Hands off the People of Iran launch meeting

by Yeti Mon Apr 09, 2007 21:14

"Support for socialism, democracy and workers’ control in Iran!"

Why is this giving me a strong feeling of nausea, like being reminded of something unpleasant in the past?

Your group, er, wouldn't happen to be connected to some, er, cult-like membership drives would it?

by whois Mon Apr 09, 2007 21:32

From the Hoopi website

"Organisations sponsoring Hands Off the People of Iran
Campaign for a Marxist Party
Communist Party of Great Britain
Communist Students
Iran Bulletin - Middle East Forum
Iranian Workers Bulletin
Marxistische Initiative / Germany
Movement for Socialism
Organization of Revolutionary Workers of Iran (Rahe Kargar)
Republican Communist Network
Socialist Democracy (Ireland)
Workers Left Unity - Iran "

by CPGB- PC (M-L) Mon Apr 09, 2007 22:32

HOPI is a CPGB front group.

anne mcshane is irelands very own weekly worker corespondent

by Disgusted Mon Apr 09, 2007 23:51

Here we go again with another group of short sighted people who support Iran. Tonight the leader of Iran said they are now enriching nuclear fuel on a massive scale. Proof if ever it was needed that they cannot be trusted.

by Felix Quigley Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:18

If the threat of Ahmadinejad to destroy Israel means anything then Iran with the Nuclear Bomb is a HUGE danger to the lives of 4 millions of Jews in Israel.

This is the state which people in Ireland of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Group refer to as a Paedophile state (Raymond Deane, Aosdana thread on Indymedia)

If you really are a socialist... address the threat to Israel from the Mullah regime.

Otherwise you are frauds.

by T Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:39

The president of Iran, Ahmadinejad has no more power in Iran than Mary McAleese has in Ireland. Any comments or threats he makes can be taken with a pinch of salt.

The Iranians would never be so stupid as to spend billions and billions building 1 or 2 nuclear bombs and then launching it at Israel who would instantly destroy Iran using some of their more than 200 nuclear weapons, some of which are Hydrogen bombs which have enormous explosive power.

by Goblin Tue Apr 10, 2007 14:44

Your talking nonsense.... hands off Iran is a call to stop Imperialist aggression, it is not a call of solidarity with the Mullah regime. I wish to God you 'Iranian Resistance' guys would stop trying to make such tenuous links.

Iran can enrich uranium all it wants, it is within its rights under the Non-proliferation treaty to do so. You can build all the straw men you want and cite a threat to Israel (really, you talk of Socialism and defend Israel...oh boy) which was blown out of all proportion and twisted by the Americans as a call to wipe Israel off the map, when he actually said 'to erase them from the pages of history'. In Arabic the nuances aren’t that subtle and it had a completely different meaning.

You talk of Socialism yet support US/UK aggression against Iran. As I have said before, this WSP enemy of my enemy is my friend rubbish is only giving aid to the Americans amassing support for strikes against Iran. You are actually giving them a reason to do it and under the guise of 'regime change' and the ‘higher moral' ground.

Really Felix, where were you during the build up to GW II?

by Felix Quigley Tue Apr 10, 2007 16:48

Goblin

Your comment above is confusing.

Let me put my position again.

I believe that the Iranian regime has already proved its fascist nature in the actions it has taken against its own folk, communists, trade unionists, youth in general homosexuals and above all women.

Also that as Shia Muslims there is deep Jew hatred mixed in with their politics.

Any agreement with me so far?

I do not wish to argue the translation but your interpretation..wiping "Zionism" from the pages of history ...to me is bad enough.

Your logic re Israeli defence against a nuclear bomb falls down and the Iranians know it, and so should you.

Israel is a tiny land the size of Munster aproximately. And there is Hamas and there is Hisbullah.

The ex-Iranian Minister Rafsanjani has already boasted that ONE nuclear bomb against Israel would be sufficient, and if you know the geography of Munster then you can appreciate the deadly threat in that.

Only one defence now for Israel. Israel must bomb these nuclear facilities. Not a matter if it can or if it wishes to. Israel has no choice.

Now we can see the propaganda against Israel put out by the Israel haters in Ireland for its real meaning.

We can say that when Raymond Deane of the IPSG talks about Israel being a Nazi state, and a "Paedophile" state, (see the Aopsdana thread on Indymedia) he is preparing the way for the possible murder of 4 to 5 million Jewish people, and of course Israeli Arabs as well.

If you were a Jewish person you would not be so complacent.

You would also see the relevance of the Holocaust Denial conference run recently by Ahmadinejad.

But you seem unable to imagine the situation. Why not! You must have a very large prejudice against the Jewish people of Israel...No?

Israel has no choice. It cannot rely on anybody but itself. Israel must make an appeal to the Iranian youth and workers, and explain why it has no choice and that its fight is with the Fascist Revolutionary Guards and the Mullahs.

by Mars Tue Apr 10, 2007 19:44

Felix tells us,

"Israel has no choice. It cannot rely on anybody but itself. Israel must make an appeal to the Iranian youth and workers, and explain why it has no choice and that its fight is with the Fascist Revolutionary Guards and the Mullahs."

This nonsense of blaming the "Mullahs" for an impending attack by Israel is diabolical. Such an attack would result in countless casualties among the civilian population of Iran. According to Felix's logic, it's somehow OK to nuke Arabs but not OK to Nuke Jews. Please explain again Felix why you think it's OK for Israel to bomb and slaughter Arabs and not OK for Arabs to do the opposite. In your own time.

You should also consider the propostion that the reason that the area is in constant strife is because western interests want it so. The west should withdrew, stop arming either side and facilitate a conference of all those living in the area to reach a co-habition agreement. It won't happen though because that would mean the people of the region having normality in which to develop and that would reduce the influence of the western money men.
So instead of being a cheerleader for US/Uk agression, you should be calling on all sides to stop violence and start realistic talking without silly pre-conditions that are designed to strangle such talks at birth. It is just nonsense to say that it is OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons and not Iran. That's simply racism, nothing more.

by Felix Quigley Wed Apr 11, 2007 14:22

Mars

I am happy to answer you but where is Goblin who i addressed directly?

You leave some things out.

Israel is a very small country. GET THIS INTO YOUR THINKING. IT IS NO BIGGER THAN MUNSTER.

THE iRANIANS HAVE BOASTED THAT ALL THEY NEED TO DESTROY iSRAEL IS ONE BOMB. And that appears to be the truth of the matter given the geographical realities.

WHY DID YOU LEAVE THAT OUT?

Mars you seem to be well schooled in the school of falsification.

Israel to survive must strike, but I said the strike must be against the Nuclear facility and a call for solidarity with the Iranian people must be made. The fight is not with the ordinary people of Iran. It is with the Revolutionary Guards who are constructing this Bomb. Or perhaps you think it is all to make electricity!!!

I think and said Israel may have to go it alone without any help from what you call the "West". The Iranian ruling class represented by this Fascist type Mullah regime have threatened Israel, no matter how loosely you define the words of Ahmadinejad. But then there is the Jew hatred as displayed in the Holocaust denying conference of a few mionths ago.

Put yourself in the position of this small nation, the geographical reality of your position. Ask would you not FEEL THREATENED.

The proposal by these Stalinist and other groups seems to be somethiong of a fraud because they omit the danger to Israel from their statement. That amounts to a very deep bias against Israel.

And THERE IS BIAS. This is why I refer you to Mr Deane's comparing Israel to paedophilia, and earlier to people like Mr Anthony McIntyre continual references to Israelis as NAZIS.

by Goblin Wed Apr 11, 2007 14:43

Felix, your a Zionist and whats worse and extremely anxious paranoid one at that. There is absolutely no point in debating you because you will always espouse Iraesli dominance at all costs. I just thought you where a misguided 'Iranian Resistance' supporter but you have clearly advocated a first strike on Iran which moves you into the realm of the chicken hawk madman.

Its one thing saying Israel has the right to exist (which it does) but no country has the right to attack another. Your constant referal to physical geographical ratios is meaningless. Israel possesses a formidable US funded military and an arsenal of Nuclear weapons. The M.A.D. concept applies here and everyone in Iran Knows the consequencies of attacking Israel so spare us all the hysterics.

The US had no right to attack Iraq, Israel has no right to attack Iran you genocidal maniac.

by Old Leftie Wed Apr 11, 2007 14:48

Is this the same Felix I fondly recall as a full time functionary for the workers revolutionary party in belfast in the 70s/ 80s?

by Felix Quigley Wed Apr 11, 2007 16:43

Goblin

Thanks for replying eventually.

I am not hiding anything. I believe that if the Iranian Mullah regime has a h Bomb then Israel is in grave danger. This is from an analysis of the Iranian regime itself.

I mean an ideology which sees no problem in burying ladies up to their neck in clay and then having a mob stone the lady until her head is pulp, and having the actual size of stones laid down by law, then that is a regime which is very dangerous.

Nevertheless, and no matter what you say above, I do believe the basic geographical details do matter. Israel is surrounded completely and is indeed very very small, no bigger than any Irish province.

The history also is important, attacked on so many occasions, in 48, 67, 73 and then following Camp David in the Intifada of Arafat.

by Thomas Müntzer Wed Apr 11, 2007 17:11

Does Munster have a nuclear arsenal? Does it have a secret service that kidnaps people in foreign countries? Does it receive massive financial and military aid from the US?

Goblin is correct. Your geographical comparisons are meaningless. Size is nothing. The Vatican, for example, is the smallest independant nation in the world, but it's still immensely powerful.

And as regards Iran being dangerous: of course the current regime is dangerous, nobody's debating that. But I'd argue that a country which was founded on ethnic cleansing, repeatedly flouts international law, engages in war crimes on an ongoing basis, and has a nuclear arsenal is extremely dangerous. So, by YOUR logic, Arab states have "no choice" but to attack Israel (to clarify, that's not how I feel, it's your logic I'm using here)

by Mars Wed Apr 11, 2007 19:15

Felix
Every word you utter condemns you as a racist and a very dangerous one at that. You articulate a kind of twisted logic that Bush and the preasent Israeli regime will quote to justify their slaughter of Arabs.

You say
"Israel is a very small country. GET THIS INTO YOUR THINKING. IT IS NO BIGGER THAN MUNSTER."

This David and Goliath stuff is irrelevent. Israel has a nuclear arsenal funded by the US that could devastate any Arab country in the region. It has conventional forces that are brimming with the latest killing technology supplied by US/UK. Some helpless David!!!

You go on

"THE iRANIANS HAVE BOASTED THAT ALL THEY NEED TO DESTROY iSRAEL IS ONE BOMB. And that appears to be the truth of the matter given the geographical realities.
WHY DID YOU LEAVE THAT OUT?"

This is poppy cock and I left nothing out. Listen up. This is the facts of the situation.
A first strike from Iran would result in massive retaliation from US and allies. Any first strike from Iran would therefore be suicidal. An Iranian nuclear capability on the other hand, would make Israel think twice before launching an attack as any nuclear retaliation would be devestating. A balance of power would facilitate realistic discussions between all parties in the region.

And then this gem

"Mars you seem to be well schooled in the school of falsification."

This is nothing but the usual retreat of the propagandist: name calling and false accusations

And then this,
"Israel to survive must strike, but I said the strike must be against the Nuclear facility and a call for solidarity with the Iranian people must be made. The fight is not with the ordinary people of Iran. It is with the Revolutionary Guards who are constructing this Bomb. Or perhaps you think it is all to make electricity!!!"

What is the mindset of an idividual that uses such purile nonsense to egg on an attack on a country that would result in countless thousands of civilian catualties?

The rest of the post is the same repititious crap. Any sane, civilised person would be calling on all parties in the region to dismantle any nuclear weapons they and especially ISRAEL because it's barbaric invasion of Lebonan demonstarted that the current Israeli leadership have no value on Arab lives

Nobody, and that includes Israel, can afford to have friends like Felix. Alas we know from bitter experience that there are a few Felix's in the bowels of Bush's adminstartion trotting out the same dangerous nonsense. The evidence of that we are forced to witness every evening on the News.

by Felix Quigley Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:31

Leaving aside the insults, Mars, and there are plenty, you write above:

"A first strike from Iran would result in massive retaliation from US and allies. Any first strike from Iran would therefore be suicidal. An Iranian nuclear capability on the other hand, would make Israel think twice before launching an attack as any nuclear retaliation would be devestating. A balance of power would facilitate realistic discussions between all parties in the region. "

The "balance of power" was the essence of the "cold war" etc. But does it apply to Islam as it is presented to us today in Algeria and was presented in Israel when suicide murderers blew themselves up in order to murder ordinary people (In Algeria and in Israel)also.

Mars I feel you really do need to research some of the ideas behind this Islamist regime in Iran, the return of the Mahdi, the creation of chaos which would facilitate this longed for return.

On a connected point, in answer to your quite absurd namecalling of racist etc...I distinguish very sharply between this Islamist regime and the ordinary people of Iran.

You also continue to leave out of your thinking the threats made against Israel and combined with those threats the vicious Jew Hatred which has come from the Ahmadinejad regime. In this you have left out the Holocaust denial conference organized by the Mullah regime.

No I feel "geography" is a factor here.

You still have not taken aboard that Israel can be wiped out by ONE strike. Why are you not able to take that on board My question to you and your readers is does that represent a deep bias and prejudice against the people of Israel!

Mars I will not call you racist or antisemitic. I prefer to draw out your objective position and allow readers, to draw their own thoughtful conclusions.

No I maintain that Israel simply cannot allow the Mullah regime to have a H Bomb and the situation must be explained by Israel to the youth, the workers, the trade unionists, the homosexuals in Iran to try to understand the position of Israel and appeal for their support. The best solution is for the Iranians to overthrow the dictatorship but ISRAEL CANNOT DEPEND ON THAT. FOR ISRAEL IT IS AN EXISTENTIAL ISSUE.

by Mars Thu Apr 12, 2007 13:36

Felix says,
"No I maintain that Israel simply cannot allow the Mullah regime to have a H Bomb"

So Israel are the new world dictators. They can have nuclear weapons, but no one else. Are you seriously putting that forward as fair and reasoned agruement.

You go on,
"and the situation must be explained by Israel to the youth, the workers, the trade unionists, the homosexuals in Iran to try to understand the position of Israel and appeal for their support."

And having explained, Israel will blow the be jaysus out of them and their country and they will fully understand. More fair and sophisticated agruement?

Then encouraging noises,

"The best solution is for the Iranians to overthrow the dictatorship"

The only rational commit you have ever made

You then revert to kind with,

" but ISRAEL CANNOT DEPEND ON THAT. FOR ISRAEL IT IS AN EXISTENTIAL ISSUE"

Which means that Felix believes that if Israel doesn't nuke Iran their existance is in jeopardy. Felix as explained before, the Mullahs might be mad, but you will find that they are not that mad that they would order a first strike in the full knowledge that retaliation would be swift and literally wipe their world out of existance.

The reason that Israel do not want Iran or any other Arab country to get Nuclear weapons is to do with the negotating position. He who holds the royal flush cannot be bluffed into submission. Is anything getting through?
I call on you as a fellow human being to stop putting forward a case to justify what you are advocating.

by Felix Quigley Thu Apr 12, 2007 16:23

Mars

Thanks for reply.

However you twist what I said. That is a very unsatisfactory way to argue. But you will not succeed in that way in blocking what I say. Only the editors can do that and I feel that there is enough principle in anarchism that that will not happen.

Also people will notice that you call me racist etc but I do not respond like that.

For example I said strike at the bomb making facilities and there only Fascist Revolutionary Guards with Holocaust of Jews on their minds are involved.

There is a difference between Iran and Israel. The difference is between Judaism and Islam.

What exists in Iran is a Fascist leadership which is imbued with Jew hatred. That is shown in the Holocaust denial conference and also in the threat which Ahmadinejad made against Israel, what ever way you translate that it amounts to an existential issue for Israel.

Why do you ignore those things?

Next thing I insist on despite the remarks made that Israel is well armed is that it is small. Very small.

That reality has to be got across to Irish readers. The smallness of Israel from a geographical standpoint has been obscured. I am certain of that.

I said to you that you need to make an analysis of the ideology behind Iranian Fascism. It is not just directed against its own people, against Communists, against trade unions and against women, IT IS ALSO DIRECTED AGAINST JEWS.

I think so far this is not too difficult to follow and I bet there is a lot of agreement in Ireland on these issues.

Then you began to distort.

I did not say that Israel would attack Iran as you suggest. I did say that Israel must knock out the Iranian ability to make a H Bomb.

It will go either of two ways.

I do not think the US will assist Israel. The US has an alliance with Islam which is what was learned in the support of the US for Ahmadinejad in Bosnia, an out and out fascist Islamist.

Israel will strike alone and will strike very hard against the Iranian Guards who are making these weapons.

I am confident that Israel despite its present atrocious leaders will succeed.

Israel will be successful. Israel will do its utmost that not a single Iranian person not associated with this Holocaust preparation in Iran and led by Ahmadinejad will be hurt.

When you suggest otherwise you show your hatred for Israel, and indeed for Jews, because Israel is the Homelnad of the Jewish people.

OR

Israel will not do so.

There will indeed be a Holocaust, another, of Jews in which many millions of Jews will die.

That is how I think it will go.

Mars you be as smart as you like.

You twist my words as you like. I have put down what I believe is the future.

One of two choices. I will always stand with Israel and with the Jewish people.

by PaddyK Thu Apr 12, 2007 17:04

But Felix, you ARE racist. You shamlessly said without even noticing :

- Also that as Shia Muslims there is deep Jew hatred mixed in with their politics. -

The fact that somebody called you a Zionist is what causes other people to say Zionism = Racism. In fairness to Zionism I dont think you could be a Zionist of any description. Just one more who hides behind the Jewish people and picks fights for them.

by Mars Thu Apr 12, 2007 18:54

Felix, two small things that must be squared. You say that,

"Next thing I insist on despite the remarks made that Israel is well armed is that it is small. Very small."
You then state that,

"Israel will strike alone and will strike very hard against the Iranian Guards who are making these weapons."

So here we have tiny little defenceless Israel who somehow has the capacity to "strike very hard" at the big bad Iranian wolf. And like the ridiculous statements that we were subjected to when the US invaded Iraq, the bombs will only explode when they identify the bad guys. If innocent men, women and children are present, the smart bombs will harmlessly self distruct. Oh dear, how soon have we forgotten the three hundred women and children sheltering in a bunker that was penetrated by one of the smart bombs but alas the silly thing must have got confused and the result, the slaughter of innocence. We were also told that the invasion was not directed at the Iraqi people but the leadership, much the same guff that you are now spouting, Felix. Care to hazard a guess at the civilian casuality rate in Iraqi to-date?
One other small point, Felix. You profess to have knowledge of the history and the current situation in the general area. Are you seriously suggesting that Israel would attack Iran without the permission of the US?. If you think that, you know nothing. Everything you say is motivated by something other than informed reason. I have sussed what that is and so have oothers.
You say that people that disagree with you are anti-Jew. I have never advocated that anyone should invade Israel nor will I ever. That Felix is the most significant difference between our positions.

by Anne McShane - Hands off the People of Iran Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:36 anne at hopoi dot info

Just to say that:

(a) The campaign calls for solidarity with the Iranian people, not the regime. Look at the website for details of the kind of struggles that are going on in Iran that should be supported by all progressives, democrats and yes socialists.

(b) Yes the CPGB is involved in the campaign but so are a number of other organisations and individuals, including significant organisations from the Iranian left and academics and MPs as well as the chair of Labour Youth in Ireland.

So come along to the meetings and listen and take part, rather than dismiss the campaign out of cynicism or silly sectarianism.

by CPGB watch Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:21

'rather than dismiss the campaign out of cynicism or silly sectarianism"
which is what the CPGB do for any campaign that has ever been launched

by Felix Quigley Fri Apr 13, 2007 13:00

Ms mcShane

I am in full support of social revolution in Iran and to overthrow the Mullah regime and dictatorship.

I wrote that I found your statement hypocritical and fraudulent because nowhere in it do you mention that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to israel. The central issue being its building of the H bomb. And its promotion and supply of Hamas and the Hizbullah.

So where do you stand on the issue anyway?

by Felix Quigley Fri Apr 13, 2007 13:20

Mars

No I did not say Israel was defenceless. You really have to apply more rigour in your quotations.

Thank goodness the Jewish people have learned the necessity to defend themselves from barbarism.

You never did address the point I made earlier. israel was attacked on the very next day after it was founded in 1948.

I do not think there is such a similar event in history.

So nobody cannot say that Israel does not have an understanding of being invaded and attacked.

No I said and I maintain that Israel being very tiny geographically is extremely vulnerable. Hence the need for a strong army with advanced weaponry. I do not understand why it is so hard for you to acknowledge that. Even the merest glance at any map of the area will show that. But still, that has been hidden by the ISM in Ireland.

Hence also my central point. Israel can not allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

You write above

" Everything you say is motivated by something other than informed reason. I have sussed what that is and so have oothers.
You say that people that disagree with you are anti-Jew. I have never advocated that anyone should invade Israel nor will I ever. That Felix is the most significant difference between our positions."

Do try to keep your cool! Don't lose it at this stage.

What have you sussed? Who are the others? This is a public forum why the mystery?

You do talk about invasion. But you do not refer to the invasion of Israel in 1948 on the day after it was born, BY FIVE ARAB ARMIES.

Why not?

What has Iraq got to do with what I have written except that the Iraqi war has definitely strengthened Iran!

You can call me racist or whatever. No matter. But that is a reality. You may not like it but Israel in its assessment of Iranian regime believes it has NO choice.

But I do await your answer on what you have "sussed".

by Mars Fri Apr 13, 2007 14:01

Felix,

What I have sussed is that you are a racist. You condemn yourself repeatedly with comments like this,

"Thank goodness the Jewish people have learned the necessity to defend themselves from -
barbarism."

You ask silly irrelevent questions to justify egging on an Israeli attack on Iran such as,

"You never did address the point I made earlier. israel was attacked on the very next day after it was founded in 1948. I do not think there is such a similar event in history."

They were in the process of displacing thousands of people who had lived there for centuries. Are you surprised? As regards no similiar event in history, the arbitary creation of the Isreali state was also such an event

And then this gem again,

"No I said and I maintain that Israel being very tiny geographically is extremely vulnerable. Hence the need for a strong army with advanced weaponry. I do not understand why it is so hard for you to acknowledge that. Even the merest glance at any map of the area will show that. But still, that has been hidden by the ISM in Ireland."

I thought the Israeli army is supposed to be a "defensive" force. At least now that myth has been put to sleep. The Israeli military is an offensive army., is that true Felix

And again, one is chalk the other cheese,

"Hence also my central point. Israel can not allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb."

If Israel is entitled to have nuclear weapons, so is every one else. This statement of yours is indefensible and those who make are racist

You finish with an extraordinary flourish,

"You can call me racist or whatever. No matter. But that is a reality. You may not like it but Israel in its assessment of Iranian regime believes it has NO choice."

So according to you Felix Israel has already decided that it will attack Iran. Have you their war rooms bugged? Are you a member of Mossad? A lseeper?

You sure are a dangerous waffler but an intriguing one at that. Heres hoping Israel have more astute advisors

by Felix Quigley Fri Apr 13, 2007 16:23

Mars

You are very good at jumping to conclusions and throwing insults such as racist about. You seem to be very racist yourself towards the Jewish people. The Arabs have 22 states. Are the Jewish people not allowed one.

Many on Indymedia from the ISM are accustomed to slandering Israel. They really do not like to be challenged.

Then the insults fly. Never mind.

I do not advise anybody. I as an Irish person very sympathetic to the Jewish people and simply give my views.

Once I did fall for the Palestinian myth, I am sad to say. Then I started to research the issue in depth and guess what, I came to the conclusion that the lies were all on the Arab side.

And I can prove it. And I will. But obviously not here right now.

The Iranian regime is Fascist. It has liquidated as one of its first moves the Communist Party of Iran (Stalinist). Waged war on the Iranian trade union movement. Its asttitude to women and womens rights is the worst in the whole world and is a clear product of Islam. You obviously know nothing about this evil religion cum politico philosophy.

It has moved on to create a clerical based dictatorship over the Iranian people.

Part of its programme is the destruction of Israel. As such it lines up with Hamas and Fatah who both have written into their constitution the destruction of Israel.

These are all facts and you can challenge them if you like Mars, but I will just come back with the quoted proofs, sourced up to the skies.

However Israel does have an army and a very poor leadership in the Kadima party, but that will be replaced by democratic means shortly I would predict.

Mars you really are a pueriloe idiot. Who ever heard of a defensive only army. What an utterly stupid person and total phoney you are.

The Israaeli Army, as all armies, is both defensive and offensive.

My view, the best form of defence is attack.

In relation to Iran, the IDF should destroy the Iranian bomb making facility without delay. It should make every effort to not attack Iranian civilians.

by Mars Fri Apr 13, 2007 18:50

It's not possible to carry on this stuff. I was fearful that the view that you espouse maybe a genuine conclusion derived from intelligent ,sane analysis. In that scenario, it required to be challanged. But that is clearly not the case. You are speaking from a position of racism and hatred. A warmongers cheerleader.But that's your problem.
And just to be clear, I have never called for any aggression toward Israel and have consistantly called for discussions to reach agreement on peaceful co-existance. I am of the view however, that Israel will not enter meaningfull discussions so long as the US ensures that the balance of power on the groud is stacked heavily in Israels favour.

Just two other small points;
You say that,

"The Israeli Army, as all armies, is both defensive and offensive."

Clearly history tells us that the Israeli army is offensive. As I stated last time the myth that the Israeli's are only interested in self defence is now sundered. They have proved to be as aggressive, as brutal and as racist as any military force that has gone before

Your assertion that "all armies" are both defensive and offensive is more poppycock. Many armies in the world to-day are purely defensive and deliberately only arm to defend.

And as usual a piece of nonsense straight from the script of a John Wayne flick, ( Only difference is of course, that nobody actually dies in a Wayne movie)

"In relation to Iran, the IDF should destroy the Iranian bomb making facility without delay. It should make every effort to not attack Iranian civilians."

This is firstly pure propaganda, You have no evidence whatever that Iran is "bomb making" and I again remind you of the WMD lies that we were told justified the attack on Iraq. And as I have previously stated, If it's OK for Israel to have nuclear bombs, then it's OK for Iran to have them. To deny this, is to support the dictatorship of one nation over another. Again, racism.
And the smart bomb pipedream emeges again. Attack the bombs but don't hurt any Iranians.
Will you get in out of the sun before you do yourself further harm.

And finally Felix, IDF stands for Israeli DEFENCE Force. More lies?

by Felix Quigley Sat Apr 14, 2007 14:16

Because on one key issue, you REFUSE TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE jEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL WAS ATTACKED BY 5 ARAB ARMIES ON THE VERY NEXT DAY AFTER IT WAS SET UP BY THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

A very simply thing, a simple fact. But it is something you simply cannot address.

Nor can Deane and Youlton and others around the Irish ISM (Irish Palestine Solidarity Group)

And FINALLY if you know anything about warfare, very often the best form of defence is attack.

In the case of the Fascist Mullah regime the old saying must be amended a little. Here in dealing with Fascists and ANTISEMITES (remember Mars the Holocaust denying conference, another thing you did not and apparently cannot address) of the Ahmadinejad Mullah controlled regime it is not just the best form of defence, IT IS THE ONLY FORM OF DEFENCE.

BECAUSE AS SOON AS THE FASCIST GOVERNMENT IN IRAN IS ARMED WITH A H BOMB IT IS ALL OVER FOR THE JEWISH STATE.

That Mars and people like you cannot grasp for two reasons

1. You are HORRIBLY BIASSED against Israel, the Jewish Homeland

2. You are EQUALLY HORRIBLY BIASSED in favour of the Iranian Fascist regime

by Felix Quigley Sat Apr 14, 2007 14:30

To return to the statement at the top of this thread

I read the statement that these various groups making up the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign, mainly Stalinist in political complexion, put out.

It begins with a picture of a very brave student holding a placard opposing Ahmadinejad speaking at their university. He has not hidden his face. He places himself in great danger. His picture if not already will be in the files of the murderous “Revolutionary” Guards.

Yassamine Mather who visits Ireland on a speaking tour ends her introduction like this:

“The Iranian left, unlike the British government, was not expecting any 'gifts' or secret negotiations with the Revolutionary Guards and their fascist leaders, yet at the time they did expect socialist solidarity from the British left and it is unfortunate that very few took a principled stand on this issue and even fewer are prepared to take a principled stand today.
US/UK aggression in the region is indefensible, yet the Iranian government, who welcomed 'Bush style 'regime change' in Iraq and Afghanistan' is not in any position to take the moral high ground. Those sections of the anti-war movement who in their justified opposition to US/UK imperialism refuse to take a principled stand against a right wing, obscurantist Islamic regime in Iran are doing more harm to genuine revolutionary anti-imperialism in the region than they think. They will remain forever apologists of an indefensible, rightwing Islamist government in Iran unless they take a stand against both US/UK troops but also against conformist, reactionary, capitalist political Islam in Iran in constant negotiations and secret dealings with imperialism.
Yassamine Mather
(Hopoi member)

Mather could be talking about any of the ISM types who hang around the Irish anti-war movement led by Youlton and Deane, who have in the recent year given all kinds of cover for this Fascist Iranian regime. Mather is also correct in pointing out that the Iranian Fascists have been in league with the US and EU, especially though she doe not say it, in Bosnia. There the US and EU, supported by political reactionaries like Oliver Kamm weighed in behind the openly and fanatical Islamist Izetbegovic, who had been a supported of the Nazis in Yugoslavia during the Holocaust of Serbs, Jews and Romany in the years from 1941 to 1945.

The main body of the statement titled “No to the THEOCRATIC regime” (my emphasis for the benefit of Youlton and Deane) is:

“The pretext of external threats has been cynically used to justify increased internal repression. The regime’s security apparatus has been unleashed on its political opponents, workers, women and youth. The rising tide of daily working class anti-capitalist struggles has been met with arrests, the ratification of new anti-labour laws and sweeping privatisations. Under the new Iranian government, military-fascist organisations are gaining political and military strength, posing an ominous threat to the working class and democratic opposition.

Paradoxically, the US/UK invasion of Iraq has actually increased the regional influence of Iran’s rulers - it lead to the election of the pro-Iranian Shia government currently in power in Baghdad.

This means that any support from the anti-war movement for the reactionaries who currently govern Iran and repress its people is in effect indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq.”

The last sentence above, ANY SUPPORT FOR THE IRANIAN FASCISTS is most significant in the Irish ISM renegades and in the Irish anti-war movement. Again Micheal Youlton and Raymond Deane should in all sincerity be asked to read this aloud at every street corner in every town and village in Ireland, because for a year now they have been spreading exactly the opposite message. What a crew they are …CALLING THEMSELVES SOCIALISTS.

I FIND THE DEMANDS WHICH THE PREDOMINANTLY STALINISTS LEADING THIS CAMPAIGN MOST SIGNIFICANT AND AFTER NOTING THEIR DEMANDS I WILL EXPLAIN WHY:

• “Our campaign demands:

No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime!
The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from the Gulf region!
Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression!
Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against the poverty and repression!
Support for socialism, democracy and workers’ control in Iran!
For a nuclear-free Middle East in a nuclear-free world!

The totally fraudulent nature of these Stalinists like Yassamine Mather is expressed in these demands and it is vital that they are comprehensively challenged.

At this point in time in Iran the most forward and the most thinking of the revolutionary youth are perturbed above all by two things. They are:

• That the President of their country Ahmadinejad has organized the Holocaust Denial conference of a few months back in which every world antisemite was brought to Iran to deny the greatest crime that humanity has ever perpetrated. I refer of course to the so-called Final Solution in which the Nazis attempted to wipe out the Jewish race, the ultimate act in antisemitism

• That the same reactionary Islamofascist pygmy has threatened to wipe Israel off the map just as he goes full belt to produce 100 H Bombs.

That is what these Stalinists have omitted. Rather a lot isn’t it!

But more, in their statement of demands above, they have actually joined in the antisemitic bandwagon of Ahmadinejad.

This is contained in their demand above “Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression!”

Yet they do not say WHAT expansionism. It is a lie from these Stalinists and it shows that (as was the Tudeh party before) they are on the side of the Islamists.

Everybody on the Left knows that the Tudeh Party betrayed the revolutionary youth in Iran by supporting at the crucial stage the Fascist cleric Khomeini. That did not save them. They got massacred by the reactionary Islamic clerics as well, after the youth had met their fate at the hands of the Islamist Gestapo the Revolutionary Guards of Khomeini.

I would sincerely advise Ms Mather to have a look at the constitutions of both Fatah and Hamas to understand what expansionism is. They do not want a Jewish state period in the Middle East period.

She also might read up on the bellicose demands of Ahmadinejad in his calls for Jews of Israel to be transported to Europe.

There is nothing expansionist about Israel. The expansionism is all on the part of reactionary and Imperialist Islam. Just ask the Berbers or the Darfurese or even travel further down and have a word with the Christian Nigerians!

And if Israel was expansionist then why did it have to defend itself from 5 Arab armies on its soil on the very NEXT day after it was founded. Such an event has NEVER HAPPENED TO ANY OTHER SECTION OF HUMANITY. I mean the expansionist Islamist Arabs did not wait a single day. They attacked on the very FIRST DAY. What a welcome to the Jewish state tiny as it then was, no more the size of Munster, if that, and certainly less than one tenth of the original League of Nations territory for the Jews in 1920.

by old leftie Sat Apr 14, 2007 21:13

I asked earlier if this was the same beloved felix who worked for the WRP (widely recognised as a bizarre political cult, run by a madman - one Gerry Healy) as a full time organiser in the 70 and 80s in belfast. it would appear it is, as felix's silence on the question would attest. well, felix, this suggests to me that you have just lurched from one preposterous mindset into another one....

Maybe someday ratiuonal politisc will intrude into your mindset.

by Mars Mon Apr 16, 2007 08:53

old leftie askes,
"if this was the same beloved felix who worked for the WRP (widely recognised as a bizarre political cult, run by a madman - one Gerry Healy) as a full time organiser in the 70 and 80s in belfast"

You'll have to wait till Felix gets behind his (probably government) desk for a response. In any event, he is thoroughly exposed as a bigot. His rantings would be funny if they were not so cold, calculating and sinister. It is not often that one meets such an ardent advocate of the "pre-emptive strike" and it is particularly chilling when the call is to attack a people that have little or no means of defence against the array of weaponary that would to be used against them. While it may to some extent be understandable that a person living in Israel might develop such lethal hatred of fellow human beings because they happen to be Arabs, it is totally incomprehensible that a rational sane person living thousands of miles away would have the capacity to develop a similair trait. Maybe it's a legacy of the irrational hatred that some living in certain areas of the country seemed to revel in, mainly the bowler hatted variety. Maybe there are those that are on the look out for someone elese to hate now that some level of sanity has returned to our own shores.

Old lefties parting hope that, "Maybe someday rational politics will intrude into your mindset" is, I fear, a forlorn one.

by pat c Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:23

Well I take a week off and I miss a good fight. I take my hat off to Goblin & Mars for your spirited ripostes to Felix. Dont see Felix as any supporter of the Iranian Resistance, certainly not a supporter of the Socialist Resistance. Felix comes across as (literally) a raving Zionist. All of the UPPERCASE doesn't help him either.

I don't believe that a Socialist government in Iran would be interested in developing nuclear weapons but neither would it be a friend to the Zionist Israeli state.

The fact that the CPGB is involved in this solidarity group is irrelevant. I am not a Leninist but I will certainly support this initiative.

by Felix Quigley Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:54

I repeat the simple question which the Irish ISM has kept hidden for so long:

"if Israel was expansionist then why did it have to defend itself from 5 Arab armies on its soil on the very NEXT day after it was founded. Such an event has NEVER HAPPENED TO ANY OTHER SECTION OF HUMANITY. I mean the expansionist Islamist Arabs did not wait a single day. They attacked on the very FIRST DAY. "

by old leftie Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:59

Felix

When you type in capitals on a forum such as this, rather than add emphasis to your points, IT JUST FEELS THAT YOU ARE SHOUTING AT EVERYONE. I presume that this is not quite what you intend, but it may be a bad HANGOVER FROM YOUR DAYS IN THE WRP, when shouting at people was your dominant activity.

My fondest regards....

by Felix Lighter Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:01

Felix you CANNOT face up to the REALITY that when people start USING capital letters REPEATEDLY throughout their posts it is a TELLTALE SIGN that they are incapable of arguing RATIONALLY in favour of their POINT OF VIEW. It is the cyber EQUIVALENT of banging your FIST on the TABLE and FROTHING at the MOUTH it will lead INEXORABLY to your points being DISMISSED as the RAVINGS of an intolerant FANATIC so give it a REST PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Apr 16, 2007 13:22

Welcome back PatC.

I too have followed the 'debate' in this thread with care since AMcS posted her original message re:the Belfast meeting. How did that meeting go? Are there Dublin and Cork meetings planned?

I also read with extreme interest the ranting from FQ who in his very personalised 'direct' and 'unflinching' style, including a good spread of CAPS designed for emphasis no doubt, tried to defend the indefensible re:Israel and in the process trying to divert the debate away from Iran into a defence of Zionism.

Despite being attacked and vilified by name, amongst others, I declined to partake in responding to FQ - particularly as a good number of reasonable people tried to debate with him- with little effect. It was also instructive to read the messages re: FQs work in Belfast a few good years back as part of the WRP - a dogmatic and virulent grouplet if there ever was one.

Then I visited FQ's personal blogspot. I read with interest how he had accused RD of the Sunday Tribune of being "pro-Palestinian"...a false accusation by all accounts akin to accusing the Minister of Injustice of being a revolutionary socialist....RD is nothing of the sort.....FQ, and the portal he was writing in apologised to RD. All the above, for those of you interested, can be found in http://www.isill.blogspot.com/ !

However, what is important politically is to situate FQ in very 'elit' group of Irish based intellectuals, along with David McWilliams and Richard Wag...... of the Freedom Institute and now a pen pusher in some of the tabloids, who are on record of having openly advocated for Israel to nuke Iran on a first strike basis "for existential reasons" as they put it.

This is a very dangerous and poisonous position to hold in the current cauldron of the Middle East......To give you a fuller picture of what FQ really believes re:the situation in Israel itself, I will quote him verbatim from his blogspot:

"......the Islamofascists of Iran and their Hezbollah proxies, the Jew-haters in the Palestinian Arab ranks, often think they are superior. The weakness of Israel has been the theme of the Iranian Fascists for some months now. But in this case what they left out of their equation was the nature of the Israeli people. This is also a people of struggle and a people of principle, just like the army that they formed back in 1948.

We are entering a new period where the ordinary people of every country, not just Israel, can come forward. The ordinary British can reach back into their Cromwellian and revolutionary past, the Irish can reach back towards the Padraic Pearse and James Connolly 1916 principles of struggle against the British Imperialists led by Asquith and Maxwell, and above all others the American people can reach back into the principles laid down by their glorious American Revolution, with its ideas of Liberty which led on to the French Revolution, and laid down the basis for the American Constitution.

But more than anybody realises, these events are going to revolutionise the thinking of Israelis. Expect a situation of dual power to develop with the IDF taking the lead more and more from bankrupt politicians such as Peretz. In turn the IDF will become more and more political and the line between politics and war is going to break down totally. War is politics, politics is war by another name. Expect also the Israeli youth to come forward. And Peretz, Peres, Bush, or whoever had better get used to the idea that a Palestine State era is over. In short Israeli politics will be revolutionised totally.

All that needs to be given conscious expression in leadership. Our task! " - end of quote.

Imagine a State of Israel, riddled with contradictions as it is, with the IDF 'taking the lead' and with people like FQ and his cronies in leadership positions.......even the word nightmare would not be strong enough to describe such an eventuality!!

by iranian blogs :-) Mon Apr 16, 2007 19:27

http://blogsbyiranians.com

by Mars Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:20

Just wondered has Felix any comment on the growing use of "modesty buses" in Israel in which women must move to the back of the bus. In short, gender segragation.

by Felix Quigley Wed Apr 25, 2007 14:04

Mars

How many such buses are in operation? Who runs the buses. State or Private?

Read Naomi Regan on this. It is a horrific idea. Not good at all.

But not the same as suicide killers, ie barbarians, blowing up buses full of ordinary Arabs and jews!

What do you Mars call a suicide killer...is barbarian a good description?

By the way you ask me any more questions mars bar give me your name please, then it is level ground, you have mine.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Apr 25, 2007 15:57

Mr Quigley,
Who we are in Irish (and international( politics) and what we're seen as being, by friends and foes alike, is largely determined by our past and current activities, and our stance and political positions today. You may or may not know Richard Wag or David McWilliams but your position for Israel's need to nuke Iran, and its nuclear facilties, is identical to theirs. Richard has gone further, and in a public debate on Iran organised by the iawm a few months ago, argued openly that if a few thousand Iranians were killed as a result, this was a risk worth taking.....he didn't elaborate on the future environmental and health mayhem that would ensue! David, on the other hand, espouses the same point of view - he made that clear in a recent Conference. So I am not "lumping" you with those heads - you just happen to have and share the same political position. Which is a sucidal stance in my opinion.
As to my personal stance on Iran - I am going to include here an article I drafted for the members of the iawm, a few days after the captured British sailors and marines came home. Read it carefully and figure my stance.....

PS You keep referring to the ISM - what is the ISM? Please clarify for to the best of my knowledge neither I nor the other comrades you mention by name belong or have even heard of such an organisation....

..............

“In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.”
from Seymour Hersch’s ‘The Strategic Shift’

“I would say the likelihood of a military action against Iran is 100%!”
Frank Gaffney – US Defence Department quoted in International Herald Tribune - April 5th

As the 15 British sailors and marines captured and held captive in Iran for nearly two weeks are back home, and the tone re: ‘What to do about Iran’ shifts internationally, it is no doubt a good moment for us, in the anti-war movement, to reflect and discuss the political situation developing in the region.
Though the issues at hand are highly volatile and complex, in this article I will concentrate on a number of limited issues:
· The timing of the capture of the Britons
· Britain’s tempered response and rhetoric – comparisons with the US position
·

The timing of the capture of the Britons and Iran’s political configuration and response to the crisis

The capture of the 15 British sailors and marines was no accident. It followed the passage of a UN resolution censuring Iran for its “nuclear infractions” and came as the US dispatched aircraft carriers to the Gulf as well as American interference and threats towards Iranian banks. Iran, through the capture, the media campaign with the captives, and the subsequent (and largely unexpected) release, sent a pointed message to its adversaries: just as it will meet confrontation with confrontation, it will also respond to what it perceives as flexibility with pragmatism. This latter pragmatism is a message worth heeding for the US/British alliance that seems to be moving inexorably towards conflict – I believe it is not ‘a sign of weakness and capitulation by the mullahs‘ as some anti-Islamic ideologues close at home would have it.

Although the Bush administration has been busy proclaiming that its confrontational policy towards Iran is “a success”, Teheran’s straight forward political, some say “unsubtle”, conduct in this crisis suggests otherwise. The ruling elites of Iranian society today, particularly the islamic sects, see regional stability in their interest. They seek, and at times achieve, influence within the existing power structures in the Middle East.

Iran has improved its relations with its Gulf neighbours throughout the 1990s and, it particular, managed to normalise its relations with Saudi Arabia – its main Sunni adversary in the region. Let us note that Iran opposed the Taliban and while, not actively a participant, supported the ‘stabilisation’ of Afghanistan and even Iraq – during the early phases of the occupation. In this context, we have to ask ourselves the impact further conflict will have on Iran’s foreign policy and whether such an impact would be a change for the worse or better both for the Iranian people as well as the people of the region.

Another element worth taking into consideration is the fact that for most Iranians, living in Iran, the likelihood of the United States launching an attack on their country appears as a very distant possibility. The country is not on a war footing. Most Iranians dismiss the possibility of an American assault. This attitude has its roots not only on the political other-wordliness of the Bush position (an attitude shared, incidentally by most Irish people and for the same reasons) but also because of the fact that most Iranians get their news from state-run media. The Iranian government is very careful in allowing public access to foreign-based sources – there have recently been a number of raids on satellite dishes and websites are routinely filtered.

The official view in Iran, at the moment, is that “the Global Arrogance” of the US must be courageously opposed and the right of Iran to peaceful nuclear energy must be protected. This is why, for example, the support of international leaders like Chavez from Venezuela and Mugabe from Zimbabwe, is given huge prominence while the US is shown as being blocked by growing domestic opposition and its self-inflicted calamity in Iraq.

I have always been favourably struck by the impressive cultural self-consciousness of Iranians. Their pride in the legacy of the Persian Empire and its 2,500 years of history is only matched, in my opinion, by similar attitudes of modern Greeks. After all, Iran was invaded by the Macedonians (Alexander), by the Arabs, by the Mongols and the Ottomans. It was attacked by the Afghans and Iraqis, and occupied by Britain and Russia. Iran has survived all of that and its belief that it will live through anything more that the world may throw at it certainly appears to have a sound historical basis.

Most Iranians consider the current conflict as another ‘episode’ in a global power game. For many, particularly the thriving professional and business classes which contrary to many shibboleths includes a great number of women, the nuclear debate is another great power intervention in Iranian politics....Like the 1953 Coup orchestrated by American and British spooks that swept aside the popular nationalist prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, because he tried to nationalise Iran’s oil industry, then controlled and exploited by the British.

To summarise, after 28 years of sanctions and containment, I think it is time to accept that this multiform pressure has not tempered Iran’s strategy and political attitudes. The unexpected release of the British captives, however, shows that the Islamic Republic is still willing, and capable, of mitigating its ideology with pragmatism. There is a lesson for us in the West there.

To conclude I would like to consider a couple of statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security to the Carter administration and extremely influential in the first Clinton administration through his pupil Madeleine Albright. I think they explain adequately some recent shifts of US policy:

“To keep the barbarians from coming together, to prevent collusion and maintain security, the most pressing task is through manoeuvre and manipulation to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition…those who must be divided and ruled are Germany, Russia and Iran as well as Japan and China”
quoted by G.Achcar in ‘Rasputin plays at chess’ p.72 by Verson 2000

It was Brzezinski too who infamously defended US support for the Taliban: “ What is more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe?”

There is no doubt that the above very rough analytical lines need further discussion and precision. I know we will not falter in this task.

Britain’s tempered response and rhetoric – comparisons with the US position

Had the British followed the American example, once the sailors and marines were captured, they could have escalated the conflict by pursuing the matter more forcefully at the United Nations or sending additional naval forces into the Gulf. Instead, they tempered their rhetoric and insisted that diplomacy was the only means of resolving the conflict. I was struck by how quick the Foreign Office was on Sunday in stressing that the use of the concept of ‘hostages’ used by Bush himself and some of the bellicose media, did not meet with the approval of the British administration.

There are conflicting analyses on the reasons why…some are arguing that the British Army is hard pushed as it is with its involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq to even consider a further escalation. As these lines are being written, questions are being raised in the British media about the objectives of the ‘routine operation’ by the marines and sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, how they came to be captured, or the behaviour of some of the (former) captives and whether they were properly trained to either defend themselves or how to behave under interrogation. Others have suggested that the original operation was planned so as to force the Iranians into precipitate action and this create an environment for further escalation.

The whole debate of Iran, and particularly the arrest and captivity of the marines and sailors, has rekindled the tug – of – war between the two competing schools of foreign affairs in the US itself and their echoes across the Atlantic. The choices faced by Americans at the outset of both World War I and II have resurfaced. On the one hand, there is the dominant ‘Atlanticist’ and aggressively interventionist global current, fiercely fuelled by a whole cabal of neo-cons, and on the other there is a ‘Jacksonian’ America-first isolationist current pulling policy makers in different directions.

The gunboat diplomacy and the resulting ‘war on terror’ was the expression of the political dominance of the Atlanticist current. The with-us-or-against-us attitude of the Bush administration effectively divided what has been called ‘the West’ and underlies the calamity of the Iraq invasion. The interventionist current is now looking at Iran, with all the talk about the nuclear menace, as a potential anti-Iraq palliative. The neo-cons point out, that in contrast to the iron grip Saddam had on Iraq, the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regime’s power in Iran, in what is without question a much more pluralist society, is far from secure….this is translated as being a much more fertile ground for intervention, especially as inflation and unemployment have been rising in the country. I can’t avoid drawing parallels with US foreign policy vis-à-vis Cuba in this respect.

c. The situation in Iraq and Iran’s influence

After the revolution of 1979 against the Shah, and despite very large scale popular opposition, a religious government assumed power. Many progressive elements of the anti-Shah opposition were gradually and systematically eliminated while others were forced to choose between exile or capitulation. The United States, from its part, broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That strategy became infinitely more complex after September 11th, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. So are the Taliban in Afghanistan and most of the virulently anti-American opposition in Pakistan.

Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Bush Administration officials, influenced by neo-conservatives, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as well as with a number of very militant Shiite forces, such as the Mahdi Army, that have been gradually assuming anti-occupation positions.

This is the background of a gradually emerging new US policy in the region. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, put it succintly when he said: “There is nothing coincidental or ironic about our new strategy with regard to the region. The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude….This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

To summarise, this emerging novel configuration of strategies and forces, highlighted by the entrance of Saudi Arabia and its main weapon money into the game, requires a very serious study and analysis. I suggest comrades in the anti-war movement study very carefully Seymour Hersch’s article in the 'New Yorker' entitled ‘A Strategic Shift’, the conclusions of which I fully subscribe. His analyses about what goes on in Lebanon, in Syria and in Egypt, as a result of this changing US policy, are excellent and timely.

by Mars Wed Apr 25, 2007 17:42

Felix you ask,

"How many such buses (gender segregated)are in operation (in Israel)? Who runs the buses. State or Private?"

Does it matter? It's the ideology behind it. Read back over the treads posted by those that are cheerleading the US/British to attack Iran and at some point their is reference made to the treatment of women, that they are relegated to second class citizenship and this would justify an attack. Should the US/Britian also attack Israel ?

You go on,

"But not the same as suicide killers, ie barbarians, blowing up buses full of ordinary Arabs and jews!"

Never said it was the same. But suicide bombing is the same as Israel bombing areas from distance. This bombing is just as indiscriminate and deadly.

You then ask,

"What do you Mars call a suicide killer...is barbarian a good description?"

Factually a barbarian is one other than a member of the Greek, Roman or Christian civilisations. It tends to be used today to refer to persons regarded as uncivilised or cruel. Either bomber described above could equally be referred to as such. But that conclusion requires fair and impartial analysis.

by pat c Wed Apr 25, 2007 17:57

Felix is dragging this debate far from the original topic which is: Solidarity with the People of Iran against US/UK Imperialism AND also against the Theocratic Gocernment of Iran.

While I am in disagreement with the political programme of Hamas, I am not suprised that they eventually succumbed to the constant provocations carried out by the Israelis. The attacks launched by Hamas Guerillas into southern Israel were defensive ones. But lets support the oppressed Palestinians on another thread.