enemy ect the us. Therefore the best thing you can do for the movement in Iran is to fight the aggresion on iran and stop the warmongering. and who says this means negating the movement.
Thats the task
Tank girl seems to miss it.

by Mr. T. Wed Apr 26, 2006 22:36

Iran with with a nuclear bomb led by that psychotic hillbilly nutjob president of their is a threat to the very existence of the planet Earth. If I had to invest my shoe leather pounding pavement it would be in front of the Iranian embassy or consulate.

Whatever you think of the Americans, and I find their foreign policy to be (in the mildest terms) imperialist, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD IRAN BE PERMITTED TO BUILD A NUCLEAR ARSENAL, even if it the only way to stop them is to have the Yanks carpet bombing every inch of their country.

by anon Wed Apr 26, 2006 20:54

Jeez I presume nobody even read media lenses article fully, iranfocus.com is hardly a legitmate sources for you TG

by Tank Girl Wed Apr 26, 2006 19:55

Yeah I support a picket at the American embassy but the Iranian one should be picketed as well. Just look at this little gem. The vermin even oppress ten year old girls. We need some GirlPower there fast.

Iran’s police stop 10-year-old girl for “mal-veiling”

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 07 – Iranian police held up a 10-year-old girl in Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport for “mal-veiling”, state-run Persian-language websites reported on Friday.The incident took place Tuesday afternoon as the unnamed girl and her father were in the airport heading to the city of Kerman.

Security officers held up the girl and accused her of wearing too short a manteau – the knee-length over-garment that all women must wear outdoors under Iran’s Islamic laws. The report said that the girl’s father became incensed at the officers’ conduct towards his daughter and began to yell that his daughter knew more about Islam than they did. “What crime has my daughter committed?” he yelled, as he slapped her once out of frustration.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?story...=6629

by Rathmines Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:49

The first place to go is the US Embassy, Iran isnt threatening to invade the US. But you make a valid point about Iran being a dictatorship, their embassy should be picketed as well. But the IAWM is controlled by the SWP and oppressing women, gays and national minorities is ok as long as Muslims are doing it. So no demo at the Iranian embassy by the IAWM.

by rob Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:33

Why not protest outside the Iranian embassy? They are doing a fair spot of warmongering themselves not to mention a small matter of human rights, lack of proper democracy... etc

Or do you only protest when its a nice safe target like the US?

by me Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:07

Recent media-alert from independent media watchdog Medialens. The media alert draws attention to an article on the BBC news website that manipulates an Amnesty International report on the death penalty in order to demonise Iran.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060421_demonising_ir...n.php

The BBC's response to the article can also be found on http://www.medialens.org