Cynthia McKinney in an Israeli jail - English
As if we needed any more proof that the international media deliberately avoids exposing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian injustices, its suspect behavior during recent days has sealed the case....
As if we needed any more proof that the international media deliberately avoids exposing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian injustices, its suspect behavior during recent days has sealed the case.
Even as we were being force-fed minute details of Michael Jackson's colorful life along with endless speculation as to the true parentage of his children, a former U.S. Congresswomen and presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, was languishing in an Israeli jail.
Her 'crime' was boarding the Free Gaza Movement's aid vessel The Spirit of Humanity in Cyprus, in an effort to break Israel's cruel siege of Gaza, which even the U.S. President has condemned.
Like several of her sister vessels, The Spirit of Humanity was attacked by the Israeli Navy in international waters before being boarded by Israeli commandos and dragged along with its crew and passengers towards Israel.
Once there, 21 human rights advocates from the U.S., Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen, including McKinney, Noble Laureate Mairead Maguire, and documentary filmmaker Adam Shapiro, were incarcerated.
Let's be realistic. If just about any other high-profile U.S. politician on any other mission had been detained within a cell block on foreign soil, the incident would have merited headlines.
However, McKinney's abduction went almost unnoticed. Not only was the story relegated to the back pages, if it ran at all, there was a corresponding absence of comment from Congress and the White House.
McKinney is now home after refusing to sign a statement in Hebrew that she was guilty of a violation, but the mainstream media is certainly not clamoring at her door for interviews.
As far as I can tell, her ordeal has mostly been covered by left-wing outlets such as Democracy Now or Middle East networks including Al Jazeera and Press TV.
A number of McKinney's supporters say the reason for the media blackout was the fact that she is a Black American. But, in fact, it's her cause that's the problem rather than her color.
My analysis is based on the lack of media coverage given to the Viva Palestina aid convoy of trucks and ambulances from London to Gaza, led by British Parliamentarian George Galloway.
The Herculean efforts of hundreds of ordinary Britons to deliver much-needed humanitarian supplies to war-torn Gaza earlier this year was a non-event as far as the media was concerned until Galloway was barred from entering Canada as a result.
Unless you're a person who relentlessly digs on the internet, you probably are not aware that during McKinney's ordeal, Galloway, along with Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic, were meeting up with over 200 Americans in Cairo armed with $2 million (Dh7.35 million) that was raised in the U.S. to buy trucks and medical aid destined for Gaza.
The Egyptian English-language paper Al Ahram Weekly dubs this ""the largest grassroots medical relief effort for Gaza in U.S. history"" but once again, this doesn't merit column inches in either U.S. or European mainstream papers.
In a similar vein, is the way that the horrendous courtroom stabbing of 32-year-old Marwa Al Sherbini was considered inconsequential by the German media until it elicited angry protests in her hometown of Alexandria.
There are so many aspects to this story, which should have been emblazoned across front pages.
First of all it was a blatant race crime, which Germany is normally sensitive about. Second, it begs questions concerning court security.
What were armed officers doing when Marwa was stabbed 18 times and why was her husband shot when he attempted to protect his pregnant wife?
What kind of editors would bin reports of such a horrendous crime carried out in full view of the authorities? What were they thinking?
Purely coincidentally, I was sitting at a table with one of Marwa's uncles in an Alexandria coffee shop when he received a call on his mobile and had to dash off because of a ""family emergency"".
Today, this exceptionally close-knit family is devastated and hurt that the murder of one of their own wasn't initially treated with the weight the crime deserved.
Egyptians are outraged at Germany's disinterest and the inaction of their own foreign office. The numbers who attended her funeral, who gathered outside the German embassy in Cairo and who demonstrated in Cairo and Alexandria speak for themselves.
Because Marwa's dispute with her attacker was based on his objections to her Islamic headscarf, the death of the young pharmacist has become an emblem for the rights of Muslim women at a time when the French President is attempting to ban the burqa. Marwa loved life.
She didn't plan to become a martyr. But in the eyes of Egyptians calling for a mosque and a street in Alexandria to be renamed in her honor, she is a heroine.
If the U.S. and Europe are chronically supine when it comes to Muslim causes, then the governments and media throughout the Arab and Muslim world should embrace them clearly and loudly.
With anti-Muslim hate crimes on the rise, Muslims need a strong united voice on the international stage. Shame on the world's media that appears to be united only in its anti-Muslim bias!
Linda S. Heard is a specialist British writer on Middle East affairs.
(Source: Gulf News
More...
Description:
As if we needed any more proof that the international media deliberately avoids exposing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian injustices, its suspect behavior during recent days has sealed the case.
Even as we were being force-fed minute details of Michael Jackson's colorful life along with endless speculation as to the true parentage of his children, a former U.S. Congresswomen and presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, was languishing in an Israeli jail.
Her 'crime' was boarding the Free Gaza Movement's aid vessel The Spirit of Humanity in Cyprus, in an effort to break Israel's cruel siege of Gaza, which even the U.S. President has condemned.
Like several of her sister vessels, The Spirit of Humanity was attacked by the Israeli Navy in international waters before being boarded by Israeli commandos and dragged along with its crew and passengers towards Israel.
Once there, 21 human rights advocates from the U.S., Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen, including McKinney, Noble Laureate Mairead Maguire, and documentary filmmaker Adam Shapiro, were incarcerated.
Let's be realistic. If just about any other high-profile U.S. politician on any other mission had been detained within a cell block on foreign soil, the incident would have merited headlines.
However, McKinney's abduction went almost unnoticed. Not only was the story relegated to the back pages, if it ran at all, there was a corresponding absence of comment from Congress and the White House.
McKinney is now home after refusing to sign a statement in Hebrew that she was guilty of a violation, but the mainstream media is certainly not clamoring at her door for interviews.
As far as I can tell, her ordeal has mostly been covered by left-wing outlets such as Democracy Now or Middle East networks including Al Jazeera and Press TV.
A number of McKinney's supporters say the reason for the media blackout was the fact that she is a Black American. But, in fact, it's her cause that's the problem rather than her color.
My analysis is based on the lack of media coverage given to the Viva Palestina aid convoy of trucks and ambulances from London to Gaza, led by British Parliamentarian George Galloway.
The Herculean efforts of hundreds of ordinary Britons to deliver much-needed humanitarian supplies to war-torn Gaza earlier this year was a non-event as far as the media was concerned until Galloway was barred from entering Canada as a result.
Unless you're a person who relentlessly digs on the internet, you probably are not aware that during McKinney's ordeal, Galloway, along with Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic, were meeting up with over 200 Americans in Cairo armed with $2 million (Dh7.35 million) that was raised in the U.S. to buy trucks and medical aid destined for Gaza.
The Egyptian English-language paper Al Ahram Weekly dubs this ""the largest grassroots medical relief effort for Gaza in U.S. history"" but once again, this doesn't merit column inches in either U.S. or European mainstream papers.
In a similar vein, is the way that the horrendous courtroom stabbing of 32-year-old Marwa Al Sherbini was considered inconsequential by the German media until it elicited angry protests in her hometown of Alexandria.
There are so many aspects to this story, which should have been emblazoned across front pages.
First of all it was a blatant race crime, which Germany is normally sensitive about. Second, it begs questions concerning court security.
What were armed officers doing when Marwa was stabbed 18 times and why was her husband shot when he attempted to protect his pregnant wife?
What kind of editors would bin reports of such a horrendous crime carried out in full view of the authorities? What were they thinking?
Purely coincidentally, I was sitting at a table with one of Marwa's uncles in an Alexandria coffee shop when he received a call on his mobile and had to dash off because of a ""family emergency"".
Today, this exceptionally close-knit family is devastated and hurt that the murder of one of their own wasn't initially treated with the weight the crime deserved.
Egyptians are outraged at Germany's disinterest and the inaction of their own foreign office. The numbers who attended her funeral, who gathered outside the German embassy in Cairo and who demonstrated in Cairo and Alexandria speak for themselves.
Because Marwa's dispute with her attacker was based on his objections to her Islamic headscarf, the death of the young pharmacist has become an emblem for the rights of Muslim women at a time when the French President is attempting to ban the burqa. Marwa loved life.
She didn't plan to become a martyr. But in the eyes of Egyptians calling for a mosque and a street in Alexandria to be renamed in her honor, she is a heroine.
If the U.S. and Europe are chronically supine when it comes to Muslim causes, then the governments and media throughout the Arab and Muslim world should embrace them clearly and loudly.
With anti-Muslim hate crimes on the rise, Muslims need a strong united voice on the international stage. Shame on the world's media that appears to be united only in its anti-Muslim bias!
Linda S. Heard is a specialist British writer on Middle East affairs.
(Source: Gulf News
The 10 Days - New Documentary on the Islamic Revolution of Iran - Part 1 - English
The 10 Days -This Documentary will Remember the People who were present at the time of the Revolution and also The Major Newspaper Headlines at that time - Part 1 - English
The 10 Days -This Documentary will Remember the People who were present at the time of the Revolution and also The Major Newspaper Headlines at that time - Part 1 - English
The 10 Days - New Documentary on the Islamic Revolution of Iran - Part 2 - English
The 10 Days -This Documentary will Remember the People who were present at the time of the Revolution and also The Major Newspaper Headlines at that time - Part 2 - English
The 10 Days -This Documentary will Remember the People who were present at the time of the Revolution and also The Major Newspaper Headlines at that time - Part 2 - English
The World is Changing - English
http://nureinwort.blogspot.com It is the year 2010 and the Islamic Revolution thrives, inexpugnable to billion dollars coup attempts, cultural warfare, plots for sectarian division, and barbaric...
http://nureinwort.blogspot.com It is the year 2010 and the Islamic Revolution thrives, inexpugnable to billion dollars coup attempts, cultural warfare, plots for sectarian division, and barbaric preemptive wars of aggression. Its enemies - authors of our media headlines and our academic lines of thought - predicted the same movement to collapse 30 years ago. Will you let those backwards people to tell you what Islam, Fundamentalism, and this beautiful Revolution are all about, or will you make use of your God-given intellectual faculties to leave the prejudices and twisted frameworks behind?
More...
Description:
http://nureinwort.blogspot.com It is the year 2010 and the Islamic Revolution thrives, inexpugnable to billion dollars coup attempts, cultural warfare, plots for sectarian division, and barbaric preemptive wars of aggression. Its enemies - authors of our media headlines and our academic lines of thought - predicted the same movement to collapse 30 years ago. Will you let those backwards people to tell you what Islam, Fundamentalism, and this beautiful Revolution are all about, or will you make use of your God-given intellectual faculties to leave the prejudices and twisted frameworks behind?
LEADER\\\'S SPEECH -ISLAMIC AWAKENING - World News Summary - 4 June 2011 - English
D E T A I L S - -
Supreme Leader Stresses Iran\\\'s Support for \\\"Undivided Palestine\\\"
TEHRAN (FNA)- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali...
D E T A I L S - -
Supreme Leader Stresses Iran\\\'s Support for \\\"Undivided Palestine\\\"
TEHRAN (FNA)- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei stressed ineffectiveness of the Zionist regime and the West\\\'s plots against Palestine, and reiterated Tehran\\\'s support for an undivided Palestine.
\\\"They (enemies) wished to wipe Palestine off the world map, while they were mistaken. Palestine will remain and will not be eliminated,\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing a large crowd of Iranian people at the mausoleum of the late Founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, South of Tehran.
\\\"Palestine is inseparable and it belongs to the Palestinians undivided,\\\" the Leader underscored.
\\\"Palestine will return to the arms of Islam, without any doubt,\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei stated.
Iranians from all walks of life gathered at the mausoleum of the late Imam Khomeini to mourn the 22nd anniversary of the demise of the Founder of the Islamic Republic and also to renew their allegiance to his ideals.
A number of top Iranian military and political officials as well as foreign ambassadors and guests have joined the ceremony.
Every year, millions of Iranians from across the country travel to Tehran to pay tribute to the late leader.
Imam Khomeini returned to Iran after 14 years in exile to lead the Islamic Revolution that toppled the Pahlavi monarchy back in 1979.
Imam Khomeini passed away on June 3, 1989, ten years after leading the uprising that put an end to the Pahlavi regime.
More...
Description:
D E T A I L S - -
Supreme Leader Stresses Iran\\\'s Support for \\\"Undivided Palestine\\\"
TEHRAN (FNA)- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei stressed ineffectiveness of the Zionist regime and the West\\\'s plots against Palestine, and reiterated Tehran\\\'s support for an undivided Palestine.
\\\"They (enemies) wished to wipe Palestine off the world map, while they were mistaken. Palestine will remain and will not be eliminated,\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing a large crowd of Iranian people at the mausoleum of the late Founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, South of Tehran.
\\\"Palestine is inseparable and it belongs to the Palestinians undivided,\\\" the Leader underscored.
\\\"Palestine will return to the arms of Islam, without any doubt,\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei stated.
Iranians from all walks of life gathered at the mausoleum of the late Imam Khomeini to mourn the 22nd anniversary of the demise of the Founder of the Islamic Republic and also to renew their allegiance to his ideals.
A number of top Iranian military and political officials as well as foreign ambassadors and guests have joined the ceremony.
Every year, millions of Iranians from across the country travel to Tehran to pay tribute to the late leader.
Imam Khomeini returned to Iran after 14 years in exile to lead the Islamic Revolution that toppled the Pahlavi monarchy back in 1979.
Imam Khomeini passed away on June 3, 1989, ten years after leading the uprising that put an end to the Pahlavi regime.
Mohammad Javad Larijani Interview with MSNBC - He Just Shut Up CFR Officials - 17 Nov 2011 - English
Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.”...
Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.”
In his November 8 report on Iran's nuclear program, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claimed that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.”
Based on the report, which Iran has called "unfounded and unbalanced," the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday passed a new resolution on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities.
The resolution voices "deep and increasing concern" over Tehran's nuclear program and also calls for Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the issue.
Larijani made the remarks in a heated television debate aired on the American channel MSNBC.
US president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Richard Haass, Mike Barnicle and John Mitchun were the other guests on the television debate.
What follows is a rough transcription of the interview:
MSNBC: Let's go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iran, the headlines of the past week, the IAEA report found evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran and you are quoted as saying that is “quite laughable.” Why sir?
Larijani: The reason is very simple. There is no single evidence in that. These allegations which is aired again is based on a document which was put to us four years ago based on a laptop somewhere found by United States authorities.
And at that time, four years ago, it has been discussed with the agency and the conclusion was that none of these allegations could be verified.
So by a letter it has been closed- the whole issue. Then again it has been renewed and [let me] just give you an example. A good part of this so-called document which is on the laptop, for example lecture notes that somebody presented in Brussels or at some universities. Some of them are parts of some textbook as put together with pictures, formulas, so it is totally inconclusive.
MSNBC: Let's back up. Before I send this to Richard Haass- are you saying it doesn't exist? There is no nuclear program?
Larijani: Well we have a very extensive nuclear program but not to the direction of producing arms. Our nuclear project is very extensive, very advanced. We are number one in the Middle East but we are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons.
Number one there is a Fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader and it is against the Islamic jurisprudence to build and use mass destructing weapons. It is Haram we call it, unlawful.
And secondly, it doesn't add to our security. It is more liability than asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to repel or to deter any imminent threat and this is basically very important achievement.
MSNBC: Richard Haass, put this into perspective for us. What the reports were saying and what this gentleman is saying.
Haass: Well quite frankly it is impossible to take the Iranian denial seriously. They are preposterous. The International Atomic Energy Agency taking information from all the member states in the United Nations have put together a comprehensive and extraordinarily damning report.
And what there is, is a pattern, not a single incident, a pattern over years of Iranian program to move in the direction of developing nuclear weapons.
We see a procurement mechanism to gain access to all sorts of equipment, we see all sorts of undeclared efforts to produce nuclear material now up to 20 percent well on its way to what it needs to produce a weapon, most important there is now serious evidence about the Iranian testing of the implosive device that would actually be the heart of the nuclear weapon.
So the idea that the Iranians have all these underground and undeclared facilities, that they have been misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency for years, the idea they're doing this- this oil rich country in order to produce electricity? If you believe that you seriously have to believe in the tooth fairy.
MSNBC: Sir this doesn't sound like preposterous, little pieces of information that were roaming together randomly.
Larijani: Well the whole scenes of allegation is produced and initiated by the United States. It seems there is a good machinery to produce perpetual allegation against Iran, it is not only one case.
I am telling you exactly that there are no secret programs in our nuclear program and development. Iran's transparency is far ahead of United States, far ahead of UK, far ahead of France and incomparable to Israel which is a renegade state in the sense of NPT.
Barnicle: So you allow inspectors to just come into Iran.
Larijani: The inspectors are coming to Iran periodically, the cameras are there 24 hours. This is quite obvious.
Haass: But the whole concept the way this works, just when you talk about inspectors, let's just be clear, I am sure if everyone watching this will understand, the entire international nuclear inspection effort depends upon the willingness of the country in question to cooperate fully.
This is a gentlemen's agreement. They declare their facilities that are involved in the nuclear business then the inspectors come in and look at them. If they do not declare facilities the inspectors don't give a chance and the problem is this is a gentlemen's agreement in a world where not every country is a gentleman.
So Iran quite frankly has undeclared facilities and undeclared programs which the inspectors had not had access to and the reason we only know about it is that member states, not simply the United States sir, but many, many member states of the United Nations have provided independent information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which by the way you know and I know is not controlled by the United States.
We have fundamental differences with this agency over the years including over Iraq. We had fundamental differences and we've also had differences over Iran where we the United States felt, this agency was not being nearly tough enough. So now they have come in with an extraordinarily damning report and Iranian officials can dismiss it.
MSNBC: So if this is a gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen certainly don't agree and sir, you seem very confident and almost as if it's funny it's interesting because we interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about this about a year ago, off camera, and he too seemed very comfortable about his position which is similar to yours.
And if you are so comfortable with your position about the lack of nuclear armament and the facilities that the IAEA is talking about, why not let inspectors completely come in? Open the door let them come in and see what you have.
Larijani: Well the mechanism that the gentleman addressed is not complete because first of all there is no single secret installment or activity which is concealed from the agency.
Secondly, two years ago we asked the agency tell us all the questions you have and he managed to put to us six groups of questions. The questions were raised by themselves not dictated by us. So one by one groups of inspectors came to Iran and we cleared them up and there is official letters from them this group has been finished then we moved to another one.
Well it doesn't make sense that every morning somebody says we guess there is some secret things done there. There should be foundation for this allegation. What do you mean the door should be open? They should ask where do you want to inspect? Did they want to inspect my bedroom or other places? I mean it doesn't make sense.
Barnicle: A few moments ago when you mentioned the nuclear programs of other nations I detected a definite edge in your voice when you mentioned the state of Israel. Do you fear an attack from the state of Israel on your nuclear facilities?
Larijani: Well I am beyond the fear. What is the difference between us and Israel? Israel has a bomb, not a member of NPT; it doesn't disclose anything to agency, nothing wrong with it. You see what the double standard is in here.
We are member of NPT, they periodically come to Iran, their cameras are there, we don't have the weapon then the whole pressure is put on us. No, not at all. We don't fear any attack from anyone. We take it serious in our calculation but we don't fear. There is a difference between that.
Mitchum: Given your tone again Sir when you talk about Israel, just a second ago why shouldn't we suspect that there would be ambitions for Iran to join the club of which Israel is a part with the nuclear arms?
Larijani: We are very advanced in the nuclear technology which is a matter of pride for us and that gentleman mentioned that we have plenty of gas and oil with all good calculations, the age of this is up to 20-25 period, 25 years from now.
It means that if we don't have it, then we should beg in front of the Western countries to light our houses and we know how bad they are treating us in this area. We are right now very happy that we have the first power plant, we know how to make the fuel. We already have more than 25 percent share of sodalite and erudite they don't give us a bit of this fuel that we need, even the twenty percent that we needed for Tehran.
Haass: It's important to keep in mind we are not talking about an established democracy that treats its own people with respect, we are talking about a country also that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So this is obvious and understandable concern about what Iran is doing.
Larijani: In terms of record I think United States of America is the largest and the greatest country supporting terrorism. The records of terrorist activity which is supported by the tax money of these people is enormous, I can go one by one.
Barnicle: Wait a minute. This is a free country. And part of our gift is we have the liberty and the freedom to say anything and to sound foolish, to sound absurd, to sound smart. That's absurd saying that America is the biggest terrorist nation in the world.
My question to you Sir is, you seem like a really nice guy, alright, why doesn't your country be a better neighbor?
Larijani: We have fantastic relations with all of our neighbors...
Barnicle: Really? [laughing]
Larijani: Definitely, but the policy of demonizing Iran, a very important policy which is pursued in the region- well it has its own benefit.
Barnicle But it's just in little things, like the American tourists cross the border, supposedly cross the border, you grab them, you scoop them, you hold them for months on end. Why?
Larijani: This is a very simple question I answered before; suppose the security of your people...
Barnicle You're here...
Larijani: No, I'm here with visa- It's quite different. [Suppose] The security of the United States' people, on a patrol with Mexico elsewhere they pick 3 Iranians and ask them why are you here? They say well we are just walking in the desert.
Well, with the whole hostility and suspicion which is between the two countries, you are in here to blow up somewhere definitely they will be put into jail for years if not in Guantanamo, they bring them somewhere else.
It took a lot of time that we convince- I was working on this case because they were like me from ... Berkeley. I talked with their families, managed to contact between them and their families when they were arrested- for their families to come to Iran to take the suspicion away.
This is very natural for security of people to suspect a cross bordering which is in the most volatile regional area of Iran- in which there is daily shooting over there.
Barnicle Ok. They're going to blow up the desert. What is the root? What do you think is the root of Iranian paranoia towards the United States and towards many of its neighbors?
What is the root of this paranoia? Is it the fear that we find out about your nuclear program?
Larijani: We don't have any paranoia about our neighbors. We are very suspicious of American paranoia with us. The question is what is wrong with Iran that this persistent hostility...
Barnicle: You have a track record of international terrorism.
Larijani: This is not true. We are ourselves the victim of international terrorism- terrorism in the area. Let me ask you, who was helping Al-Qaida and Taliban for years while we were at war with them in Afghanistan? The United States of America.
The money from the United States was pouring to Al-Qaida and Taliban- the idea was we should curb Iran by another religious front. Is it correct?
Haass: No it's not correct. The United States did support the Mujahidin; obviously in order to get rid of the Soviet... to say that the United States supported Al-Qaida is again preposterous- the fact is that Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon, it's supporting groups like Hezbollah, groups like Hamas; it is involved in Iraq; it is involved in Afghanistan.
Iran has basically become a regional power that is trying to destabilize many countries, trying to make them in some ways heavily influenced by Tehran and that is simply a fact of life- which again is one of the reasons the world is so concerned about Iranian nuclear program.
How do we know Iran will not become even more aggressive? How do we know that nuclear materials will not end in the hands of a group like Hezbollah? What do we see about Iran's track record that would lead us to believe that Iran in any way would be responsible with nuclear material?
This is a genuine concern and if you dismiss it as laughable Sir you are seriously underestimating not simply the American, not simply the Israeli, but I would suggest the world's concern over the direction your government is heading.
Larijani: The disastrous thing is the blind policy of the United States in supporting carte blanche renegade Israel which is the source of all tension in the region. If you call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups- they are fighting to be given the permission to live. What about Israel?
Israel is involved in government sponsored terrorism. Kills anybody who thinks that it's not correct and deprives millions of people from basic tenures of life. 60 years of atrocity in that area is supported carte blanche by the US, this is even against the basic interests of that nation- they don't know it.
Mitchum:Sir do you recognize the right of Israel to exist?
Larijani: We recognize the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace and tranquility- to create a racist regime in the middle of a land put the others out is like creating a small colony for the blacks and leave the rest for the whites.
Mitchum: Thank you for the answer.
Barnicle: The answer is no.
Larijani: No, the answer is not no. We respect any decision by Palestinians. We are not in a position to tell them what kind of state they [should] have. But they should be given the chance to decide.
MSNBC:This has been fascinating and a great picture window into the choices that Americans make when they're choosing their president and also a sense of what our Secretary of State and what our diplomats have to confront in dealing with when they're going out into the world and working with other countries.
It is extremely complicated and often conversations feel like they're going in circles because it's very hard to develop a common understanding or even a place where you can start engaging and I think this was an example of that. Mohammad Javad Larijani, thank you for coming on the show this morning.
More...
Description:
Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.”
In his November 8 report on Iran's nuclear program, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claimed that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.”
Based on the report, which Iran has called "unfounded and unbalanced," the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday passed a new resolution on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities.
The resolution voices "deep and increasing concern" over Tehran's nuclear program and also calls for Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the issue.
Larijani made the remarks in a heated television debate aired on the American channel MSNBC.
US president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Richard Haass, Mike Barnicle and John Mitchun were the other guests on the television debate.
What follows is a rough transcription of the interview:
MSNBC: Let's go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iran, the headlines of the past week, the IAEA report found evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran and you are quoted as saying that is “quite laughable.” Why sir?
Larijani: The reason is very simple. There is no single evidence in that. These allegations which is aired again is based on a document which was put to us four years ago based on a laptop somewhere found by United States authorities.
And at that time, four years ago, it has been discussed with the agency and the conclusion was that none of these allegations could be verified.
So by a letter it has been closed- the whole issue. Then again it has been renewed and [let me] just give you an example. A good part of this so-called document which is on the laptop, for example lecture notes that somebody presented in Brussels or at some universities. Some of them are parts of some textbook as put together with pictures, formulas, so it is totally inconclusive.
MSNBC: Let's back up. Before I send this to Richard Haass- are you saying it doesn't exist? There is no nuclear program?
Larijani: Well we have a very extensive nuclear program but not to the direction of producing arms. Our nuclear project is very extensive, very advanced. We are number one in the Middle East but we are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons.
Number one there is a Fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader and it is against the Islamic jurisprudence to build and use mass destructing weapons. It is Haram we call it, unlawful.
And secondly, it doesn't add to our security. It is more liability than asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to repel or to deter any imminent threat and this is basically very important achievement.
MSNBC: Richard Haass, put this into perspective for us. What the reports were saying and what this gentleman is saying.
Haass: Well quite frankly it is impossible to take the Iranian denial seriously. They are preposterous. The International Atomic Energy Agency taking information from all the member states in the United Nations have put together a comprehensive and extraordinarily damning report.
And what there is, is a pattern, not a single incident, a pattern over years of Iranian program to move in the direction of developing nuclear weapons.
We see a procurement mechanism to gain access to all sorts of equipment, we see all sorts of undeclared efforts to produce nuclear material now up to 20 percent well on its way to what it needs to produce a weapon, most important there is now serious evidence about the Iranian testing of the implosive device that would actually be the heart of the nuclear weapon.
So the idea that the Iranians have all these underground and undeclared facilities, that they have been misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency for years, the idea they're doing this- this oil rich country in order to produce electricity? If you believe that you seriously have to believe in the tooth fairy.
MSNBC: Sir this doesn't sound like preposterous, little pieces of information that were roaming together randomly.
Larijani: Well the whole scenes of allegation is produced and initiated by the United States. It seems there is a good machinery to produce perpetual allegation against Iran, it is not only one case.
I am telling you exactly that there are no secret programs in our nuclear program and development. Iran's transparency is far ahead of United States, far ahead of UK, far ahead of France and incomparable to Israel which is a renegade state in the sense of NPT.
Barnicle: So you allow inspectors to just come into Iran.
Larijani: The inspectors are coming to Iran periodically, the cameras are there 24 hours. This is quite obvious.
Haass: But the whole concept the way this works, just when you talk about inspectors, let's just be clear, I am sure if everyone watching this will understand, the entire international nuclear inspection effort depends upon the willingness of the country in question to cooperate fully.
This is a gentlemen's agreement. They declare their facilities that are involved in the nuclear business then the inspectors come in and look at them. If they do not declare facilities the inspectors don't give a chance and the problem is this is a gentlemen's agreement in a world where not every country is a gentleman.
So Iran quite frankly has undeclared facilities and undeclared programs which the inspectors had not had access to and the reason we only know about it is that member states, not simply the United States sir, but many, many member states of the United Nations have provided independent information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which by the way you know and I know is not controlled by the United States.
We have fundamental differences with this agency over the years including over Iraq. We had fundamental differences and we've also had differences over Iran where we the United States felt, this agency was not being nearly tough enough. So now they have come in with an extraordinarily damning report and Iranian officials can dismiss it.
MSNBC: So if this is a gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen certainly don't agree and sir, you seem very confident and almost as if it's funny it's interesting because we interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about this about a year ago, off camera, and he too seemed very comfortable about his position which is similar to yours.
And if you are so comfortable with your position about the lack of nuclear armament and the facilities that the IAEA is talking about, why not let inspectors completely come in? Open the door let them come in and see what you have.
Larijani: Well the mechanism that the gentleman addressed is not complete because first of all there is no single secret installment or activity which is concealed from the agency.
Secondly, two years ago we asked the agency tell us all the questions you have and he managed to put to us six groups of questions. The questions were raised by themselves not dictated by us. So one by one groups of inspectors came to Iran and we cleared them up and there is official letters from them this group has been finished then we moved to another one.
Well it doesn't make sense that every morning somebody says we guess there is some secret things done there. There should be foundation for this allegation. What do you mean the door should be open? They should ask where do you want to inspect? Did they want to inspect my bedroom or other places? I mean it doesn't make sense.
Barnicle: A few moments ago when you mentioned the nuclear programs of other nations I detected a definite edge in your voice when you mentioned the state of Israel. Do you fear an attack from the state of Israel on your nuclear facilities?
Larijani: Well I am beyond the fear. What is the difference between us and Israel? Israel has a bomb, not a member of NPT; it doesn't disclose anything to agency, nothing wrong with it. You see what the double standard is in here.
We are member of NPT, they periodically come to Iran, their cameras are there, we don't have the weapon then the whole pressure is put on us. No, not at all. We don't fear any attack from anyone. We take it serious in our calculation but we don't fear. There is a difference between that.
Mitchum: Given your tone again Sir when you talk about Israel, just a second ago why shouldn't we suspect that there would be ambitions for Iran to join the club of which Israel is a part with the nuclear arms?
Larijani: We are very advanced in the nuclear technology which is a matter of pride for us and that gentleman mentioned that we have plenty of gas and oil with all good calculations, the age of this is up to 20-25 period, 25 years from now.
It means that if we don't have it, then we should beg in front of the Western countries to light our houses and we know how bad they are treating us in this area. We are right now very happy that we have the first power plant, we know how to make the fuel. We already have more than 25 percent share of sodalite and erudite they don't give us a bit of this fuel that we need, even the twenty percent that we needed for Tehran.
Haass: It's important to keep in mind we are not talking about an established democracy that treats its own people with respect, we are talking about a country also that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So this is obvious and understandable concern about what Iran is doing.
Larijani: In terms of record I think United States of America is the largest and the greatest country supporting terrorism. The records of terrorist activity which is supported by the tax money of these people is enormous, I can go one by one.
Barnicle: Wait a minute. This is a free country. And part of our gift is we have the liberty and the freedom to say anything and to sound foolish, to sound absurd, to sound smart. That's absurd saying that America is the biggest terrorist nation in the world.
My question to you Sir is, you seem like a really nice guy, alright, why doesn't your country be a better neighbor?
Larijani: We have fantastic relations with all of our neighbors...
Barnicle: Really? [laughing]
Larijani: Definitely, but the policy of demonizing Iran, a very important policy which is pursued in the region- well it has its own benefit.
Barnicle But it's just in little things, like the American tourists cross the border, supposedly cross the border, you grab them, you scoop them, you hold them for months on end. Why?
Larijani: This is a very simple question I answered before; suppose the security of your people...
Barnicle You're here...
Larijani: No, I'm here with visa- It's quite different. [Suppose] The security of the United States' people, on a patrol with Mexico elsewhere they pick 3 Iranians and ask them why are you here? They say well we are just walking in the desert.
Well, with the whole hostility and suspicion which is between the two countries, you are in here to blow up somewhere definitely they will be put into jail for years if not in Guantanamo, they bring them somewhere else.
It took a lot of time that we convince- I was working on this case because they were like me from ... Berkeley. I talked with their families, managed to contact between them and their families when they were arrested- for their families to come to Iran to take the suspicion away.
This is very natural for security of people to suspect a cross bordering which is in the most volatile regional area of Iran- in which there is daily shooting over there.
Barnicle Ok. They're going to blow up the desert. What is the root? What do you think is the root of Iranian paranoia towards the United States and towards many of its neighbors?
What is the root of this paranoia? Is it the fear that we find out about your nuclear program?
Larijani: We don't have any paranoia about our neighbors. We are very suspicious of American paranoia with us. The question is what is wrong with Iran that this persistent hostility...
Barnicle: You have a track record of international terrorism.
Larijani: This is not true. We are ourselves the victim of international terrorism- terrorism in the area. Let me ask you, who was helping Al-Qaida and Taliban for years while we were at war with them in Afghanistan? The United States of America.
The money from the United States was pouring to Al-Qaida and Taliban- the idea was we should curb Iran by another religious front. Is it correct?
Haass: No it's not correct. The United States did support the Mujahidin; obviously in order to get rid of the Soviet... to say that the United States supported Al-Qaida is again preposterous- the fact is that Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon, it's supporting groups like Hezbollah, groups like Hamas; it is involved in Iraq; it is involved in Afghanistan.
Iran has basically become a regional power that is trying to destabilize many countries, trying to make them in some ways heavily influenced by Tehran and that is simply a fact of life- which again is one of the reasons the world is so concerned about Iranian nuclear program.
How do we know Iran will not become even more aggressive? How do we know that nuclear materials will not end in the hands of a group like Hezbollah? What do we see about Iran's track record that would lead us to believe that Iran in any way would be responsible with nuclear material?
This is a genuine concern and if you dismiss it as laughable Sir you are seriously underestimating not simply the American, not simply the Israeli, but I would suggest the world's concern over the direction your government is heading.
Larijani: The disastrous thing is the blind policy of the United States in supporting carte blanche renegade Israel which is the source of all tension in the region. If you call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups- they are fighting to be given the permission to live. What about Israel?
Israel is involved in government sponsored terrorism. Kills anybody who thinks that it's not correct and deprives millions of people from basic tenures of life. 60 years of atrocity in that area is supported carte blanche by the US, this is even against the basic interests of that nation- they don't know it.
Mitchum:Sir do you recognize the right of Israel to exist?
Larijani: We recognize the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace and tranquility- to create a racist regime in the middle of a land put the others out is like creating a small colony for the blacks and leave the rest for the whites.
Mitchum: Thank you for the answer.
Barnicle: The answer is no.
Larijani: No, the answer is not no. We respect any decision by Palestinians. We are not in a position to tell them what kind of state they [should] have. But they should be given the chance to decide.
MSNBC:This has been fascinating and a great picture window into the choices that Americans make when they're choosing their president and also a sense of what our Secretary of State and what our diplomats have to confront in dealing with when they're going out into the world and working with other countries.
It is extremely complicated and often conversations feel like they're going in circles because it's very hard to develop a common understanding or even a place where you can start engaging and I think this was an example of that. Mohammad Javad Larijani, thank you for coming on the show this morning.
Anger over Pakistani support-English
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at...
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at protecting civilians and at facilitating change, the second at safeguarding the status quo.
Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi has been told he must go. Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family, on the other hand, must stay. Some Arabs, one could be forgiven for assuming, are worthier of democracy and civil rights than others.
Yet the degree of hypocrisy may not be as great as it seems. After all, while the future of Tunisia and Egypt remains unwritten, there can be little reason to doubt that the US and its allies would prefer to preserve the basic structures of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes, albeit with new figureheads and, if possible, less visible signs of oppression and the odd concession to pluralism.
From their point of view, the ideal outcome in Bahrain would be similar: a few nods in the direction of cosmetic reform to placate the restive segments of society, but not much more than that — and certainly nothing that could jeopardise Bahrain’s crucial strategic relationship with the US, especially its status as a home for the Fifth Fleet. The trouble, of course, is the impossibility of rearrangements that could be passed off as regime change.
At best the prime minister, in situ for four decades, could be replaced. But he is the king’s uncle, and even if he could be persuaded, without occasioning a family split, to step aside, his successor would inevitably be another Al Khalifa.
That US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt obliged earlier this month to mildly berate the regime in Manama for its transgressions against mostly peaceful protesters was obviously in large part a consequence of not wishing the contrast with western actions in Libya to seem too stark. It is highly unlikely that the decision by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to send in troops was taken without Washington’s imprimatur, given that both are effectively American satrapies in geo-strategic terms.
The foreign troops, which are officially supposed to guard strategic installations, rather than assist in ‘crowd control’, were evidently despatched under a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement dating back to Saddam Hussein’s neighbour-threatening rhetoric in 1990, which preceded the invasion of Kuwait. (His stance was thoroughly embarrassing at the time for oil-rich states that had during the previous decade supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)
That was, however, a joint defence pact among the Gulf potentates, to the effect that the violation of any GCC state’s sovereignty would be construed as aggression against all. Internal unrest did not figure in their calculations. Bahrain does not face any external threat, although there can be little doubt its emissaries have, in private discussions, conjured up the bogey of a threat from Iran.
Tehran’s domestic and foreign policies are often indefensible, but cables from Bahrain-based US diplomats over recent years, released by WikiLeaks, suggest it hasn’t lately been going out of its way to interfere in Bahrain. The Gulf state’s majority Shia population resents the almost exclusively Sunni regime because of irrefutable instances of discrimination rather than because of imprecations from Iran.
Given that at least 70 per cent of Bahrainis are Shias, it is hardly surprising that the majority of those who are economically disadvantaged fall in the same category. But their exclusion from privilege is not just a matter of demographics.
For instance, in order to keep out Bahraini Shias from the security forces, the government regularly recruits troops from abroad — notably from Yemen and Pakistan. And whereas the value of public representation can be judged by the fact that a royally nominated senate can overrule the elected lower house, even so the constitutional arrangements sanctioning the latter preclude the possibility of a Shia majority.
It inevitably follows that the monarchy’s supporters are mostly Sunni and its opponents mostly Shia, and even though the protests launched last month weren’t, on the face of it, sectarian in nature, casting them in that light tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bahrain does not differ from its Gulf neighbours only in a demographic sense: it’s also relatively less well endowed with natural resources, and therefore poorer in per capita terms. And it has been rocked by popular unrest more frequently.
Referring to an uprising in the mid-1950s, Prof Fred Halliday noted in Arabia Without Sultans: “The British realised that Bahrain had a more advanced and therefore dangerous political character than any other Gulf country. Because the oil revenue and level of production was so much lower than in Kuwait, they had been unable to turn the indigenous population into a parasitic class with an enslaved migrant proletariat underneath. Their response was intensified repression, and a tightening of control by the Al Khalifa family.”
Notwithstanding the differences, however, Bahrain’s neighbours realise that if the Al Khalifas are toppled the Al Sauds, Al Nahyans and Al Jabers could follow. The marriage of tribal feudalism and modern capitalism cannot forever endure, but efforts will no doubt be made to preserve it for as long as petroleum remains crucial to meeting western energy needs.
In terms of totalitarian tactics, the Al Sauds in particular are more than a match for Qadhafi and his sons. But don’t expect any push for democracy in Saudi Arabia. Pressure for often intangible and invariably more or less meaningless reforms is at far as it will go.
Bahrain falls in the same basket, essentially. Were the situation to become too fraught, the US would probably begin disentangling itself from its intricate defence links with the troubled kingdom. In the interests of advancing potentially democratic interests, it would make much more sense to do so right away. But don’t hold your breath.
The Yemeni regime, meanwhile, will also continue, for as long as it is feasible, to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Syria, on the other hand, is a much more likely candidate for the Libyan treatment.
More...
Description:
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at protecting civilians and at facilitating change, the second at safeguarding the status quo.
Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi has been told he must go. Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family, on the other hand, must stay. Some Arabs, one could be forgiven for assuming, are worthier of democracy and civil rights than others.
Yet the degree of hypocrisy may not be as great as it seems. After all, while the future of Tunisia and Egypt remains unwritten, there can be little reason to doubt that the US and its allies would prefer to preserve the basic structures of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes, albeit with new figureheads and, if possible, less visible signs of oppression and the odd concession to pluralism.
From their point of view, the ideal outcome in Bahrain would be similar: a few nods in the direction of cosmetic reform to placate the restive segments of society, but not much more than that — and certainly nothing that could jeopardise Bahrain’s crucial strategic relationship with the US, especially its status as a home for the Fifth Fleet. The trouble, of course, is the impossibility of rearrangements that could be passed off as regime change.
At best the prime minister, in situ for four decades, could be replaced. But he is the king’s uncle, and even if he could be persuaded, without occasioning a family split, to step aside, his successor would inevitably be another Al Khalifa.
That US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt obliged earlier this month to mildly berate the regime in Manama for its transgressions against mostly peaceful protesters was obviously in large part a consequence of not wishing the contrast with western actions in Libya to seem too stark. It is highly unlikely that the decision by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to send in troops was taken without Washington’s imprimatur, given that both are effectively American satrapies in geo-strategic terms.
The foreign troops, which are officially supposed to guard strategic installations, rather than assist in ‘crowd control’, were evidently despatched under a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement dating back to Saddam Hussein’s neighbour-threatening rhetoric in 1990, which preceded the invasion of Kuwait. (His stance was thoroughly embarrassing at the time for oil-rich states that had during the previous decade supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)
That was, however, a joint defence pact among the Gulf potentates, to the effect that the violation of any GCC state’s sovereignty would be construed as aggression against all. Internal unrest did not figure in their calculations. Bahrain does not face any external threat, although there can be little doubt its emissaries have, in private discussions, conjured up the bogey of a threat from Iran.
Tehran’s domestic and foreign policies are often indefensible, but cables from Bahrain-based US diplomats over recent years, released by WikiLeaks, suggest it hasn’t lately been going out of its way to interfere in Bahrain. The Gulf state’s majority Shia population resents the almost exclusively Sunni regime because of irrefutable instances of discrimination rather than because of imprecations from Iran.
Given that at least 70 per cent of Bahrainis are Shias, it is hardly surprising that the majority of those who are economically disadvantaged fall in the same category. But their exclusion from privilege is not just a matter of demographics.
For instance, in order to keep out Bahraini Shias from the security forces, the government regularly recruits troops from abroad — notably from Yemen and Pakistan. And whereas the value of public representation can be judged by the fact that a royally nominated senate can overrule the elected lower house, even so the constitutional arrangements sanctioning the latter preclude the possibility of a Shia majority.
It inevitably follows that the monarchy’s supporters are mostly Sunni and its opponents mostly Shia, and even though the protests launched last month weren’t, on the face of it, sectarian in nature, casting them in that light tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bahrain does not differ from its Gulf neighbours only in a demographic sense: it’s also relatively less well endowed with natural resources, and therefore poorer in per capita terms. And it has been rocked by popular unrest more frequently.
Referring to an uprising in the mid-1950s, Prof Fred Halliday noted in Arabia Without Sultans: “The British realised that Bahrain had a more advanced and therefore dangerous political character than any other Gulf country. Because the oil revenue and level of production was so much lower than in Kuwait, they had been unable to turn the indigenous population into a parasitic class with an enslaved migrant proletariat underneath. Their response was intensified repression, and a tightening of control by the Al Khalifa family.”
Notwithstanding the differences, however, Bahrain’s neighbours realise that if the Al Khalifas are toppled the Al Sauds, Al Nahyans and Al Jabers could follow. The marriage of tribal feudalism and modern capitalism cannot forever endure, but efforts will no doubt be made to preserve it for as long as petroleum remains crucial to meeting western energy needs.
In terms of totalitarian tactics, the Al Sauds in particular are more than a match for Qadhafi and his sons. But don’t expect any push for democracy in Saudi Arabia. Pressure for often intangible and invariably more or less meaningless reforms is at far as it will go.
Bahrain falls in the same basket, essentially. Were the situation to become too fraught, the US would probably begin disentangling itself from its intricate defence links with the troubled kingdom. In the interests of advancing potentially democratic interests, it would make much more sense to do so right away. But don’t hold your breath.
The Yemeni regime, meanwhile, will also continue, for as long as it is feasible, to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Syria, on the other hand, is a much more likely candidate for the Libyan treatment.
NAKSA Day & Saudi Crime List - World News Summary - 5 June 2011 - English
NAKSA Day - Saleh left Yemen - Crime list of saudi arabia -Libya - Afghanistan - Karachi Protest NorthWest Blast - Yoga guru Anti Corruption RALLY in Dehli-
NAKSA Day - Saleh left Yemen - Crime list of saudi arabia -Libya - Afghanistan - Karachi Protest NorthWest Blast - Yoga guru Anti Corruption RALLY in Dehli-
2:37
|
1:09
|
3:29
|
3:59
|
3:00
|
3:01
|
2:59
|
3:00
|
5:44
|
2:58
|
2:58
|
5:15
|