President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 2 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
[ENGLISH] Leader rejects talks with the USA - Full Speech - 7 February 2013
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech to Air Force Commanders and Personnel
07/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 7, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech to Air Force Commanders and Personnel
07/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 7, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with commanders and personnel of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. The meeting was held on the occasion of the historic pledge of allegiance of Air Force officers to Imam Khomeini (r.a.) on the 19th of Bahman of 1357.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I am very happy to meet you - once more at our annual meeting - brothers and dear youth from the glorious Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. I welcome all of you. As for the song which was performed, the lyrics were good, the melody was good, the content was good and it was performed well. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, our hearts will always be imbued with the scent of mercy and divine guidance which is the most important source of support.
If we take a look at the history of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army over the past years, we will discover a number of important facts. There was one day when we could not and were not allowed to fix the plane parts that we had bought. Today, you build training planes, fighters and flight simulators. You carry out a lot of important radar-related work and you produce complex components. This great movement towards blossoming of talents, love, innovation, self-confidence and self-sufficiency - which has been established in the Air Force, in the entire Islamic Republic of Iran Army, in the Armed Forces and throughout the country - is such a movement that cannot be denied even by the opponents and the enemies of the Islamic Republic.
Dominant powers tried to take control of all nations and countries throughout the world by using force, money and weapons and by launching military attacks. They tried to make nations believe that they cannot find the path towards greatness, identity and independence without relying on superpowers and on those who have money and power - Zionist and non-Zionist companies have lined up behind them. You shattered their hopes.
Compare the Iranian nation, today, with nations who have been under the domination of American power. See where you are and where they are. With their movement, independence, self-confidence and reliance on God, the Iranian people proved that one can and should stand up against the domination of foreigners and those who seek domination. The Iranian nation has proved this. Thirty years ago, what was the position of the Iranian nation in science, civilization, progress, technology and political influence? What position does it enjoy today? It achieved such a position by putting up a resistance, relying on God and bringing all its capacities into the arena. This is an experience for both the Iranian nation and future generations. It is also an experience for other nations. The Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army is one of the examples of this resistance and this movement which has been based on self-confidence. We should continue this. We Iranian people should continue this path. This path is full of blessings.
For more than thirty years, the enemies of the Iranian nation have done everything in their power to harm the Iranian nation. There is not a thing which they have not used against the Iranian nation. They provoked conflicts, waged wars, supported the enemy of the Islamic Republic with all their power and they waged hard and soft wars. They fought the people of Iran as hard as they could, but our people stood up against them and they resisted. Not only could they not bring our people to their knees and destroy them, but they also failed to prevent them from making progress. Our nation has made progress. They made use of everything they could. They hatched plots, launched coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'états, provoked military conflicts, shot down passenger airliners, imposed heavy sanctions and increased them on a daily basis. They did these things in the hope that our people would lose their hope, disappear from the scene and lose their trust in Islam and the Islamic Republic. But they failed. This is the record of the Islamic Republic.
These days, referred to as ten-day Fajr celebrations, are good opportunities for our intellectuals, our youth and all the people of Iran to spend some time evaluating their actions during the past thirty-something years and see their achievements, see their successful efforts, see the divine assistance and see the weakness of the enemies\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' plots. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And they (the unbelievers) planned, and Allah planned, and Allah is the best of planners\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 54]. This is the general guideline for us, to see how we should choose our future path. You the people in the Air Force should move forward according to this outlook and orientation. Different sectors of the country, all the people and the officials of the country should move forward according to this outlook.
Of course, the enemy inflicts harm, but it cannot do anything except for causing slight annoyance. I mentioned a few days ago that Allah the Exalted said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 111]. Their job is to harm you. But, they cannot create obstacles for you and block your path. Over the past 30 years, the Americans have been ranting and raving against the Iranian nation. They said and did whatever they could. They broadcast negative propaganda and they established an evil media empire against the Iranian nation. But the result is this: today, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the Iranian nation has become happier, more determined and more active than ever and it is witnessing more blossoming in different areas.
They have been trying to separate the people from the Islamic Republic and the Revolution. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people frustrate the enemy with their presence in the national and revolutionary rallies. They are trying to separate the people from one another. The previous inexperienced American secretary of state said openly that they are imposing sanctions in order to pit the people of Iran against the Islamic Republic. The people of Iran have always responded to such statements through their rallies and their actions. You will see that on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people will, once more, frustrate their efforts with a crushing move [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
The good thing is that the people are wise and vigilant. They know the purpose of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plot, they predict the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s moves, they understand why the enemy has adopted a certain policy and they move in the opposite direction. They rely on their own achievements and they will show their presence in this great arena of national dignity. They will show themselves and they will prove their presence. This is the good thing. In the face of the negative propaganda by the enemy - particularly, the Americans and the Zionists - the people do not take the wrong path because of their communal wisdom and they do not make the mistake which the enemy is waiting for. This is the good thing about large-scale issues of our country.
Now the Americans have raised the issue of negotiations again. They repeat that America is prepared to directly negotiate with Iran. This is not new. The Americans have repeatedly raised the issue of negotiations at every juncture. Now their newly appointed politicians repeat that we should negotiate. And they say that the ball is in Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s court. The ball is in your court. It is you who should explain the meaning of negotiations that are accompanied by pressure and threats. Negotiations are for the sake of proving one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s goodwill. You commit tens of acts which show lack of goodwill and then you speak about negotiations. Do you expect the Iranian nation to believe that you have goodwill? Of course, we understand why the Americans repeatedly raise the issue of negotiations and why they speak about it in different ways. We know what the reason is. As the Americans themselves say, their Middle East policies have failed. They need to play their trump card. Their trump card is dragging the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is based on the people, to the negotiating table. They need this. They want to say to the world that they have goodwill. No, we do not see any goodwill.
Four years ago - during the early days of the current American administration - when they were saying the same words, I announced that we will not prejudge and we will wait to see what action they will take and then we will judge. Now after four years, how should the Iranian nation judge their actions? They supported the fitna in Iran, they helped those who started the fitna, they sent their troops to Afghanistan under the claim that they were fighting terrorism, they trampled on so many people and they destroyed them. They are also supporting and cooperating with the same terrorists in Syria and they used the same terrorists wherever they could in Iran. Their agents, their allies and Zionist spies openly killed the scientists of the Islamic Republic. They did not even condemn these terrorist activities. [On the contrary] They supported them. This is their record. They imposed sanctions - which they wanted to be crippling - on the Iranian nation. They openly said, crippling. Who do you want to cripple? Did you want to cripple the Iranian nation? Do you have goodwill?
Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides negotiate with good intentions and without planning to deceive one another. Negotiations should be on equal terms. Negotiations for the sake of negotiations, tactical negotiations and offer of negotiations as a superpower gesture, are deceptive moves. They are not honest moves.
I am not a diplomat. I am a revolutionary. I speak openly and honestly. A diplomat says something, but he actually means something else. We speak openly and honestly. We speak clearly and decisively. Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides show their good intentions. [Negotiations are not meaningful] when one side does not show his good intentions. You yourselves refer to this as pressures and negotiations. These two things are not compatible. You want to point the gun at the people of Iran and say, negotiate or we will shoot. You say these things to intimidate the Iranian nation. You should know that the Iranian nation is not intimidated by these things [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
A number of people become happy about the American offer of negotiations and they say, come and negotiate with us. This is expressed by a number of people who are either simple-minded or who have some ulterior motives. One cannot make definitive judgments about people. But what a simple-minded person does is no different, in essence, from what a person who has ulterior motives does. Negotiations with America will not solve any problems. When did they keep their promises? Over the past 60 years, since the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad of 1332 until today, the officials of our country have been harmed whenever they trusted the Americans. One day Mosaddeq trusted the Americans, relied on them and considered them as his friends. Then the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad occurred and the Americans found the opportunity to launch a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent responsible for launching the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état came to Tehran with a briefcase full of money and he divided it among thugs and vandals so that they launch the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent was American. They admitted what the purpose of their plot was. After that, they helped the oppressive Pahlavi regime achieve domination over our country. They established SAVAK and chained and tortured political activists. These are the things they did at that time.
During a certain period after the Revolution, the officials of the country trusted them. But the politicians of the American government labeled Iran as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"axis of evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". It is you who are the embodiment of evil. It is you who are doing evil deeds in the world. You wage wars, loot nations and support the Zionist regime. On the issue of Islamic Awakening, you suppress the nations who have risen in revolt as much as you can and you weaken them and pit them against one another. You are evil. Evil is part of your character. They accused the Iranian nation of doing evil acts. This is a big insult. Whenever people trusted them, they made such moves. They should show their good intentions. Negotiations and offer of negotiations are not compatible with pressures. Negotiations and pressures are two different paths. It is not possible for the Iranian nation to accept negotiations under pressures and threats, with those who make threats. What should we negotiate for?
Today, the Iranian nation is vigilant. The true face of America has been revealed not only in Iran, but also in the region. Nations distrust America and there are many reasons for this distrust. The Iranian nation has also accurately read the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' moves. It understands what their purpose is. Our nation is vigilant. Today, if certain people want to help America re-establish its domination and act against our national interests, against the progress of the country and against the path of independence, they will be held responsible by the people and even if I act against this public demand, the people will complain. It is obvious. All the officials are responsible for safeguarding national interests and preserving national independence. They should preserve the dignity of the Iranian nation.
We have negotiated, signed contracts and established relations with countries which have not plotted against Iran. The Iranian nation is peace-loving. The Iranian nation is patient. The unity of the Iranian nation is in line with promoting the interests of humanity. Today, what the Iranian nation does is for the sake of its interests and the interests of the Islamic Ummah and humanity. And undoubtedly, divine assistance is behind the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the people of Iran will be able to help not only themselves but also the Islamic Ummah to reach the peak of glory with their wisdom, with their firm determination and with the resistance that they have shown on this bright path, the path that they will continue following in the future as well. The way to reach this glory is to preserve this wisdom. The way to do this is to preserve our unity. The way to do this is for the officials to safeguard the interests of the country. This improper conduct which is witnessed in certain areas from certain government officials - they should end this. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, I will address this issue in the future and I will speak to the people. Our nation is unified, determined and active. Even if there are differences of opinion between the people over different issues, all the officials and all the people join hands against the enemy, global arrogance and those who have prepared themselves to destroy the roots of the people and the Islamic Republic. There is no disagreement among the people over this issue.
By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, on the 22nd of Bahman the people will show, once more, that they are present on the scene, that they are prepared, that they are united, that they are moving in the same direction. And undoubtedly, divine blessings will be bestowed on them.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1741&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech to Air Force Commanders and Personnel
07/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 7, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with commanders and personnel of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. The meeting was held on the occasion of the historic pledge of allegiance of Air Force officers to Imam Khomeini (r.a.) on the 19th of Bahman of 1357.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I am very happy to meet you - once more at our annual meeting - brothers and dear youth from the glorious Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. I welcome all of you. As for the song which was performed, the lyrics were good, the melody was good, the content was good and it was performed well. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, our hearts will always be imbued with the scent of mercy and divine guidance which is the most important source of support.
If we take a look at the history of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army over the past years, we will discover a number of important facts. There was one day when we could not and were not allowed to fix the plane parts that we had bought. Today, you build training planes, fighters and flight simulators. You carry out a lot of important radar-related work and you produce complex components. This great movement towards blossoming of talents, love, innovation, self-confidence and self-sufficiency - which has been established in the Air Force, in the entire Islamic Republic of Iran Army, in the Armed Forces and throughout the country - is such a movement that cannot be denied even by the opponents and the enemies of the Islamic Republic.
Dominant powers tried to take control of all nations and countries throughout the world by using force, money and weapons and by launching military attacks. They tried to make nations believe that they cannot find the path towards greatness, identity and independence without relying on superpowers and on those who have money and power - Zionist and non-Zionist companies have lined up behind them. You shattered their hopes.
Compare the Iranian nation, today, with nations who have been under the domination of American power. See where you are and where they are. With their movement, independence, self-confidence and reliance on God, the Iranian people proved that one can and should stand up against the domination of foreigners and those who seek domination. The Iranian nation has proved this. Thirty years ago, what was the position of the Iranian nation in science, civilization, progress, technology and political influence? What position does it enjoy today? It achieved such a position by putting up a resistance, relying on God and bringing all its capacities into the arena. This is an experience for both the Iranian nation and future generations. It is also an experience for other nations. The Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army is one of the examples of this resistance and this movement which has been based on self-confidence. We should continue this. We Iranian people should continue this path. This path is full of blessings.
For more than thirty years, the enemies of the Iranian nation have done everything in their power to harm the Iranian nation. There is not a thing which they have not used against the Iranian nation. They provoked conflicts, waged wars, supported the enemy of the Islamic Republic with all their power and they waged hard and soft wars. They fought the people of Iran as hard as they could, but our people stood up against them and they resisted. Not only could they not bring our people to their knees and destroy them, but they also failed to prevent them from making progress. Our nation has made progress. They made use of everything they could. They hatched plots, launched coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'états, provoked military conflicts, shot down passenger airliners, imposed heavy sanctions and increased them on a daily basis. They did these things in the hope that our people would lose their hope, disappear from the scene and lose their trust in Islam and the Islamic Republic. But they failed. This is the record of the Islamic Republic.
These days, referred to as ten-day Fajr celebrations, are good opportunities for our intellectuals, our youth and all the people of Iran to spend some time evaluating their actions during the past thirty-something years and see their achievements, see their successful efforts, see the divine assistance and see the weakness of the enemies\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' plots. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And they (the unbelievers) planned, and Allah planned, and Allah is the best of planners\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 54]. This is the general guideline for us, to see how we should choose our future path. You the people in the Air Force should move forward according to this outlook and orientation. Different sectors of the country, all the people and the officials of the country should move forward according to this outlook.
Of course, the enemy inflicts harm, but it cannot do anything except for causing slight annoyance. I mentioned a few days ago that Allah the Exalted said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 111]. Their job is to harm you. But, they cannot create obstacles for you and block your path. Over the past 30 years, the Americans have been ranting and raving against the Iranian nation. They said and did whatever they could. They broadcast negative propaganda and they established an evil media empire against the Iranian nation. But the result is this: today, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the Iranian nation has become happier, more determined and more active than ever and it is witnessing more blossoming in different areas.
They have been trying to separate the people from the Islamic Republic and the Revolution. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people frustrate the enemy with their presence in the national and revolutionary rallies. They are trying to separate the people from one another. The previous inexperienced American secretary of state said openly that they are imposing sanctions in order to pit the people of Iran against the Islamic Republic. The people of Iran have always responded to such statements through their rallies and their actions. You will see that on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people will, once more, frustrate their efforts with a crushing move [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
The good thing is that the people are wise and vigilant. They know the purpose of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plot, they predict the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s moves, they understand why the enemy has adopted a certain policy and they move in the opposite direction. They rely on their own achievements and they will show their presence in this great arena of national dignity. They will show themselves and they will prove their presence. This is the good thing. In the face of the negative propaganda by the enemy - particularly, the Americans and the Zionists - the people do not take the wrong path because of their communal wisdom and they do not make the mistake which the enemy is waiting for. This is the good thing about large-scale issues of our country.
Now the Americans have raised the issue of negotiations again. They repeat that America is prepared to directly negotiate with Iran. This is not new. The Americans have repeatedly raised the issue of negotiations at every juncture. Now their newly appointed politicians repeat that we should negotiate. And they say that the ball is in Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s court. The ball is in your court. It is you who should explain the meaning of negotiations that are accompanied by pressure and threats. Negotiations are for the sake of proving one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s goodwill. You commit tens of acts which show lack of goodwill and then you speak about negotiations. Do you expect the Iranian nation to believe that you have goodwill? Of course, we understand why the Americans repeatedly raise the issue of negotiations and why they speak about it in different ways. We know what the reason is. As the Americans themselves say, their Middle East policies have failed. They need to play their trump card. Their trump card is dragging the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is based on the people, to the negotiating table. They need this. They want to say to the world that they have goodwill. No, we do not see any goodwill.
Four years ago - during the early days of the current American administration - when they were saying the same words, I announced that we will not prejudge and we will wait to see what action they will take and then we will judge. Now after four years, how should the Iranian nation judge their actions? They supported the fitna in Iran, they helped those who started the fitna, they sent their troops to Afghanistan under the claim that they were fighting terrorism, they trampled on so many people and they destroyed them. They are also supporting and cooperating with the same terrorists in Syria and they used the same terrorists wherever they could in Iran. Their agents, their allies and Zionist spies openly killed the scientists of the Islamic Republic. They did not even condemn these terrorist activities. [On the contrary] They supported them. This is their record. They imposed sanctions - which they wanted to be crippling - on the Iranian nation. They openly said, crippling. Who do you want to cripple? Did you want to cripple the Iranian nation? Do you have goodwill?
Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides negotiate with good intentions and without planning to deceive one another. Negotiations should be on equal terms. Negotiations for the sake of negotiations, tactical negotiations and offer of negotiations as a superpower gesture, are deceptive moves. They are not honest moves.
I am not a diplomat. I am a revolutionary. I speak openly and honestly. A diplomat says something, but he actually means something else. We speak openly and honestly. We speak clearly and decisively. Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides show their good intentions. [Negotiations are not meaningful] when one side does not show his good intentions. You yourselves refer to this as pressures and negotiations. These two things are not compatible. You want to point the gun at the people of Iran and say, negotiate or we will shoot. You say these things to intimidate the Iranian nation. You should know that the Iranian nation is not intimidated by these things [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
A number of people become happy about the American offer of negotiations and they say, come and negotiate with us. This is expressed by a number of people who are either simple-minded or who have some ulterior motives. One cannot make definitive judgments about people. But what a simple-minded person does is no different, in essence, from what a person who has ulterior motives does. Negotiations with America will not solve any problems. When did they keep their promises? Over the past 60 years, since the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad of 1332 until today, the officials of our country have been harmed whenever they trusted the Americans. One day Mosaddeq trusted the Americans, relied on them and considered them as his friends. Then the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad occurred and the Americans found the opportunity to launch a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent responsible for launching the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état came to Tehran with a briefcase full of money and he divided it among thugs and vandals so that they launch the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent was American. They admitted what the purpose of their plot was. After that, they helped the oppressive Pahlavi regime achieve domination over our country. They established SAVAK and chained and tortured political activists. These are the things they did at that time.
During a certain period after the Revolution, the officials of the country trusted them. But the politicians of the American government labeled Iran as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"axis of evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". It is you who are the embodiment of evil. It is you who are doing evil deeds in the world. You wage wars, loot nations and support the Zionist regime. On the issue of Islamic Awakening, you suppress the nations who have risen in revolt as much as you can and you weaken them and pit them against one another. You are evil. Evil is part of your character. They accused the Iranian nation of doing evil acts. This is a big insult. Whenever people trusted them, they made such moves. They should show their good intentions. Negotiations and offer of negotiations are not compatible with pressures. Negotiations and pressures are two different paths. It is not possible for the Iranian nation to accept negotiations under pressures and threats, with those who make threats. What should we negotiate for?
Today, the Iranian nation is vigilant. The true face of America has been revealed not only in Iran, but also in the region. Nations distrust America and there are many reasons for this distrust. The Iranian nation has also accurately read the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' moves. It understands what their purpose is. Our nation is vigilant. Today, if certain people want to help America re-establish its domination and act against our national interests, against the progress of the country and against the path of independence, they will be held responsible by the people and even if I act against this public demand, the people will complain. It is obvious. All the officials are responsible for safeguarding national interests and preserving national independence. They should preserve the dignity of the Iranian nation.
We have negotiated, signed contracts and established relations with countries which have not plotted against Iran. The Iranian nation is peace-loving. The Iranian nation is patient. The unity of the Iranian nation is in line with promoting the interests of humanity. Today, what the Iranian nation does is for the sake of its interests and the interests of the Islamic Ummah and humanity. And undoubtedly, divine assistance is behind the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the people of Iran will be able to help not only themselves but also the Islamic Ummah to reach the peak of glory with their wisdom, with their firm determination and with the resistance that they have shown on this bright path, the path that they will continue following in the future as well. The way to reach this glory is to preserve this wisdom. The way to do this is to preserve our unity. The way to do this is for the officials to safeguard the interests of the country. This improper conduct which is witnessed in certain areas from certain government officials - they should end this. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, I will address this issue in the future and I will speak to the people. Our nation is unified, determined and active. Even if there are differences of opinion between the people over different issues, all the officials and all the people join hands against the enemy, global arrogance and those who have prepared themselves to destroy the roots of the people and the Islamic Republic. There is no disagreement among the people over this issue.
By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, on the 22nd of Bahman the people will show, once more, that they are present on the scene, that they are prepared, that they are united, that they are moving in the same direction. And undoubtedly, divine blessings will be bestowed on them.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1741&Itemid=4
Ahmadinejad"s full speech at UN General Assembly Sept. 2010 (with PressTV commentary) - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the US took advantage of the 'suspicious' September 11 attacks to justify its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
President Ahmadinejad said while...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the US took advantage of the 'suspicious' September 11 attacks to justify its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
President Ahmadinejad said while some 3,000 were killed on the September 11 incident, "for which we are all very saddened," hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions wounded and displaced up to now, as the conflicts continue to rage and expand.
While raising several questions about the source and nature of the 9/11 attacks, the president asked even if we grant credence to the US government's view that "a complex terrorist group was able to cross all layers of US intelligence and security" to wage the attacks, "is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?"
The Iranian president also blasted the Israeli regime for its siege of Palestinian lands and their repeated aggressions against the people of Gaza and Lebanon with blessings from their Western backers.
"The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self-determination, while the occupiers are given recognition," he said.
"On a daily basis," he added, "the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people."
President Ahmadinejad also highlighted the Israeli attack against the Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla and killing and injuring civilians onboard, calling it "a blatant defiance of all international norms."
The president emphasized that while the Tel Aviv regime "regularly threatens the countries in the region" and conducts "publicly announced assassination of Palestinian figures," it enjoys the "absolute support of some western countries." Whereas, he added, "Palestinian defender and those opposing this regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti Semites."
The Iranian president then insisted that all solutions "are doomed to fail" if the rights of Palestinian people are not accounted for, calling for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their home land and the establishment of a Palestinian sovereignty and government based on a popular vote.
President Ahmadinejad referred to the recent burning of the holy Qur'an in the US as an "ugly and inhumane act" against the Divine Book of Islam's prophet that calls for "worshipping the one God, justice, compassion toward people, development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and resisting against the oppressors."
He then stressed that the Qur'an was burned "to burn all these truths and good judgments." However, he added, "the truth could not be burned."
On the Iranian nuclear issue, President Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran's readiness to resume talks based on the Tehran Nuclear Declaration, censuring the unjust imposition of anti-Iran sanctions by the UN Security Council.
Noting the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows member states to use nuclear energy without limits while prohibiting the development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, the president underlined that some permanent members of the UN Security Council have nonetheless "equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA."
Consequently, he said, "Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized, but also nuclear bombs have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating Zionist regime."
Dr. Ahmadinejad went on to make the proposition that the year 2011 be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and "Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None."
On Iran's nuclear issue the Iranian president referred to the Tehran Declaration on a fuel swap deal as "a hugely constructive step in confidence building efforts" and said that it was facilitated through the good will of Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian governments.
He reiterated that although the declaration received "inappropriate reaction" by some governments and followed by an "unlawful resolution," it still remains valid.
"We have observed the regulations of the IAEA more than our commitments," he observed. "Yet, we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so."
The president also slammed UN's "ineptitude" and "unjust structure," stressing that major power has been "monopolized" in the Security Council (UNSC) due to the veto privilege while the main pillar of the organization, the General Assembly, "is marginalized."
Noting that in the past decades at least one of the permanent members of the UNSC has been a party to conflicts, Dr. Ahmadinejad said, "The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; how could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?"
"Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?"
The Iranian president then insisted that the veto privilege "be revoked" altogether and the General Assembly becomes the "highest body" in the United Nations.
At the beginning of his remarks, President Ahmadinejad expressed great sympathy with the people and government of flood-stricken Pakistan and urged the world to pldege adequate aid and support for the flood victims.
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the US took advantage of the 'suspicious' September 11 attacks to justify its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
President Ahmadinejad said while some 3,000 were killed on the September 11 incident, "for which we are all very saddened," hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions wounded and displaced up to now, as the conflicts continue to rage and expand.
While raising several questions about the source and nature of the 9/11 attacks, the president asked even if we grant credence to the US government's view that "a complex terrorist group was able to cross all layers of US intelligence and security" to wage the attacks, "is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?"
The Iranian president also blasted the Israeli regime for its siege of Palestinian lands and their repeated aggressions against the people of Gaza and Lebanon with blessings from their Western backers.
"The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self-determination, while the occupiers are given recognition," he said.
"On a daily basis," he added, "the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people."
President Ahmadinejad also highlighted the Israeli attack against the Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla and killing and injuring civilians onboard, calling it "a blatant defiance of all international norms."
The president emphasized that while the Tel Aviv regime "regularly threatens the countries in the region" and conducts "publicly announced assassination of Palestinian figures," it enjoys the "absolute support of some western countries." Whereas, he added, "Palestinian defender and those opposing this regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti Semites."
The Iranian president then insisted that all solutions "are doomed to fail" if the rights of Palestinian people are not accounted for, calling for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their home land and the establishment of a Palestinian sovereignty and government based on a popular vote.
President Ahmadinejad referred to the recent burning of the holy Qur'an in the US as an "ugly and inhumane act" against the Divine Book of Islam's prophet that calls for "worshipping the one God, justice, compassion toward people, development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and resisting against the oppressors."
He then stressed that the Qur'an was burned "to burn all these truths and good judgments." However, he added, "the truth could not be burned."
On the Iranian nuclear issue, President Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran's readiness to resume talks based on the Tehran Nuclear Declaration, censuring the unjust imposition of anti-Iran sanctions by the UN Security Council.
Noting the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows member states to use nuclear energy without limits while prohibiting the development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, the president underlined that some permanent members of the UN Security Council have nonetheless "equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA."
Consequently, he said, "Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized, but also nuclear bombs have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating Zionist regime."
Dr. Ahmadinejad went on to make the proposition that the year 2011 be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and "Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None."
On Iran's nuclear issue the Iranian president referred to the Tehran Declaration on a fuel swap deal as "a hugely constructive step in confidence building efforts" and said that it was facilitated through the good will of Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian governments.
He reiterated that although the declaration received "inappropriate reaction" by some governments and followed by an "unlawful resolution," it still remains valid.
"We have observed the regulations of the IAEA more than our commitments," he observed. "Yet, we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so."
The president also slammed UN's "ineptitude" and "unjust structure," stressing that major power has been "monopolized" in the Security Council (UNSC) due to the veto privilege while the main pillar of the organization, the General Assembly, "is marginalized."
Noting that in the past decades at least one of the permanent members of the UNSC has been a party to conflicts, Dr. Ahmadinejad said, "The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; how could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?"
"Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?"
The Iranian president then insisted that the veto privilege "be revoked" altogether and the General Assembly becomes the "highest body" in the United Nations.
At the beginning of his remarks, President Ahmadinejad expressed great sympathy with the people and government of flood-stricken Pakistan and urged the world to pldege adequate aid and support for the flood victims.
Song - Revolution of Anger [Arabic Sub English]
A supportive song for the brave people of Bahrain in their uprising against the unjust and oppressive US supported regime of al-Khalifah!
A supportive song for the brave people of Bahrain in their uprising against the unjust and oppressive US supported regime of al-Khalifah!
3:56
|
Free Iraq *Viewer Discretion Advised* Nasheed - English
Bombs are falling - Children are dying - Blood is splattering - Baghdad is crying - American troops are firing - People are shouting - All people are praying - Muslims are protesting - American...
Bombs are falling - Children are dying - Blood is splattering - Baghdad is crying - American troops are firing - People are shouting - All people are praying - Muslims are protesting - American media is lying that American soldiers are protecting - The truth is that Bush wanted to make history like Adolf Hitler - Feeding off of the misery of innocent people - And make his countrys economy better - We should get together and fight the devil
More...
Description:
Bombs are falling - Children are dying - Blood is splattering - Baghdad is crying - American troops are firing - People are shouting - All people are praying - Muslims are protesting - American media is lying that American soldiers are protecting - The truth is that Bush wanted to make history like Adolf Hitler - Feeding off of the misery of innocent people - And make his countrys economy better - We should get together and fight the devil
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 1 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now
Depleted uranium found in Gaza victims - English
Medics tell Press TV they have found traces of depleted uranium in some Gazan residents wounded in Israel's ground offensive into the strip.
Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram...
Medics tell Press TV they have found traces of depleted uranium in some Gazan residents wounded in Israel's ground offensive into the strip.
Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram al-Sattari that some of the victims who have been wounded since Israel began its attacks on the Gaza Strip on December 27 have traces of depleted uranium in their bodies.
The report comes after Israeli tanks and troops swept across the border into Gaza on Saturday night, opening a ground operation after eight days of intensive attacks by Israeli air and naval forces on the impoverished region.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned on Sunday that the wide-ranging ground offensive in the Gaza Strip would be "full of surprises."
A ground offensive in the densely-populated Gaza is expected to drastically increase the death toll of the civilian population.
The latest assaults bring the number of Palestinians killed to over 488 with 2790 others wounded. The UN says that about 25 percent of the casualties were civilian deaths - including at least 34 children.
According to Israeli army officials, at least 30 of its soldiers have been wounded since the start of the ground campaign.
Amid global condemnation of the ongoing violence in the region, the UN Security Council failed to agree on a united approach to resolve the crisis.
"Once again, the world is watching in dismay the dysfunctionality of the Security Council," UN General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto said Sunday.
According to diplomatic sources, the US blocked a Security Council resolution, with US Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff arguing that an official statement that criticizes both Israel and Hamas would not be helpful.
The White House has so far declined to comment on whether an Israeli ground incursion into Gaza is a justified measure.
More...
Description:
Medics tell Press TV they have found traces of depleted uranium in some Gazan residents wounded in Israel's ground offensive into the strip.
Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram al-Sattari that some of the victims who have been wounded since Israel began its attacks on the Gaza Strip on December 27 have traces of depleted uranium in their bodies.
The report comes after Israeli tanks and troops swept across the border into Gaza on Saturday night, opening a ground operation after eight days of intensive attacks by Israeli air and naval forces on the impoverished region.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned on Sunday that the wide-ranging ground offensive in the Gaza Strip would be "full of surprises."
A ground offensive in the densely-populated Gaza is expected to drastically increase the death toll of the civilian population.
The latest assaults bring the number of Palestinians killed to over 488 with 2790 others wounded. The UN says that about 25 percent of the casualties were civilian deaths - including at least 34 children.
According to Israeli army officials, at least 30 of its soldiers have been wounded since the start of the ground campaign.
Amid global condemnation of the ongoing violence in the region, the UN Security Council failed to agree on a united approach to resolve the crisis.
"Once again, the world is watching in dismay the dysfunctionality of the Security Council," UN General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto said Sunday.
According to diplomatic sources, the US blocked a Security Council resolution, with US Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff arguing that an official statement that criticizes both Israel and Hamas would not be helpful.
The White House has so far declined to comment on whether an Israeli ground incursion into Gaza is a justified measure.
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 3 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
17th Dec 08 White House Shoe Protest - Muntazi Zaidi - Funny Clips - English
Anti war protestors demonstrated in front of the White House and brought more than just signs they brought shoes
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday...
Anti war protestors demonstrated in front of the White House and brought more than just signs they brought shoes
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday to protest for the release of the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush over the weekend.
Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for the Al Baghdadia Television, has been in custody since disrupting President Bush’s weekend press conference with the size-10 projectiles. If convicted, Mr Zaidi may be jailed for up to seven years.
The protesters brought a giant head of President Bush, threw shoes at it and covered it with shoes before ending their protest.
They also brought bags of shoes representing Iraqis and US soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration’s “illegal invasion” of Iraq.
The peace activists urged the Iraqi government to release Mr Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family.
At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president had “no hard feelings” about the Iraqi journalist who flung shoes at him.
Asked if Mr Zaidi should be forgiven, Ms Perino said Mr Bush trusted Iraq’s legal system to decide an appropriate punishment for the assault.
The protesters outside the White House also displayed names of thousands of Iraqis killed in the war. The display contained their names, ages, places where they were killed and how they were killed.
“These are real people,” said Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of the Code Pink which along with three of the groups had participated in the protest. “They were killed because of the US invasion.”Later, representatives for Code Pink, Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace told a news conference that they had come to White House to remind the Bush administration and the American people that “Mr Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 US troops”.
They noted that the war also displaced more than five million Iraqis.
“Bush is the real criminal, not al-Zaidi,” said one of them. “Al-Zaidi speaks for millions of people across the world.”
“Arrest Bush, not Zaidi,” chanted the protesters as they marched outside the White House. “Bush is a war criminal,” shouted the protesters as they spanked a giant picture of the US president with shoes.
The speakers who addressed the news conference noted that Mr Zaidi had become something of a folk-hero in the Arab world, and his shoe-throwing had become a symbol of dissatisfaction with ‘Bush’s bungled war in Iraq’
More...
Description:
Anti war protestors demonstrated in front of the White House and brought more than just signs they brought shoes
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday to protest for the release of the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush over the weekend.
Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for the Al Baghdadia Television, has been in custody since disrupting President Bush’s weekend press conference with the size-10 projectiles. If convicted, Mr Zaidi may be jailed for up to seven years.
The protesters brought a giant head of President Bush, threw shoes at it and covered it with shoes before ending their protest.
They also brought bags of shoes representing Iraqis and US soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration’s “illegal invasion” of Iraq.
The peace activists urged the Iraqi government to release Mr Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family.
At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president had “no hard feelings” about the Iraqi journalist who flung shoes at him.
Asked if Mr Zaidi should be forgiven, Ms Perino said Mr Bush trusted Iraq’s legal system to decide an appropriate punishment for the assault.
The protesters outside the White House also displayed names of thousands of Iraqis killed in the war. The display contained their names, ages, places where they were killed and how they were killed.
“These are real people,” said Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of the Code Pink which along with three of the groups had participated in the protest. “They were killed because of the US invasion.”Later, representatives for Code Pink, Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace told a news conference that they had come to White House to remind the Bush administration and the American people that “Mr Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 US troops”.
They noted that the war also displaced more than five million Iraqis.
“Bush is the real criminal, not al-Zaidi,” said one of them. “Al-Zaidi speaks for millions of people across the world.”
“Arrest Bush, not Zaidi,” chanted the protesters as they marched outside the White House. “Bush is a war criminal,” shouted the protesters as they spanked a giant picture of the US president with shoes.
The speakers who addressed the news conference noted that Mr Zaidi had become something of a folk-hero in the Arab world, and his shoe-throwing had become a symbol of dissatisfaction with ‘Bush’s bungled war in Iraq’
76:37
|
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah(HA) - Speech - Saturday, May 25, 2013 - Eid Muqawama - English
Saturday, May 25, 2013 - Eid Muqawamah wat-Tahrir
Published on May 25, 2013
Press TV Live Event.
Nasrallah defends Hezbollah fighting extremists in Syrian town of Qusayr
Hezbollah...
Saturday, May 25, 2013 - Eid Muqawamah wat-Tahrir
Published on May 25, 2013
Press TV Live Event.
Nasrallah defends Hezbollah fighting extremists in Syrian town of Qusayr
Hezbollah Secretary-General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah has defended the Lebanese resistance movement\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to fight foreign-backed militants in the Syrian border town of al-Qusayr.
Nasrallah made the remarks on Saturday during a ceremony marking the 13th anniversary of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon, known as the Liberation Day.
The Hezbollah leader said if foreign-backed militants win the war on Syria, they will turn their weapons on Lebanon.
Nasrallah further pointed out that the extremist Salafist groups form the backbone of the unrest in Syria, adding that the US-backed armed groups are also a threat to all Lebanese communities.
The Syrian army pressed ahead to liberate al-Qusayr in Homs Province fully from the foreign-backed militants on Saturday, seizing al-Daba\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'a military airport north of the town.
The army also regained control of the Ba\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ath Party headquarters in the strategic town that borders Lebanon, killing large numbers of foreign-backed militants. The government forces have inflicted losses on the militants and destroyed their weaponry and equipment.
Nasrallah said the ongoing war in Syria is part of an American project to change the balance of power in the region in favor of the Israeli regime.
He, however, promised victory against the Salafist groups in Syria.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I say to all the honorable people, to the Mujahedeen, to the heroes: I have always promised you a victory and now I pledge to you a new one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" in Syria, he said.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will continue along the road ... bear the responsibilities and the sacrifices. This battle is ours ... and I promise you victory,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
The leader of the resistance movement also dismissed accusations that Hezbollah is a sectarian movement.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05
More...
Description:
Saturday, May 25, 2013 - Eid Muqawamah wat-Tahrir
Published on May 25, 2013
Press TV Live Event.
Nasrallah defends Hezbollah fighting extremists in Syrian town of Qusayr
Hezbollah Secretary-General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah has defended the Lebanese resistance movement\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to fight foreign-backed militants in the Syrian border town of al-Qusayr.
Nasrallah made the remarks on Saturday during a ceremony marking the 13th anniversary of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon, known as the Liberation Day.
The Hezbollah leader said if foreign-backed militants win the war on Syria, they will turn their weapons on Lebanon.
Nasrallah further pointed out that the extremist Salafist groups form the backbone of the unrest in Syria, adding that the US-backed armed groups are also a threat to all Lebanese communities.
The Syrian army pressed ahead to liberate al-Qusayr in Homs Province fully from the foreign-backed militants on Saturday, seizing al-Daba\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'a military airport north of the town.
The army also regained control of the Ba\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ath Party headquarters in the strategic town that borders Lebanon, killing large numbers of foreign-backed militants. The government forces have inflicted losses on the militants and destroyed their weaponry and equipment.
Nasrallah said the ongoing war in Syria is part of an American project to change the balance of power in the region in favor of the Israeli regime.
He, however, promised victory against the Salafist groups in Syria.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I say to all the honorable people, to the Mujahedeen, to the heroes: I have always promised you a victory and now I pledge to you a new one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" in Syria, he said.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will continue along the road ... bear the responsibilities and the sacrifices. This battle is ours ... and I promise you victory,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
The leader of the resistance movement also dismissed accusations that Hezbollah is a sectarian movement.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05
6:07
|
14:32
|
Basra Oil Trades Unionist Speaks in Manchester - England March 2008 - English
Manchester, England. 1 March 2008. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, two leading opponents of the US-led occupations in the Middle East come to Manchester to talk about the reality of the War...
Manchester, England. 1 March 2008. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, two leading opponents of the US-led occupations in the Middle East come to Manchester to talk about the reality of the War on Terror on the ground at a public rally. The event is organised by the Stop the War Coalition as part of its build up to the World Against War demonstrations that were due to take place globally on March 15th 2008.
This meeting is a chance to hear key figures from the Middle East and leading
activists and writers from Britain discuss the impact of the war on terror and
the continuing campaign to get the troops out.
The speakers include two eyewitness reports from Iraq and Lebanon:
1. Ibrahim al-Moussawi is editor of the Lebanese Hezbollah newspaper, al-Intiqad, and one of the key spokespeople for the popular resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
2. Hassan Juma\'a is President of the Iraqi Oil Workers Federation, and a leader of the campaign to stop the US-led privatisation of Iraqi oil.
They are joined at the rally by Chris Nineham, national chair of the Stop the War Coalition.
Ibrahim Mousawi defies a campaign by warmongering Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, to keep him out of the country. \"Governments should not censor what people have to say and confiscate the right of intelligent people to decide what to hear or not to hear. I\'m a staunch defender of political freedoms and freedom of speech,\" retorted al-Moussawi. This particular clip shows Hassan Juma\'a speaking at the event.
More...
Description:
Manchester, England. 1 March 2008. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, two leading opponents of the US-led occupations in the Middle East come to Manchester to talk about the reality of the War on Terror on the ground at a public rally. The event is organised by the Stop the War Coalition as part of its build up to the World Against War demonstrations that were due to take place globally on March 15th 2008.
This meeting is a chance to hear key figures from the Middle East and leading
activists and writers from Britain discuss the impact of the war on terror and
the continuing campaign to get the troops out.
The speakers include two eyewitness reports from Iraq and Lebanon:
1. Ibrahim al-Moussawi is editor of the Lebanese Hezbollah newspaper, al-Intiqad, and one of the key spokespeople for the popular resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
2. Hassan Juma\'a is President of the Iraqi Oil Workers Federation, and a leader of the campaign to stop the US-led privatisation of Iraqi oil.
They are joined at the rally by Chris Nineham, national chair of the Stop the War Coalition.
Ibrahim Mousawi defies a campaign by warmongering Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, to keep him out of the country. \"Governments should not censor what people have to say and confiscate the right of intelligent people to decide what to hear or not to hear. I\'m a staunch defender of political freedoms and freedom of speech,\" retorted al-Moussawi. This particular clip shows Hassan Juma\'a speaking at the event.
Iraqi SHIA SUNNI unite to rebuild Al Askariya Shrine - 09Aug09 - English
Al ‘Askarī Mosque or the ‘Askariyya Mosque/Shrine (Arabic: مرقد الامامين علي الهادي والحسن العسكري Marqad al-Imāmayn ‘Alī l-Hādī wa l-Ħassan...
Al ‘Askarī Mosque or the ‘Askariyya Mosque/Shrine (Arabic: مرقد الامامين علي الهادي والحسن العسكري Marqad al-Imāmayn ‘Alī l-Hādī wa l-Ħassan al-‘Askarī) is a Shī‘ah Muslim holy site located in the Iraqi city of Sāmarrā 125 km (78 mi) from Baghdad. It is one of the most important Shī‘ah mosques in the world, built in 944.[1] Its dome was destroyed in a bombing by terrorists in February 2006 and its two remaining minarets were destroyed in another bombing in June 2007, causing widespread anger amongst Muslims. The remaining clock tower was also destroyed in July 2007. The remains of the 10th and 11th Shī‘ah Imāms, ‘Alī al-Hādī ("an-Naqī") and his son Hasan al-‘Askarī, known as: al-‘Askariyyain ("the two ‘Askarīs"), rest at the shrine[2]. Also buried within the Mosque are: Hakimah Khātūn, sister of ‘Alī al-Hādī; and Narjis Khātūn, the mother of Muħammad al-Mahdī[3]. Adjacent to this shrine is another mosque, built over the location where the Twelfth or "Hidden" Imām, Muħammad al-Mahdī first entered the Minor Occultation.
The ‘Askariyya Shrine is also known as the "Tomb or Mausoleum of the Two Imāms", "the Tomb of Imāms ‘Alī al-Hādī and Hasan al-‘Askarī" and "al-Hadhratu l-‘Askariyya".
CLAIMS OF SECTARIAN VIOLENCE ARE ABSURD AS THE TWO MAJOR SECTS OF ISLAM, SHIA & SUNNI HAVE RESPECTED EACH OTHERS HOLY FIGURES FOR A LONG TIME. THESE SORTS OF INCIDENCES STARTED AFTER FOREIGN TROOPS ILLEGALY OCCUPIES IRAQ IN 2002 UNDER THE PRETEXT OF HAVING THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THEN LATER THE CRUEL DICTATOR SADDAM. OCCUPYING TROOPS ARE STILL IN IRAQ CAUSING THE DISTRESS AND FEAR AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC. NOW SHIAS AND SUNNIS ARE UNITING TO EXPELL THE INVADERS FROM THEIR HOMELAND.
More...
Description:
Al ‘Askarī Mosque or the ‘Askariyya Mosque/Shrine (Arabic: مرقد الامامين علي الهادي والحسن العسكري Marqad al-Imāmayn ‘Alī l-Hādī wa l-Ħassan al-‘Askarī) is a Shī‘ah Muslim holy site located in the Iraqi city of Sāmarrā 125 km (78 mi) from Baghdad. It is one of the most important Shī‘ah mosques in the world, built in 944.[1] Its dome was destroyed in a bombing by terrorists in February 2006 and its two remaining minarets were destroyed in another bombing in June 2007, causing widespread anger amongst Muslims. The remaining clock tower was also destroyed in July 2007. The remains of the 10th and 11th Shī‘ah Imāms, ‘Alī al-Hādī ("an-Naqī") and his son Hasan al-‘Askarī, known as: al-‘Askariyyain ("the two ‘Askarīs"), rest at the shrine[2]. Also buried within the Mosque are: Hakimah Khātūn, sister of ‘Alī al-Hādī; and Narjis Khātūn, the mother of Muħammad al-Mahdī[3]. Adjacent to this shrine is another mosque, built over the location where the Twelfth or "Hidden" Imām, Muħammad al-Mahdī first entered the Minor Occultation.
The ‘Askariyya Shrine is also known as the "Tomb or Mausoleum of the Two Imāms", "the Tomb of Imāms ‘Alī al-Hādī and Hasan al-‘Askarī" and "al-Hadhratu l-‘Askariyya".
CLAIMS OF SECTARIAN VIOLENCE ARE ABSURD AS THE TWO MAJOR SECTS OF ISLAM, SHIA & SUNNI HAVE RESPECTED EACH OTHERS HOLY FIGURES FOR A LONG TIME. THESE SORTS OF INCIDENCES STARTED AFTER FOREIGN TROOPS ILLEGALY OCCUPIES IRAQ IN 2002 UNDER THE PRETEXT OF HAVING THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THEN LATER THE CRUEL DICTATOR SADDAM. OCCUPYING TROOPS ARE STILL IN IRAQ CAUSING THE DISTRESS AND FEAR AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC. NOW SHIAS AND SUNNIS ARE UNITING TO EXPELL THE INVADERS FROM THEIR HOMELAND.
17th Dec08-Veterans Shoe Protest Over Iraq War at White House- English
On Wednesday December 17 2008 activists staged a Shoe In demonstration in front of the White House. The rally was in solidarity with Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi.
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About...
On Wednesday December 17 2008 activists staged a Shoe In demonstration in front of the White House. The rally was in solidarity with Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi.
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday to protest for the release of the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush over the weekend.
Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for the Al Baghdadia Television, has been in custody since disrupting President Bush’s weekend press conference with the size-10 projectiles. If convicted, Mr Zaidi may be jailed for up to seven years.
The protesters brought a giant head of President Bush, threw shoes at it and covered it with shoes before ending their protest.
They also brought bags of shoes representing Iraqis and US soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration’s “illegal invasion” of Iraq.
The peace activists urged the Iraqi government to release Mr Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family.
At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president had “no hard feelings” about the Iraqi journalist who flung shoes at him.
Asked if Mr Zaidi should be forgiven, Ms Perino said Mr Bush trusted Iraq’s legal system to decide an appropriate punishment for the assault.
The protesters outside the White House also displayed names of thousands of Iraqis killed in the war. The display contained their names, ages, places where they were killed and how they were killed.
“These are real people,” said Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of the Code Pink which along with three of the groups had participated in the protest. “They were killed because of the US invasion.”Later, representatives for Code Pink, Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace told a news conference that they had come to White House to remind the Bush administration and the American people that “Mr Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 US troops”.
They noted that the war also displaced more than five million Iraqis.
“Bush is the real criminal, not al-Zaidi,” said one of them. “Al-Zaidi speaks for millions of people across the world.”
“Arrest Bush, not Zaidi,” chanted the protesters as they marched outside the White House. “Bush is a war criminal,” shouted the protesters as they spanked a giant picture of the US president with shoes.
The speakers who addressed the news conference noted that Mr Zaidi had become something of a folk-hero in the Arab world, and his shoe-throwing had become a symbol of dissatisfaction with ‘Bush’s bungled war in Iraq’
More...
Description:
On Wednesday December 17 2008 activists staged a Shoe In demonstration in front of the White House. The rally was in solidarity with Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi.
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday to protest for the release of the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush over the weekend.
Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for the Al Baghdadia Television, has been in custody since disrupting President Bush’s weekend press conference with the size-10 projectiles. If convicted, Mr Zaidi may be jailed for up to seven years.
The protesters brought a giant head of President Bush, threw shoes at it and covered it with shoes before ending their protest.
They also brought bags of shoes representing Iraqis and US soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration’s “illegal invasion” of Iraq.
The peace activists urged the Iraqi government to release Mr Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family.
At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president had “no hard feelings” about the Iraqi journalist who flung shoes at him.
Asked if Mr Zaidi should be forgiven, Ms Perino said Mr Bush trusted Iraq’s legal system to decide an appropriate punishment for the assault.
The protesters outside the White House also displayed names of thousands of Iraqis killed in the war. The display contained their names, ages, places where they were killed and how they were killed.
“These are real people,” said Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of the Code Pink which along with three of the groups had participated in the protest. “They were killed because of the US invasion.”Later, representatives for Code Pink, Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace told a news conference that they had come to White House to remind the Bush administration and the American people that “Mr Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 US troops”.
They noted that the war also displaced more than five million Iraqis.
“Bush is the real criminal, not al-Zaidi,” said one of them. “Al-Zaidi speaks for millions of people across the world.”
“Arrest Bush, not Zaidi,” chanted the protesters as they marched outside the White House. “Bush is a war criminal,” shouted the protesters as they spanked a giant picture of the US president with shoes.
The speakers who addressed the news conference noted that Mr Zaidi had become something of a folk-hero in the Arab world, and his shoe-throwing had become a symbol of dissatisfaction with ‘Bush’s bungled war in Iraq’
16:35
|
Gaza-Israel Massacres More than 300 Palestinians-800 Wounded Part 5-English
In a statement on Sunday, Iran called for restraint and an immediate halt of the large-scale Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
Israel attacked the impoverished strip on Saturday, leaving 800 people...
In a statement on Sunday, Iran called for restraint and an immediate halt of the large-scale Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
Israel attacked the impoverished strip on Saturday, leaving 800 people in a critical state. The Saturday attacks are widely believed to be one of the worst in the 60-year history of the Israeli occupation.
"The international community is duty bound to defend Gaza civilians in the face of Israel's genocide and crimes against humanity," the Foreign Ministry statement reads according to press tv.
"Tel Aviv's bombardment of the Gaza Strip is yet another brazen example of Israel's terrorist mindset and its gross violation of human rights," it adds.
The statement condemns the barrage of Israeli attacks on civilian non-military targets as being in stark defiance of the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions.
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed, hence collective punishment and all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
The Saturday onslaught came after a six-month truce between Israel and the democratically-elected Palestinian government of Hamas expired on December 19 - and after repeated violations by Tel Aviv.
The Arab world reacted in shock to the Israeli incursion into Gaza and stepped up calls for retaliation against Israel.
"Today everybody has to stand by the side of the Palestinian people and stop this blind military action," said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.
Russia and France have also decried the large-scale operations, demanding that Israel immediately halt its attacks on the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, however, snubbed international appeals for an end to the attacks and asserted that operations against Gaza will go on for "as long as necessary".
"There is a time for cease-fires and a time to fight, and now is the time to fight," said Barak, adding that the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and security forces have been masterminding the Gaza invasion "for months".
In a televised speech on Sunday, Barak confirmed that Tel Aviv may even send ground troops into Gaza to help in carrying out fresh attacks on the coastal strip.
The UN Security Council held emergency consultations Saturday night and early Sunday to outline a resolution, by which Israel would be obliged to halt its military operations "without delay".
More...
Description:
In a statement on Sunday, Iran called for restraint and an immediate halt of the large-scale Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
Israel attacked the impoverished strip on Saturday, leaving 800 people in a critical state. The Saturday attacks are widely believed to be one of the worst in the 60-year history of the Israeli occupation.
"The international community is duty bound to defend Gaza civilians in the face of Israel's genocide and crimes against humanity," the Foreign Ministry statement reads according to press tv.
"Tel Aviv's bombardment of the Gaza Strip is yet another brazen example of Israel's terrorist mindset and its gross violation of human rights," it adds.
The statement condemns the barrage of Israeli attacks on civilian non-military targets as being in stark defiance of the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions.
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed, hence collective punishment and all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
The Saturday onslaught came after a six-month truce between Israel and the democratically-elected Palestinian government of Hamas expired on December 19 - and after repeated violations by Tel Aviv.
The Arab world reacted in shock to the Israeli incursion into Gaza and stepped up calls for retaliation against Israel.
"Today everybody has to stand by the side of the Palestinian people and stop this blind military action," said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.
Russia and France have also decried the large-scale operations, demanding that Israel immediately halt its attacks on the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, however, snubbed international appeals for an end to the attacks and asserted that operations against Gaza will go on for "as long as necessary".
"There is a time for cease-fires and a time to fight, and now is the time to fight," said Barak, adding that the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and security forces have been masterminding the Gaza invasion "for months".
In a televised speech on Sunday, Barak confirmed that Tel Aviv may even send ground troops into Gaza to help in carrying out fresh attacks on the coastal strip.
The UN Security Council held emergency consultations Saturday night and early Sunday to outline a resolution, by which Israel would be obliged to halt its military operations "without delay".
1:20
|
President Ahmadinejad(HA): "Obama Has Not Delivered Change" - 04 August 2010 - English
Iran questions Obama's 'change'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticized his American counterpart Barack Obama for failing to realize his campaign trail promise of "change."...
Iran questions Obama's 'change'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticized his American counterpart Barack Obama for failing to realize his campaign trail promise of "change."
"They (the Americans) announced that they had pulled out part of their forces from Iraq in recent days and claimed that their move was in line with their slogan of 'change,'" Fars News Agency quoted President Ahmadinejad as saying on Wednesday.
"You said you would withdraw all your troops from Iraq, why is it that some of them are still in this country? Secondly, where are you relocating your forces from Iraq?"
"The Americans want to relocate their soldiers to Afghanistan. What kind of a change in their military policy is this?" the president asked during a speech in the western Hamadan Province.
Ahmadinejad went on to say, "Real change means that you take your forces... and leave our region."
The president also referred to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, urging the US leader "not to miss another chance" over Tehran's nuclear fuel swap proposal.
"Obama missed last year's chance for fuel swap, but this opportunity is once again on the table today. We have informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that we are ready for fuel swap and for negotiations from mid-Ramadan (September)."
The president dismissed a recent host of unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran by the US, the European Union, Canada, and Australia, as "ineffective."
Western powers, led by the US and Israel, accuse Iran of following a covert military nuclear program.
Tehran denies the charges, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it has the right to civilian nuclear technology.
Earlier reports on Wednesday said that the president's motorcade had come under a grenade attack during the trip to Hamadan. The President's office, however, rejected the reports.
More...
Description:
Iran questions Obama's 'change'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticized his American counterpart Barack Obama for failing to realize his campaign trail promise of "change."
"They (the Americans) announced that they had pulled out part of their forces from Iraq in recent days and claimed that their move was in line with their slogan of 'change,'" Fars News Agency quoted President Ahmadinejad as saying on Wednesday.
"You said you would withdraw all your troops from Iraq, why is it that some of them are still in this country? Secondly, where are you relocating your forces from Iraq?"
"The Americans want to relocate their soldiers to Afghanistan. What kind of a change in their military policy is this?" the president asked during a speech in the western Hamadan Province.
Ahmadinejad went on to say, "Real change means that you take your forces... and leave our region."
The president also referred to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, urging the US leader "not to miss another chance" over Tehran's nuclear fuel swap proposal.
"Obama missed last year's chance for fuel swap, but this opportunity is once again on the table today. We have informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that we are ready for fuel swap and for negotiations from mid-Ramadan (September)."
The president dismissed a recent host of unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran by the US, the European Union, Canada, and Australia, as "ineffective."
Western powers, led by the US and Israel, accuse Iran of following a covert military nuclear program.
Tehran denies the charges, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it has the right to civilian nuclear technology.
Earlier reports on Wednesday said that the president's motorcade had come under a grenade attack during the trip to Hamadan. The President's office, however, rejected the reports.
8:32
|
Editor of Hezbollah Newspaper Speaks in England March 2008 - Part 2 - English
Manchester, England. 1 March 2008. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, two leading opponents of the US-led occupations in the Middle East come to Manchester to talk about the reality of the War...
Manchester, England. 1 March 2008. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, two leading opponents of the US-led occupations in the Middle East come to Manchester to talk about the reality of the War on Terror on the ground at a public rally. The event is organised by the Stop the War Coalition as part of its build up to the World Against War demonstrations that were due to take place globally on March 15th 2008.
This meeting is a chance to hear key figures from the Middle East and leading
activists and writers from Britain discuss the impact of the war on terror and
the continuing campaign to get the troops out.
The speakers include two eyewitness reports from Iraq and Lebanon:
1. Ibrahim al-Moussawi is editor of the Lebanese Hezbollah newspaper, al-Intiqad, and one of the key spokespeople for the popular resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
2. Hassan Juma'a is President of the Iraqi Oil Workers Federation, and a leader of the campaign to stop the US-led privatisation of Iraqi oil.
They are joined at the rally by Chris Nineham, national chair of the Stop the War Coalition.
Ibrahim Mousawi defies a campaign by warmongering Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, to keep him out of the country. "Governments should not censor what people have to say and confiscate the right of intelligent people to decide what to hear or not to hear. I'm a staunch defender of political freedoms and freedom of speech," retorted al-Moussaw.
This particular clip shows Ibrahim al-Moussawi, editor of the Hezbollah newspaper, speaking at the event.
More...
Description:
Manchester, England. 1 March 2008. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, two leading opponents of the US-led occupations in the Middle East come to Manchester to talk about the reality of the War on Terror on the ground at a public rally. The event is organised by the Stop the War Coalition as part of its build up to the World Against War demonstrations that were due to take place globally on March 15th 2008.
This meeting is a chance to hear key figures from the Middle East and leading
activists and writers from Britain discuss the impact of the war on terror and
the continuing campaign to get the troops out.
The speakers include two eyewitness reports from Iraq and Lebanon:
1. Ibrahim al-Moussawi is editor of the Lebanese Hezbollah newspaper, al-Intiqad, and one of the key spokespeople for the popular resistance to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
2. Hassan Juma'a is President of the Iraqi Oil Workers Federation, and a leader of the campaign to stop the US-led privatisation of Iraqi oil.
They are joined at the rally by Chris Nineham, national chair of the Stop the War Coalition.
Ibrahim Mousawi defies a campaign by warmongering Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, to keep him out of the country. "Governments should not censor what people have to say and confiscate the right of intelligent people to decide what to hear or not to hear. I'm a staunch defender of political freedoms and freedom of speech," retorted al-Moussaw.
This particular clip shows Ibrahim al-Moussawi, editor of the Hezbollah newspaper, speaking at the event.
34:40
|
[Arabic] لقاء خاص مع الرئيس بشار الأسد - Bashar Asad Interview - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
2:20
|
Indian Troops Kill Dozens In Occupied Kashmir As Kashmirs Protest Quran Burning - 13 SEP 2010 - English
Indian troops kill dozens in Kashmir
At least 18 people have been killed and over 100 injured in Indian-controlled Kashmir as soldiers open fire on pro-independence rallies in disputed...
Indian troops kill dozens in Kashmir
At least 18 people have been killed and over 100 injured in Indian-controlled Kashmir as soldiers open fire on pro-independence rallies in disputed Himalayan region.
Security forces opened fire on tens of thousands of protesters in the Budgam and Tangmarg areas.
An Indian soldier was also killed in the violence.
The protests were particularly intense following the news of the desecration of the Quran in the US.
On Sunday, India imposed a curfew in many areas of Kashmir.
However, people have been pouring out to the streets across Kashmir to protest against Indian rule despite the curfews.
The latest round of public outrage began after a government forces' teargas grenade killed a teenager back in June.
More than 80 protesters and by-standers have lost their lives during the unrest ever since.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142336.html
Kashmiris protest Quran desecration
Hundreds of Muslims have defied curfews in Indian-administered Kashmir and hit the streets to voice their anger over desecration of Islam's holy book in the US.
Protests were held in the region's main city of Srinagar and its neighboring districts despite strict curfews, The Nation reported on Monday.
"Death to the US!" and "Death to Quran desecrators!" chanted the protesters, who described the act as despicable.
The protesters also called for punishment of those behind the desecration of the Quran.
"These are absolutely pro-Islam protests and we demand befitting punishment to those who have desecrated the holy Quran. No Muslim anywhere in the world will watch the desecration of the holy Quran as a mute spectator. This protest is beyond borders and nationalities," a 55-year-old Kashmiri said.
Although an American pastor cancelled earlier plans to burn copies of the Quran, other anti-Islam elements in the US desecrated the holy book in New York and in Washington on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The protest rallies in Srinagar erupted after local television showed a small group of protesters tearing apart and burning pages from the Muslim holy book outside the White House on Saturday.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142324.html
India knocks Press TV off air in Kashmir
India has banned local cable operators in Indian-administered Kashmir from airing Iran's English-language Press TV in the disputed Himalayan region.
State Chief Secretary SS Kapur made the announcement in Kashmir's summer capital of Srinagar on Monday.
"We have decided to impose a ban on the airing of Press TV broadcasts by local cable operators," Kapur told reporters.
The ban comes as Press TV has become popular across the Muslim-majority region due to its enhanced coverage of the regional events over the past three months.
Media organizations have strongly condemned the move and demanded that the government put the channel back on air.
However, reports say more and more people in Kashmir continue to get their news from Press TV via internet services or direct broadcast satellites.
In a separate development, hundreds of Kashmiris have come out to the streets to voice their anger over the desecration of Islam's holy book in the US.
Protests were held in the Indian-administered region's main city of Srinagar, and its neighboring districts despite strict curfews in place.
The protesters, who were shouting anti-US slogans, described the act as despicable, calling for the punishment of those behind the desecration of the Quran.
The protests erupted after pages from the Muslim holy book were torn up and burned in Washington, as well as in other US cities.
The move has outraged Muslims all over the world.
Meanwhile, at least twelve people were killed in Indian-controlled Kashmir as soldiers opened fire on pro-independence rallies on Monday.
Unrest in Kashmir has claimed at least 83 lives over the past three months.
Kashmir has been rocked by a wave of protests over the death of a teenager back in June.
He was killed when Indian police fired teargas shells during demonstrations against India's rule over the mainly Muslim-populated Kashmir.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142343.html
More...
Description:
Indian troops kill dozens in Kashmir
At least 18 people have been killed and over 100 injured in Indian-controlled Kashmir as soldiers open fire on pro-independence rallies in disputed Himalayan region.
Security forces opened fire on tens of thousands of protesters in the Budgam and Tangmarg areas.
An Indian soldier was also killed in the violence.
The protests were particularly intense following the news of the desecration of the Quran in the US.
On Sunday, India imposed a curfew in many areas of Kashmir.
However, people have been pouring out to the streets across Kashmir to protest against Indian rule despite the curfews.
The latest round of public outrage began after a government forces' teargas grenade killed a teenager back in June.
More than 80 protesters and by-standers have lost their lives during the unrest ever since.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142336.html
Kashmiris protest Quran desecration
Hundreds of Muslims have defied curfews in Indian-administered Kashmir and hit the streets to voice their anger over desecration of Islam's holy book in the US.
Protests were held in the region's main city of Srinagar and its neighboring districts despite strict curfews, The Nation reported on Monday.
"Death to the US!" and "Death to Quran desecrators!" chanted the protesters, who described the act as despicable.
The protesters also called for punishment of those behind the desecration of the Quran.
"These are absolutely pro-Islam protests and we demand befitting punishment to those who have desecrated the holy Quran. No Muslim anywhere in the world will watch the desecration of the holy Quran as a mute spectator. This protest is beyond borders and nationalities," a 55-year-old Kashmiri said.
Although an American pastor cancelled earlier plans to burn copies of the Quran, other anti-Islam elements in the US desecrated the holy book in New York and in Washington on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The protest rallies in Srinagar erupted after local television showed a small group of protesters tearing apart and burning pages from the Muslim holy book outside the White House on Saturday.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142324.html
India knocks Press TV off air in Kashmir
India has banned local cable operators in Indian-administered Kashmir from airing Iran's English-language Press TV in the disputed Himalayan region.
State Chief Secretary SS Kapur made the announcement in Kashmir's summer capital of Srinagar on Monday.
"We have decided to impose a ban on the airing of Press TV broadcasts by local cable operators," Kapur told reporters.
The ban comes as Press TV has become popular across the Muslim-majority region due to its enhanced coverage of the regional events over the past three months.
Media organizations have strongly condemned the move and demanded that the government put the channel back on air.
However, reports say more and more people in Kashmir continue to get their news from Press TV via internet services or direct broadcast satellites.
In a separate development, hundreds of Kashmiris have come out to the streets to voice their anger over the desecration of Islam's holy book in the US.
Protests were held in the Indian-administered region's main city of Srinagar, and its neighboring districts despite strict curfews in place.
The protesters, who were shouting anti-US slogans, described the act as despicable, calling for the punishment of those behind the desecration of the Quran.
The protests erupted after pages from the Muslim holy book were torn up and burned in Washington, as well as in other US cities.
The move has outraged Muslims all over the world.
Meanwhile, at least twelve people were killed in Indian-controlled Kashmir as soldiers opened fire on pro-independence rallies on Monday.
Unrest in Kashmir has claimed at least 83 lives over the past three months.
Kashmir has been rocked by a wave of protests over the death of a teenager back in June.
He was killed when Indian police fired teargas shells during demonstrations against India's rule over the mainly Muslim-populated Kashmir.
Article Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/142343.html
3:07
|
33:34
|
[English Translation] Interview Bashar Al-Asad - President Syria on current situation - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
4:14
|
A Clear Message To Iraq By Imam Khamenei | Arabic Sub English
The Leader of the Islamic Ummah, Imam Khamenei delivered this Friday Sermon in Tehran after the martyrdom of General Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis. This is the first Friday sermon by...
The Leader of the Islamic Ummah, Imam Khamenei delivered this Friday Sermon in Tehran after the martyrdom of General Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis. This is the first Friday sermon by Imam Khamenei in last 8 years. A segment of the second portion of this amazing Friday sermon was delivered by Ayatollah Khamenei in Arabic language where he talked directly to the Arab nations in general and specifically to the Iraqi nation.
The Leader sends out a very clear message to all the Arabs.
As part of the severe revenge, all foreign troops must be made to leave this region - either on foot or in boxes!
#MessageToArabs #MessageToIraq #MustWatch #MustShare
More...
Description:
The Leader of the Islamic Ummah, Imam Khamenei delivered this Friday Sermon in Tehran after the martyrdom of General Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis. This is the first Friday sermon by Imam Khamenei in last 8 years. A segment of the second portion of this amazing Friday sermon was delivered by Ayatollah Khamenei in Arabic language where he talked directly to the Arab nations in general and specifically to the Iraqi nation.
The Leader sends out a very clear message to all the Arabs.
As part of the severe revenge, all foreign troops must be made to leave this region - either on foot or in boxes!
#MessageToArabs #MessageToIraq #MustWatch #MustShare
Video Tags:
purestream,
media,
production,
Message,
Iraq,
Imam,
Khamenei,
Leader,
Islamic,
Ummah,
delivered,
Sermon,
martyrdom,
General,
Qasem,
Soleimani,
Abu,
Mahdi,
Mohandis,
segment,
Ayatollah,
Arabic,
Arab,
nations,
general,
Iraqi,
nation,
severe,
revenge,
troops,
region,
61 Peaceful Anti-War protestors arrested at White House - 06Oct09 - English
61 peaceful protestors were arrested when they along with another few hundreds gathered in front of White House to protest against US Administration's absurd foreign policies. They demanded to talk...
61 peaceful protestors were arrested when they along with another few hundreds gathered in front of White House to protest against US Administration's absurd foreign policies. They demanded to talk to Obama because there has been no difference between his policies and that of Bush's. People say that they elected Obama in so that he can stop waging wars on other countries. BUT they are disappointed as the talks are to increase American troops in Afghanistan by 40,000. The Ninth year of Afghanistan invasion and killing innocent people is beginning.
The protestors were practicing their constitutional rights of 1st Admendment - freedom of speech. BUT they were arrested. Shame on the flag bearers of so-called Democracy!
More...
Description:
61 peaceful protestors were arrested when they along with another few hundreds gathered in front of White House to protest against US Administration's absurd foreign policies. They demanded to talk to Obama because there has been no difference between his policies and that of Bush's. People say that they elected Obama in so that he can stop waging wars on other countries. BUT they are disappointed as the talks are to increase American troops in Afghanistan by 40,000. The Ninth year of Afghanistan invasion and killing innocent people is beginning.
The protestors were practicing their constitutional rights of 1st Admendment - freedom of speech. BUT they were arrested. Shame on the flag bearers of so-called Democracy!
2:52
|
[Must Watch] Wars could cost over $4 trillion - English
Although a new study has doubled the US war costs, it does not account for the enormous subsequent expenses for the injured troops, a US analyst says.
"The cost of taking care of [the injured...
Although a new study has doubled the US war costs, it does not account for the enormous subsequent expenses for the injured troops, a US analyst says.
"The cost of taking care of [the injured troops] … has not really been taken into account seriously, either by economists or by political figures in the United States," historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter told Press TV on Thursday.
The new study, conducted by the Nobel Prize winner for economics Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University Professor Linda Bilmes, shows that the long-term costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq doubles initial estimates, suggesting the revised six-trillion-dollar figure.
The analyst also warned that "the institutional interests of the military itself [is] so enormous that the [US] military is absolutely determined to avoid an end to this war any time soon."
Porter called on the people and the politicians in the United States to take action to make their government bring the wars to an end.
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/144762.html
****************
Wars could cost over $4 trillion
Authors of the book The Three Trillion Dollar War now estimate that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could top $4 trillion over time. A lagging economy, increases in the cost of medical care, higher than expected expenditures on post-combat medical and psychiatric care, and a surge in disability benefits are likely to place a significant strain on the federal budget.
House Veterans Affairs Chairman, Bob Filner (D-California), stated:
"This may be more of a crisis than the Medicare and Social Security problems we have looming...It rivals both in the potential impact. This is another entitlement we've committed ourselves to, and it could break the bank."
Filner aims on utilizing the latest cost estimates to propose a "veterans trust fund" to pay for the long-term war expenses, a proposal that has so far found minimal support in the Democratic-led House due to the startling price tag associated with it.
Having already blown past original cost projections, combat operations alone in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have cost nearly $1.1 trillion in nine years. With well over 30,000 maimed for life, a PTSD epidemic, and record suicide rates (in the military), an estimated price tag of at least $4 trillion over the next several years appears to be reasonable.
As a result, those who claim to be fiscally conservative should take a long hard look at the immense cost of open-ended, overseas wars, especially at a time when America could be facing a debt crisis in the not-too-distant future. Vague objectives, shifting benchmarks, imprecise definitions of victory, and unclear exit strategies inevitably lead to costs that far exceed initial budget estimates.
In addition, those who claim to espouse a more progressive, anti-war stance should take a long hard look at the current war policy, as the trillions being spent could be better invested in infrastructure, health care, education, alternative energy, and other domestic programs. Perhaps the strategy of electing leaders who espouse peace, fiscal responsibility, and change in U.S. foreign policy, yet intensify wars, spend even more on the military, and adopt much of their despised opponents' previous platform, should be more critically examined.
http://caivn.org/article/2010/09/30/wars-could-cost-over-4-trillion
More...
Description:
Although a new study has doubled the US war costs, it does not account for the enormous subsequent expenses for the injured troops, a US analyst says.
"The cost of taking care of [the injured troops] … has not really been taken into account seriously, either by economists or by political figures in the United States," historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter told Press TV on Thursday.
The new study, conducted by the Nobel Prize winner for economics Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University Professor Linda Bilmes, shows that the long-term costs of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq doubles initial estimates, suggesting the revised six-trillion-dollar figure.
The analyst also warned that "the institutional interests of the military itself [is] so enormous that the [US] military is absolutely determined to avoid an end to this war any time soon."
Porter called on the people and the politicians in the United States to take action to make their government bring the wars to an end.
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/144762.html
****************
Wars could cost over $4 trillion
Authors of the book The Three Trillion Dollar War now estimate that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could top $4 trillion over time. A lagging economy, increases in the cost of medical care, higher than expected expenditures on post-combat medical and psychiatric care, and a surge in disability benefits are likely to place a significant strain on the federal budget.
House Veterans Affairs Chairman, Bob Filner (D-California), stated:
"This may be more of a crisis than the Medicare and Social Security problems we have looming...It rivals both in the potential impact. This is another entitlement we've committed ourselves to, and it could break the bank."
Filner aims on utilizing the latest cost estimates to propose a "veterans trust fund" to pay for the long-term war expenses, a proposal that has so far found minimal support in the Democratic-led House due to the startling price tag associated with it.
Having already blown past original cost projections, combat operations alone in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have cost nearly $1.1 trillion in nine years. With well over 30,000 maimed for life, a PTSD epidemic, and record suicide rates (in the military), an estimated price tag of at least $4 trillion over the next several years appears to be reasonable.
As a result, those who claim to be fiscally conservative should take a long hard look at the immense cost of open-ended, overseas wars, especially at a time when America could be facing a debt crisis in the not-too-distant future. Vague objectives, shifting benchmarks, imprecise definitions of victory, and unclear exit strategies inevitably lead to costs that far exceed initial budget estimates.
In addition, those who claim to espouse a more progressive, anti-war stance should take a long hard look at the current war policy, as the trillions being spent could be better invested in infrastructure, health care, education, alternative energy, and other domestic programs. Perhaps the strategy of electing leaders who espouse peace, fiscal responsibility, and change in U.S. foreign policy, yet intensify wars, spend even more on the military, and adopt much of their despised opponents' previous platform, should be more critically examined.
http://caivn.org/article/2010/09/30/wars-could-cost-over-4-trillion
4:05
|
Nuclear war by miscalculation - 13 August 2008 - English
Russia went into Georgia to essentially deliver a message. There are more than 1000 US military special forces in Georgia doing exercising training Georgian troops before Georgia launched the...
Russia went into Georgia to essentially deliver a message. There are more than 1000 US military special forces in Georgia doing exercising training Georgian troops before Georgia launched the attack on Ossetia on 8 August. There are 1000 Israeli troops at least private security firms and military advisors including advisors who are upgrading the Georgian air force in an installation near Tbilisi. That is what the Russian airplanes hit and they essentially made the military strike on South Ossetia militarily impossible by making incursions inside Georgian territory before they announced that they were calling a halt to their military operations.
More...
Description:
Russia went into Georgia to essentially deliver a message. There are more than 1000 US military special forces in Georgia doing exercising training Georgian troops before Georgia launched the attack on Ossetia on 8 August. There are 1000 Israeli troops at least private security firms and military advisors including advisors who are upgrading the Georgian air force in an installation near Tbilisi. That is what the Russian airplanes hit and they essentially made the military strike on South Ossetia militarily impossible by making incursions inside Georgian territory before they announced that they were calling a halt to their military operations.
Nuclear - Depleted Uranium Against Gazans - English
Medics tell Press TV they have found traces of depleted uranium in some Gazan residents wounded in Israel's ground offensive into the strip.
Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram...
Medics tell Press TV they have found traces of depleted uranium in some Gazan residents wounded in Israel's ground offensive into the strip.
Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram al-Sattari that some of the victims who have been wounded since Israel began its attacks on the Gaza Strip on December 27 have traces of depleted uranium in their bodies.
The report comes after Israeli tanks and troops swept across the border into Gaza on Saturday night, opening a ground operation after eight days of intensive attacks by Israeli air and naval forces on the impoverished region.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned on Sunday that the wide-ranging ground offensive in the Gaza Strip would be "full of surprises."
A ground offensive in the densely-populated Gaza is expected to drastically increase the death toll of the civilian population.
The latest assaults bring the number of Palestinians killed to over 488 with 2790 others wounded. The UN says that about 25 percent of the casualties were civilian deaths - including at least 34 children.
According to Israeli army officials, at least 30 of its soldiers have been wounded since the start of the ground campaign.
Amid global condemnation of the ongoing violence in the region, the UN Security Council failed to agree on a united approach to resolve the crisis.
"Once again, the world is watching in dismay the dysfunctionality of the Security Council," UN General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto said Sunday.
According to diplomatic sources, the US blocked a Security Council resolution, with US Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff arguing that an official statement that criticizes both Israel and Hamas would not be helpful.
The White House has so far declined to comment on whether an Israeli ground incursion into Gaza is a justified measure.
More...
Description:
Medics tell Press TV they have found traces of depleted uranium in some Gazan residents wounded in Israel's ground offensive into the strip.
Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram al-Sattari that some of the victims who have been wounded since Israel began its attacks on the Gaza Strip on December 27 have traces of depleted uranium in their bodies.
The report comes after Israeli tanks and troops swept across the border into Gaza on Saturday night, opening a ground operation after eight days of intensive attacks by Israeli air and naval forces on the impoverished region.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned on Sunday that the wide-ranging ground offensive in the Gaza Strip would be "full of surprises."
A ground offensive in the densely-populated Gaza is expected to drastically increase the death toll of the civilian population.
The latest assaults bring the number of Palestinians killed to over 488 with 2790 others wounded. The UN says that about 25 percent of the casualties were civilian deaths - including at least 34 children.
According to Israeli army officials, at least 30 of its soldiers have been wounded since the start of the ground campaign.
Amid global condemnation of the ongoing violence in the region, the UN Security Council failed to agree on a united approach to resolve the crisis.
"Once again, the world is watching in dismay the dysfunctionality of the Security Council," UN General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto said Sunday.
According to diplomatic sources, the US blocked a Security Council resolution, with US Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff arguing that an official statement that criticizes both Israel and Hamas would not be helpful.
The White House has so far declined to comment on whether an Israeli ground incursion into Gaza is a justified measure.