Search Result in All

Description:

Why is this world so attractive for us, but Heaven isn’t? My friends, the world entices us, right? What element of the world entices a person? Tell me, what causes us to become interested in this world and not pay attention to the Hereafter? “Heaven doesn’t entice us, but the world does.” Answer me. “Entertainments.” There are better entertainments in Heaven. It’s accessible now, right? How many of you agree? It’s accessible now. Believe me; it would take 10 sessions for me to make it clear for you that the accessibility of the world doesn’t attract a person! Because, each flower in the world has terrible thorns that only ruin a person’s mood. You should look at this world correctly, this accessible world. Eating causes an unpleasantness that we’re not willing to mention in the meeting. You would stop eating. You won’t enjoy sleeping, which is like dying, anymore. Don’t talk about the world being accessible. Being accessible is ineffective. “Since the Hereafter is on credit, it doesn’t attract us.” Look! It’s just us talking here. Lying has a limit. You know how young, unmarried people think about marriage. They think, “Wow! There’ll be a lot going on in the future.” The enjoyment from our imaginings is more than the actuality. Therefore, the accessibility of the world is not attracting you. The Hereafter being on credit doesn’t push you away. What’s the problem? Remembering the world ruins us. The accessibility of the world doesn’t ruin us! Its memory ruins us. Remembering the accessible world makes us interested in it. Will we become interested in the Hereafter without remembering it?! Make remembering the Hereafter a part of your life. Then, see if the accessible world affects you. I swear, it won’t have an effect. What should we do to remember the Hereafter more? Imam Baqir (‘a) said, “Recite at least 50 verses of the Qur’an every day. Recite it at 14 different times, don’t recite it once and put it aside.” Basically, the Qur’an is a book, which reminds of the Hereafter. It takes a person to Heaven or Hell in each moment, and brings him or her back. What causes us to keep our distance from the Hereafter? Not remembering it. The Qur’an is the best program. Remembering the world ruins us. Make remembering the Hereafter a part of your life. Then, see if the accessible world affects you. I swear, it won’t have an effect. =================================== Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ =================================== Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/c/PanahianEnglish =================================== See our pages in various languages: https://panahian.net/ ===================================

Description:

NATO-supported politicians in Syria are isolated since the national election. Meanwhile the UN has about-turned to announce the presence of al-Qaeda inside Syria. Press TV has interviewed Webster Griffin Tarpley, author and historian from Washington about the admission by UN and US heads that al-Qaeda is attempting to destabilize Syria from inside the country after so long refusing to admit its presence and surmises on why the announcement would be made at this point in time. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview. Press TV: How surprising is it to you to see UN Chief Ban Ki Moon expressing concern about the situation in Syria? And what does Ban Ki Moon's breaking of his own silence mean to the UN Security Council? Tarpley: In the case of Ban Ki Moon we must always suspect ulterior motives i.e. an evil intent. And in these circles that Ban Ki Moon speaks for, that is to say NATO and imperialism in general, the new line is no longer to deny the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria, but to begin to cite al-Qaeda as yet another reason why an invasion and bombing will be necessary that is to say, if this terrible situation goes on any longer that al-Qaeda might get the upper hand. We heard Hilry Clinton in a rare moment of candor in the past week also conceding the presence of al-Qaeda in Syria. However, we need to point out that the reason al-Qaeda is there is because these NATO heads of government, heads of state and other officials have brought al-Qaeda into the picture. Al-Qaeda is what it always was, the CIA Arab Legion and in particular some of the most experienced al-Qaeda operatives were brought from Tripoli in Libya all the way to southern Turkey to Iskandaron and other places in kind of an airlift by NATO some months ago. So much so that when Ambassador Jafari of Syria showed his CD at the UN - he said that the Syrian government has these confessions of foreign fighters including Turkish and Libyan foreign fighters and I think we can assume that's the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is therefore al-Qaeda. So, Ban Ki Moon is just as morally bankrupt as he always was, it's just that he has had to change his mode of attack. The entire situation of this resistance is of course desperate. As a result of the Syrian election a couple of weeks ago when more than half of the possible voters voted under the worst possible conditions, the Syrian National Council is breaking apart and the leader (Berhan) Ghalioun has now resigned, he's out. So, there is no coherent opposition so now they're less worried about trying to pretend that there's a political opposition and more with let's get on with the invasion. Press TV: Just imagine if those armed gangs who claim to be the saviors of the Syrian people, yet kill civilians and use the human population as a human shield according to reports - just imagine if they came to power, I mean, what kind of a government would we see? Isn't it paradoxical? Tarpley: This is of course the essence of the imperialist policy, it is partition, mini-states, micro-states and failed states. It's more or less what you see in Libya. We notice that the Western media have been much less interested in showing us the wonders of democracy, the singing tomorrows of the National Transitional Council in Libya because that country of course is tragically breaking up and you've got terrorist gangs and the beginnings of a separation of different parts of the country. This is what they would like to bring to Syria using NATO bombing, invasion… and the shock troops i.e. the people NATO has on the ground at the moment are these al-Qaeda types supplemented of course by mercenaries from France, turkey and other countries. The specific emphasis we have right now though is to try to cut a corridor - and it won't be a humanitarian corridor, it will be a terror corridor - starting with Tripoli to northern Lebanon and this Kleyate airport, which NATO would like to seize. That's why we've had an increase in terrorist assassinations in that area; we've had the kidnapping of the pilgrims… This is a thrust to try to get a corridor from the Mediterranean into Syria through Tripoli and the Kleyate airport. Press TV: What lies ahead for Syria in the long term especially in terms of the Assad government? How long can the Assad government resist and maintain its power? Tarpley: I think the Assad government politically is better off in the last two weeks than it was before because they've successfully carried out a national election, a multi-party election; the Constitution has been changed so that the Baath Party no longer has a monopoly of power. I think anybody who is sincerely interested in democratic reforms has participated in that election; some of them did get elected. The people who have been boycotting it have isolated themselves - they're now exposed as either al-Qaeda or fellow travelers with al-Qaeda. So it seems to me the NATO political situation has gotten desperate and the only way out of that is to try to escalate the military side. But there once again they risk the collision with Russia, China and others who are not going to allow them to do that at least under the UN cover. One of the places to look for a possible resolution for this is the Bilderberg-er meeting here in Washington SC at the end of next week, would typically be a place where a solution to that dilemma might emerge and therefore bears very, very careful watching.

Description:

A small portion of the Farsi is included, but the The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with the members of the Soldiers of Islam Mourning Committee. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful The Soldiers of Islam Mourning Committee is an auspicious phenomenon. The idea that our soldiers form mourning committees is a very auspicious and important idea. The pivot of this committee is mourning for Ashura. The other tasks that you referred to are good and necessary subsets, but the pivot is reviving and understanding the depth of Ashura. One point in this regard is that the connection between the words \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"committee\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"soldiers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" has an important meaning. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Soldiers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" means those people who engage in jihad in the face of the enemy. Jihad includes \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"moqatele\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Moqatele\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" means a military war. Jihad is a combination of different wars such as military wars, intellectual wars, psychological wars and social wars. A combination of these things is jihad and jihad includes all of these wars. One of the characteristics of jihad is the existence of an enemy. Not any effort is called jihad. It is possible that someone engages in scientific work, but this may not be jihadi work. Jihad is a movement which is launched in the face of a hostile act and a hostile enemy. Those people who engage in jihad in the way of God and who enjoy a jihadi characteristic and spirit will realize that this is a real blessing for their hearts and souls. Jihad is necessary because human societies are not devoid of enemies. They may have few or many enemies. Sometimes, like our society, they have many enemies and sometimes they do not. But in any case, they have an enemy. Therefore, if a society has an internal force for confronting the enemy - this force is comprised of soldiers and mujahids - then it can have a feeling of security. But if it does not enjoy this force, then it will be like a body that suffers from lack of white blood-cells which are in charge of fighting against infection. In such circumstances, all kinds of diseases may afflict this society. The effort of this group of people to revive and commemorate Ashura and to mourn for Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) is very appropriate and necessary. Therefore, the essence of this connection - that is to say, the connection between mourning committees and soldiers - is very blessed and good. You should not abandon this and you should preserve it as much as you can. Another point is that the word \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heyat\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [committee] means lack of order in the conventional sense of the word. They say that such and such a person acts in a heyati way. This means that he acts in a disorganized way. Perhaps we can say that you are the first people to impose order on an organization which is disorderly by nature. This is a very good thing. Well, why does the word \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heyati\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" mean disorderly in the conventional sense of the word? This is because when someone enters an Imam Hussein (a.s.) heyat, no one tells them where to sit and where not to sit and when to come and when to go. All the movements and comings and goings are based on the will of the people and this originates in faith. This is a very good thing and you should preserve it. You should preserve the committee\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s relationship with what people love and believe in. You should preserve the interest that the hearts of people have in this committee. That is to say, it should not be the case that the committee acts in a formal way. In my opinion, the centers that you should work in are Hussainiyahs. You do not need bureaucratic organizations. Hussainiyahs, heyats and mosques are the centers that you should engage in. If we affiliate this committee to an organization and if we specify a multi-storey building for that with bureaucratic equipment, this is not a committee anymore. I fear that it may face certain problems. I am not saying that it will not be a committee, but in my opinion, the nature of such committees requires the enthusiastic participation of the people in mourning ceremonies for Imam Hussein (a.s.). This is what exerts a powerful effect on them. This is what the Revolution originated from. At least, it can be good ground for growing revolutionary virtues and teachings. The next point which is very important is the issue of nurturing panegyrists and protecting them against errors and mistakes. This is very important. One of our serious problems is really this. Panegyrists have acquired a bad name in this regard, but it is not particular to panegyrists. This issue is not particular to panegyrists and other people in charge of such affairs. It has been witnessed that those people who take the minbar and those who recite eulogies for Ashura - including panegyrists, those who have minbar and other such people - have said inappropriate things. Sometimes you and I have meeting and talk and I may say an inappropriate thing. This is not a problem because it is between you and me. This is not important. But sometimes, we have an audience of one thousand, 10 thousand or 50 thousand people and sometimes, this audience turns into millions of people. In such circumstances, we should see what effect an inappropriate and wrong statement may exert on our audience. A number of people may accept this wrong statement and they may learn a wrong concept. A number of people may reject this statement and they may take an instant dislike towards the essence of religion. Besides, there may be an angry argument between certain groups of people. Notice that certain deviations may emerge as a result of this wrong statement. Since long ago, we have seen that sometimes panegyrists perform rowzas that are obviously wrong, but they continue to perform because in order to make a few people shed tears. This is not particular to the present time. Since I was a child, I have participated in mourning ceremonies and I have listened to people who took the minbar. Should we make people shed tears at any price? You can narrate the event and you can do it in an artistic way in order to produce strong effects on people, but you should not say things which are false. I have heard that, addressing the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) a panegyrist said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Whatever you have is because of Imam Hussein (a.s.)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Notice how wrong this is. How can someone talk such nonsense about the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.)? Whatever Imam Hussein (a.s.) has is because of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.). Whatever he has is because of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.). Why do they not understand such concepts? Besides, they claim that they are good panegyrists and they say whatever crosses their mind. In my opinion, we should attach great significance to such issues. The next point is concerning the issue which was raised by Mr. Nejat as well. He is right. Such committees cannot be secular. We do not have secular Imam Hussein (a.s.) committees. Anyone who is interested in Imam Hussein (a.s.) is also interested in political and jihadi Islam and the kind of Islam which engages in fighting, offering blood and laying down one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s life. This is the meaning of faith in Imam Hussein (a.s.). If a panegyrist takes care not to enter into political discussions, this is wrong. Of course, this does not mean that whatever political event takes place in the country, we should bring it up in rowzas and we should adopt specific orientations - whether revolutionary or anti-revolutionary - towards it. This is not what I mean, but revolutionary and Islamic thoughts and the auspicious guidelines which Imam (may God bestow paradise on him) formulated in our country should be brought up in such ceremonies. This task is a great and important task. The best people who can perform rowzas for Imam Hussein (a.s.) are mujahids in the way of God and these young soldiers. You should appreciate the value of this and you should provide guidance. This can be a bright and shining spring for enlightening the minds of the people and the audience and it can improve them in terms of Islamic and religious teachings. How good it is to pay attention to the issue of reading the Holy Quran in mourning ceremonies. How good it is to employ Islamic, revolutionary and Quranic concepts in mourning ceremonies. Sometimes, when they mourn, people say certain clichés such as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Hussein vay\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Well, this has no value and one learns nothing from repeating \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Hussein vay\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". When the audience says such clichés, you can raise revolutionary, Islamic and Quranic issues and issues which are related to the present time. When the audience repeats it, this becomes internalized in their minds. This is very valuable. This is a task that cannot be carried out by anyone except you. No media network can inculcate religious teachings into the minds and the hearts and souls of people. Therefore, this is an important and great task. I hope that Allah the Exalted rewards and bestows success on you so that you can carry out this task in the best way possible. Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings

Description:

Muqtada Al-Sadr interview on March 29th 2008 - Arabic sub English. Telecasted by Al-Jazeera. Translated by Memritv.org. Iraqi Leader of the Al-Mahdi Movement - Muqtada Al-Sadr - Supports Armed Attacks against US Forces in Iraq and states that the Al-Mahdi Army Will Be -An Interested Party- IFF Any Arab or Islamic Country Is Attacked.

Description:

Peace be upon you. Oh daughter of the Commander of the faithful a.s. Peace be upon you Oh daughter of Fatima a.s. Two Worlds Radiant Lady s.a. Peace be upon you. We speak of Hazrat Zainab s.a. She well conveyed the message of Karbala s uprising and tragedy to the world and today it is a great honor for Muslims to follow this great lady as an example in their lives. Truly when an individual spends his or her life in support of truth and establishment of divine values - his or her name will remain eternal in history and his or her lifestyle will inspire the future generations. That is why the name of Zainab s.a. and her lifestyle has influenced many people - even non Muslims. Ms. Carin from Germany - after embracing Islam - chose Zainab s.a. as her first name. Regarding her incentive in choosing this name she says - I was always interested in the life story of the holy Prophet of Islam s.a.w.a.w and his household. I was specially affected by the story of uprising of Imam Hussein a.s. in Karbala and the personality of Hazrat Zainab s.a. in the events of Karbala. The self-sacrifices of that great lady while bearing the heavy grief of martyrdom of her brother and other companions are praiseworthy. Hazrat Zainab s.a. was a lady of knowledge virtue bravery and patience.These characteristics helped her carry out her mission in Karbala uprising in the company of Imam Hussein a.s. Hazrat Zainab s lifestyle contains instructive points for me and whenever I come across a problem I immediately remember Her. For her name brings me tranquility. That is why I adopted the name of Zainab after embracing Islam. Hazrat Zainab s.a. was brought up under instructions of a father like Imam Ali a.s. and a mother like Fatema s.a. and she benefited greatly from these two personalities. Historians say Hazrat Zainab inherited bravery honesty and fluency in speech from her father Imam Ali a.s. and kindness and loyalty from her mother Hazrat Fatema s.a. She made great efforts in giving religious training to the women of her time and thus many women at that time benefited from Hazrat Zainab s knowledge and teachings. Hazrat Zainab s.a. spent her fruitful life in promoting monotheism and assuming divine responsibilities and her heroic participation in the greatest epic of history - namely the uprising of Imam Hussein a.s. in Karbala brought her a lasting name. You wont find a single person who is familiar with Karbala tragedy and has not heard of Hazrat Zainab s.a. Zainab s.a. conveyed the message of Imam Hussein s uprising to territories beyond Karbala desert. She encouraged the warriors and sympathized with the injured. She was so bound to the fulfillment of her religious obligations that even at those critical conditions she did not forget to say her prayers at night. Imam Sajjad a.s. says - I saw my aunt Hazrat Zainab s.a. saying her prayers while sitting. A major part of Hazrat Zainab s mission started when Karbala tragedy apparently ended with the martyrdom of Imam Hussein a.s. This chapter of Hazrat Zainab s life began with conveying the message of Ashura in which she heroically defended the rights of the household - ahlul bait - and did not permit the enemies to take advantage of Karbala tragedy. In this tragedy the Omayyud ruler Yazid l.a. and his followers l.a. thought that they had succeeded in creating a negative image of the holy Prophet s household but when the caravan of the household members now in captivity arrived in Kufa - Hazrat Zainab s.a. behaved in such a way that she managed to turn the so-called victory of the Omayyud into a defeat. In her famous address She changed the mentality of the people of Kufa and Damascus. She symbolized a shining sun who reflected light into everything. Although Hazrat Zainab s.a. did not live long after Karbala tragedy she sowed the seeds of awareness in the entire Islamic society. This great lady passed away in 62 AH after she made lots of efforts in the path of truth. Once again we offer our condolences and bring you an excerpt from her historic statement addressed to Yazid. She says - O Yazid practice any trick you can and do anything that you think would vanish Islam. But you should know that you can not eradicate our message our path and our remembrance. You should know that our remembrance will never die. MAY OUR LIVES BE SACRIFICED FOR HAZRAT ZAINAB s.a.

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

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

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

Description:

Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the documentary seeks to bring in the larger historical and social context in the picture. Compare that to documentaries like Consuming Kids that focus mostly on hyper-consumerism. Hyper-consumerism I believe is a manifestation of something much larger and deeply pervasive what may be referred to as MATERIALISM. Now how to define and trace the source of materialism are challenging questions. The documentary seems inclined on the rise of capitalism. But it does hint toward renaissance and the transformation in cultural outlook. Would be interested to see how material and cultural are combined in the narrative of this book and movie.

Description:

Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the documentary seeks to bring in the larger historical and social context in the picture. Compare that to documentaries like Consuming Kids that focus mostly on hyper-consumerism. Hyper-consumerism I believe is a manifestation of something much larger and deeply pervasive what may be referred to as MATERIALISM. Now how to define and trace the source of materialism are challenging questions. The documentary seems inclined on the rise of capitalism. But it does hint toward renaissance and the transformation in cultural outlook. Would be interested to see how material and cultural are combined in the narrative of this book and movie.

Description:

Raj Patel describes a history of the emergence of global food market which was constitutively tied to colonial expansionism and exploitation. The argument is on the line that India's food deficiency developed its severity - on an unprecedented scale - only after the colonial agricultural reforms and its integration of local economies into the global. The severe famines that we saw were a result of policies and socio-economic dynamics, not production technology per se. In other words, it was a construction of ‘distribution’ mechanism. Later, some invested their hopes in the so-called "Green Revolution", introduced since the 1960s in India. With the pesticides, chemical rich fertilizers, and GM seeds that came with it, the yields did increase, for a while at least. But increasing yields is one thing and food security another. The new technology, policies, and practices accompanying the "Green Revolution" made the Indian farmers even more vulnerable. The problem they now faced was not only that of ‘distribution’ but also of ‘production’. More than a hundred thousand Indian farmers have committed suicide due to increasing vulnerability in the last two decades. The Indian Punjab, which was the epicenter of the "Green Revolution", is in a severe crisis today and, some suggest that, parts of it "could be(come) barren in 10 to 15 years." A closer look at the history of Bt Cotton and Monsanto's monopolozing policies and years of neo-liberal reforms in India should be quite illuminating for anyone interested in this subject.

Description:

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt was Former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the US Department of Education under President Reagan. Due to her unique perspective she was able to observe firsthand the methods the Federal Government used to deliberately dumb down the American public education system with Soviet style brainwashing Disgusted with the American Government policy to use a behavior modification system designed to churn out unthinking uncritical citizens of the world trained to accept socialism Charlotte set out to wake up her fellow Americans This documentary is a MUST WATCH for any home-schooler teacher parent or anyone interested in methods of education or anyone wondering why we as a people seem to grow less intelligent and less able with each passing generation

Description:

Free Flash Source File: http://www.developphp.com If you are interested in learning how to create complex dynamic Flash Content Management Systems, this is the lesson for you. Using the the xml file and the free fla source file you can gain a better understanding of how to work with external data in Flash at an expert level. Create cool content management systems for clients, render out complex pagination from database results, and much much more can be achieved with the right imagination and this foundation. The XML file in the folder will fuel the whole system in a dynamic fashion, bringing in external images, text, and labels. You can also add more child nodes to the MenuItems in my XML file pretty easily if you understand XML just a little bit.

Description:

Martyred professor, Allameh Morteza Motahhari, was born on February 2, 1919 in the town of Fariman, 75 kilometers from the holy city of Mashhad. At the age of twelve, he set off for Mashhad seminary to embark on learning the basics of Islamic sciences. In 1937, despite Reza Khan’s intense confrontation with clergymen and also opposition by some of his friends and relatives, he left for Qom seminary to complete his studies. During 15 years of his stay in Qom, he benefited from the presence of Grand Ayatollah Borujerdi (in jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence), Imam Khomeini (12 years in the philosophy of Molla Sadra, gnosis, ethics and principles of jurisprudence) and Allameh Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaiee (in philosophy). He had also benefited from the presence of the late Ayatollah Haj Mirza Ali Aqa Shirazi in ethics and gnosis. Among other teachers of professor Motahhari mention can be made of the late Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Hojjat (in principles of jurisprudence) and the late Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Mohaqqeqdamad (in jurisprudence). While he was in Qom, in addition to education, he participated in socio-political affairs as well and he was in contact with Fadaiyan-e-Eslam group. In 1952, he migrated to Tehran though he was one of the renowned teachers and among the future hopes of the seminary. In Tehran, he taught at Marvi School and delivered well-researched speeches. In 1955, the first session of the exegesis of the holy Qur’an in the Students\\\' Islamic Association was held by professor Motahhari. In the same year, he began teaching at the faculty of divinity and Islamic teachings of Tehran University. In 1958-59 concurrent with the establishment of the Physicians\\\' Islamic Association, professor Motahhari was one of the main speakers of the Association and during 1961-1971 he was the only speaker of the Association leaving behind a number of important deliberations. In 1962, with the start of Imam Khomeini’s uprising, professor Motahhari accompanied him to the extent that one can consider the organizing of the June 5th uprising in Tehran and its coordination with Imam Khomeini’s leadership as being indebted to him and his companions. Having given an enlightening speech against the Shah on Wednesday, 5th of June 1963, Ayatollah Motahhari was detained by the police at 1 a.m. and sent to the interim police headquarters and was imprisoned with a number of Tehrani clergymen. 43 days later, following the migration of Ulema from other provinces to Tehran and public pressure, he was freed together with other clergymen. After the formation of groups called “Mo’talefe Eslami”, which was among the combatant groups of the time, Imam Khomeini called on martyr Motahhari to lead these groups along with a number of clergymen. Following Imam Khomeini\\\'s exile, professor Motahhari and his companions shouldered a heavier responsibility. At that time, he wrote books covering social requirements and delivering speeches at universities, the Physicians\\\' Islamic Association and mosques. Professor Motahhari made a lot of ideological efforts to Islamicize the content of the movement and strongly fought against diversions and falsehoods. In 1967, he established Hosseinieh Ershad with the help of some friends. In 1969, after releasing an announcement signed by him, Allameh Tabatabai and Ayatollah Haj Seyyed Abolfazl Mojtahed Zanjani calling for collection of aid for the displaced Palestinians and because of publicizing it during a speech in Hosseinieh Ershad, he was detained and held in solitary confinement for a short while. From 1970-72 he supervised publicity works by Al-jawad mosque where he was the main speaker until the mosque and the Hosseinieh were closed and professor Motahhari was detained for a while. Later, Ayatollah Motahhari gave speeches at Javid, Ark and a number of other mosques. After a while Javid mosque was also closed. Around the year 1974 he was forbidden to speak which lasted till the triumph of the Islamic revolution. Presenting genuine Islamic ideology through teaching, speech and writing books were among the valuable activities of professor Motahhari reaching its climax particularly during the years 1972-78; since in those years the leftists had increased their propaganda and groups of leftist Muslims and also those with a hotchpotch of ideas had emerged. After Imam Khomeini, professor Motahhari was the first figure who found out the ideological deviation of the heads of the so-called “Mojahedin-e-Khalq” organization and prevented others from cooperating with them and even foresaw their change of ideology. In those years, upon Imam Khomeini’s recommendation, professor Motahhari traveled to Qom twice a week to teach at its seminary where he taught important courses and at the same time he taught some courses at home in Tehran. In 1976, following an ideological dispute with a communist teacher of the faculty of divinity, he became retired prematurely. Furthermore; in those years Ayatollah Motahhari, in collaboration with some clergymen, established “Jameye Rohaniat-e-Mobarez” of Tehran hoping that such an institution would be gradually established in other cities as well. Although professor Motahhari’s contact with Imam Khomeini continued after the Imam’s exile in France via letters and other means, in the year 1976 he managed to travel to the holy city of Najaf and consulted with Imam Khomeini on the important issues of the revolution and also seminaries. After the martyrdom of Ayatollah Seyyed Mostafa Khomeini and the start of the new phase of the Islamic revolution, professor Motahhari fully devoted himself to the revolution and hence played a fundamental role in all of its phases. At the time of Imam Khomeini’s stay in Paris, Ayatollah Motahhari traveled to France where he spoke with the Imam on the important issues of the revolution and it was then that Imam Khomeini urged him to shape the Islamic Revolution Council. Upon Imam Khomeini’s return to Iran, he personally took the responsibility of the welcoming committee and till the victory of the revolution and after that he always acted as a supporter of the leader of the Islamic revolution and served as a kind and trusted advisor for him. But at 22:20 p.m. of Tuesday, 1st of May 1979 he was martyred by a grouplet called “Forqan” after leaving an ideological and political gathering. This caused profound sorrow and grief for Imam Khomeini and the Islamic Ummah who had a lot of hopes for this great man’s future. There remain tens of works by Ayatollah Motahhari. These works deal with a variety of religious issues and offer responses to many of the important questions of religious society so much so that we can name his works as a reliable source concerning the Islamic ideology system. Some of Imam Khomeini’s Words on Martyr Allameh Morteza Motahhari [Motahhari] was rare in Islamology and different Islamic and Qur’anic sciences. I have lost a very dear child. I am mourning for him who was one of the figures who was considered the fruit of my life. Martyrdom of this righteous child and immortal clergyman created a vacuum in the dear Islam that cannot be filled by any means. Motahhari, who was rare in purifying spirit, the strength of belief and the power of speech, flew to the ethereal world, but the ill-wishers should know that his Islamic, scientific and philosophical personality won’t perish with his departure. Motahhari was a dear child for me and a firm stronghold for the religious and scientific seminaries and a useful servant for people and country. I recommend the students and the committed intellectuals not to let this dear professor’s books be forgotten by non-Islamic schemes. In his short life, [Motahhari] left behind immortal works which stemmed from a wakeful conscience and a spirit filled with the love for religion. He embarked on educating and training the society with an eloquent style and an able thought in analyzing Islamic subjects and explaining philosophical facts with a popular diction and without uncertainty. His oral and written works are unexceptionally instructive and inspiring; and his advice and admonitions, which sprang from a heart filled with faith and belief, are useful both for the Ulema and the laymen. Late Motahhari was an individual who had different aspects of personality; and few people have done the service to the young generation and others as Motahhari has done. All his works are unexceptionally good and I don’t know anybody else whose works I could call unexceptionally good. His works are unexceptionally good and constructive for humans. Professor Motahhari from the Viewpoint of Ayatollah Khamenei Interview with the Supreme Leader on Martyr Motahhari ‘I consider myself Mr. Motahhari’s pupil’ As you know late professor Motahhari was a philosopher; the science sought by him was mostly the philosophical science. Later on; however, he got to the subjects of theology, i.e. he dealt with Islamic issues with new argumentation method of modern philosophy. But he spent most of his time on philosophical matters. He was considered the philosophical student of Imam Khomeini and Allameh Tabatabaiee. Thus what he maintains in theology is Hekmat Mota’aliah, i.e. the Philosophy of Molla Sadra. His behaviour was like that of the mystics who would set out to find a perfect instructor. Basically his spiritual and moral condition was in such a way. He would search to know for example if a perfect elderly instructor is somewhere in the world, and he would go to him to stay by him. Indeed, spiritually, such a situation was fitting him. Yet he had found such a perfect instructor in Iran. He was absorbed in Imam Khomeini and Allameh Tabatabaiee. He was captivated by their love and regarded their scientific and mystic status very high. Morally, late Motahhari was a prominent man; and a pure-hearted, enlightened, just, self-possessed and mature person. In his personal bonds with God he was a mystic, a man of God’s remembrance, journey towards God and worship. He used to say: “I have learnt paying attention to and worship of God from my father.” Professor Motahhari had a lot of historical information especially about the recent history, and particularly on the issues related to the Ulema, seminaries, scientific, spiritual, philosophical and mystic figures. These pieces of information were not registered in any book and are heard from the professors and great figures and kept in mind. Since he knew all professors and Ulema of Najaf, Samarra and Isfahan, he was well-informed about their events and he would talk of them in the gatherings and visits held on different occasions. Supereme Leader’s Words on Professor Motahhari’s Personality and Works “As time passes from his martyrdom, his spiritual and ideological works and bounties manifest more fresh dimensions. The ideological and scientific works of that grand clergyman become clearer in the scene of the country press and religious knowledge; and one understands that an intellectual clergyman with responsibilities could have so fruitful life.” Martyr Motahhari with his strong and decent thought stepped in the fields of Islamic subjects that hitherto nobody had stepped; and considering the ideas that had prevailed or were going to prevail in the country---through translation and import from the west and east, he entered a profound, vast and interminable scientific challenge. He both embarked on a very clever struggle to confront with the Marxists and entered the scene to confront with the western and Liberalist thoughts. This role is very important; it needs both courage and self-confidence, it requires both thinking strength and Ijtihad (being well- qualified in jurisprudence and different theological fields), it both needs certainty and resolute belief. This great man had all these together; he was both a learned man and very faithful, he was firm in his belief and had self-confidence, too; these are all necessary.” Leader’s Visit with Martyr Motahhari’s Family (1996) He had three characteristics regarding ideological issues: First, he had a strong thought and he was a true thinker. Secondly, while presenting and spreading the ideological principles, he had no intention but God’s nearness, promotion of the truth and fighting against the false. There was sincerity in him and his personal actions which would naturally make the second characteristic tangible. For example think of some people who are thinkers, yet do not present their thought for God’s sake, but they present it to show that they are knowledgeable, to draw people’s attention and to say that they are philosophers. Martyr Motahhari was not such. He would present thought for God’s sake and for Islam. He would truly burn up [like a candle] and would gush forth [like a fountain] and would present [Islamic ideas]. The reason for his survival is his second characteristic. It means that sincerity will have its impact and the Almighty God will grace any deed done with sincerity. The third characteristic was his working hard and his inexhaustibility. The truth is that he wouldn’t sit till he might be referred to; but rather he would himself go after activity. He had these three characteristics.” Leader’s Visit with Martyr Motahhari’s Family (1998) “We should introduce Mr. Motahhari to the world especially the Islamic world. And if we want to introduce him, which points should be highlighted? I think this is your most important job. Some aspects of a figure’s personality are either unique that must be highlighted or are very outstanding that should be stressed. In the life of the late Martyr Ayatollah Motahhari, his personality and his scientific identity there are numerous examples of these. One point, that in my opinion has the prime importance, is the new interpretation of the Islamic teachings. This is apart from his philosophical aspect and his strong and compelling arguments in the footnotes of ‘The principles of philosophy’ by ‘Ayatollah Tabatabaiee. This is another point. He elucidated Islamic concepts and teachings with a novel diction and expression which was much needed. I don’t say that if the works of the predecessors were pondered and scrutinized signs of this exegesis would not be found. Really if one had attentively studied the works of the Ulema he would have found some hints and cues; but I want to say that nobody had done this. As far as we know, nobody had done it before Mr. Motahhari. Even the modernist writers, who had emerged in the Arab countries, and we knew some of them, had not done this. These Egyptian authors, who were modernists and would write things with a broader sight and who knew the world somewhat more than Martyr Motahhari, most of them had traveled a lot and had visited different universities. Yet he [Ayatollah Motahhari] was not so, he was confined. I mean he was inside Iran and Tehran but his profound vision of the Islamic issues and his novel understanding of the verses [of Qur’an] and the narrations [of the Ahl-ul-Bayt], in my opinion, was one of his most outstanding aspects. It was he who, for the first time, substantively expressed the subjects related to principles of ideology, piety, patience, love, fairness, justice, and so on in the ideological atmosphere of Iran. We thank God that Mr. Motahhari’s name was not forgotten in our society and the mental atmosphere of this country; but rather it became more prominent day by day. Many of the world phenomena are naturally perishable and by the lapse of time they become older. Most of the world phenomena are such. Yet there are some phenomena that not only do not fall into oblivion via lapse of time but become brighter, more manifest, more spectacular and more impressive. The phenomena based on reality are usually such. I clearly feel that, thank God, Martyr Ayatollah Motahhari’s thoughts are such.” Memoirs of Dr. Ali Motahhari (Martyr Motahhari’s Son) Night Supplication in front of the Word Allah As it is said he didn’t give up midnight vigilance, midnight prayer, and wakefulness since his youth till the end of his life. It was his practice both at the time of studentship and after that and even at the time of martyrdom. I remember that facing our house there was the house of one of the previous regime’s officials which was usually guarded by two police officers. Apparently since the official had seen that the lamp of our house was lit at midnight, had worried to find the reason and it was important for him from the security point of view. He had told the guards to look for the reason. Professor [Motahhari] had a neon board of Allah which was green when lit. He would turn it on and perform his midnight prayer in its light. After the revolution one of the officers said, we had examined several nights and I had looked through the window to see what was going on inside the house. At the end I myself saw that he came at midnight and started worshipping for an hour. We were somehow absorbed by the professor, and despite much negative propaganda against the clergymen and him in particular to make us pessimist to them, we became very interested in him so much so that some would say we got our salary from the government but it was as if we were guarding him. A Voice vis-à-vis MHe was very sensitive against ideological deviations and believed that we were seeking Islamic revolution and not mere revolution. It is not important that Shah goes but it is important to see what system is established after his going. Because if after the ouster of the Shah, for example the Mojahedin-e-Khalq take the lead, it is much better not to stage a revolution at all. Thus the deviated groups had found out professor Motahhari’s sensitiveness and had become his enemy. Three or four months before the victory of the Islamic revolution, a person, who had some tendencies to Mojahedin-e-Khalq and the leftists and was intended to be religious, too, was freed from the prison. Professor [Motahhari] said we had better visit him. I was with the professor. There was a man by the name of Ashuri as one of the heads of the Forqan group. He spoke of Islam and Marxism and said: ‘These two religions say one single thing and their content is the same with different forms. They speak of the laborers and we speak of the oppressed. Therefore our word is the same. We should unite to topple the regime of Shah and basically there is no difference between Islam and Marxism, etc.’ Professor was very upset and that man knew that professor Motahhari would answer him. That’s why he rose to leave. The professor said: ‘No, Be seated! Be seated!’ He made him sit and explained him in detail that our path is fundamentally separate from that of the Marxists. In no way can the forms be different with the same content. And we cannot unite with the Marxists in any way. Immortal among People Prior to the victory of the Islamic revolution, at the time of Imam Khomeini’s staying in Paris, it was heard everywhere that the regime of Shah wanted to arrest the leaders and prominent figures of the revolution. Some people told him [Ayatollah Motahhari] it was better to go somewhere else to hide. He said: ‘Such actions are not good for clergymen. It is not good for us to escape from one place to another to hide; such things are not good for us.’ He stayed at home like before and nothing happened. His Method of Training Children One of the features of the professor’s training method for his children was that he would never resort to force and coercion and he would let them to realize and choose the right path with their own thought and wisdom. About choosing the field of education and the way of spending leisure time and the like he would never force us to do something necessarily; but he would show us the way. As the holy Qur’an says: ‘…be he grateful or ungrateful.’ And it was we who would choose the way. There was never force over our heads and we would choose one way with interest and free will. The Professor’s Arrest after anti-Israel Speech I have another memory from the year 1969 when he delivered the provocative speech on Palestine in Hosseinieh Ershad. This speech has been broadcast many times by IRIB. It was a very provocative, important and interesting speech which shook the regime of Shah; and it required a lot of courage to deliver such a speech when the regime of Shah was in the zenith of power and had the highest level of relations and unity with Israel. When the Israeli planes would refuel in Iran’s airport(s) during the 1967 war and would fly over the heads of the Arabs and Muslims, much bravery was needed to give such a speech and we saw that professor Motahhari gave that speech and was promptly arrested and taken away. When he was freed he said, ‘They made me sit in a car and blindfolded me and the car set out. I told them there is no need to blindfold and I will not look. If you want me not to look I will close my eyes. But they didn’t agree. Yet I realized the route till Ferdowsi square but didn’t realize after that.’ Apparently they had taken him to the committee of the SAVAK which was presumably located in the same Ferdowsi Street. Allameh Tabatabaiee’s Message on the Occasion of Ayatollah Motahhari’s Martyrdom In the name of the Almighty God In memory of a scientific and philosophical personality who cast a world into grief and made the world of science and merit mournful with his departure. Late Motahhari, who was a scientist, a thinker and a researcher with an overflowing intellect, a bright thought and a realistic mind, has left behind marvelous works and researches written about scientific and argumentative purposes that are seen in his books. Late Motahhari, through his precious and blissful life that was abundant with scientific effort and philosophical thinking, sends an expressive and valuable message to the enthusiasts of science and philosophy never to repose from effort towards perfection and never forget scientific struggle for perfection; and in the market of realities turn their life--which is the best human commodity-- to the spiritual life— which is the lofty human life and is lasting till the world exists; and not to be absorbed and deceived by fabricated and imaginary personalities in this short life. Yes, a narrow route opened by a scientist towards realities will bestow eternal life upon him and this is more valuable than the world and what it contains.

Description:

An analyst says Israel is \'absolutely not\' interested in peace as Tel Aviv\'s violation of peace agreements, attacks on Palestinians and continual construction of new settlements in the occupied territories clearly indicate. The comment comes as Last month; Israeli officials said they would go ahead with plans to build 6,500 settler units on Palestinian territory despite the opposition of the United Nations and the international community. The presence and also the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are major obstacles for the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East. More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since Israel\'s occupation of Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds in 1967. The UN and most countries regard the Israeli settlements as illegal because the territories were captured by Israel in a war in 1967 and are hence subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids construction on occupied lands. Press TV has conducted an interview with Hani al-Bassous to further discuss the issue. He is joined by Abdallah Abdallah with the Palestinian Legislative Council and reporter and political analyst Maxine Dovere.

Description:

TEHRAN, May 12 2013 -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that the Islamic discourse on women should be strongly defended on the world stage. The Leader made the remarks in Tehran on Saturday during a meeting with hundreds of female professors, seminary teachers, and intellectuals. Ayatollah Khamenei said that a strong front should be established and more efforts should be made to introduce and defend the Islamic principles in regard to women on the world stage. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Why should we be in a passive position in the face of the Western discourse despite the fact that the Islamic discourse on women is perfect and compelling?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A passive stance should never be adopted toward the Western discourse on women, but the Islamic discourse should be forcefully introduced,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he stated. Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader said that active and competent women and female scholars, writers, and thinkers should play a more significant role in defending the Islamic Revolution. Supreme Leader\\\'s Speech to Outstanding Women 11/05/2013 The following is the full text of the speech delivered on May 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with a group of outstanding women who are active in seminary and academic areas. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful I sincerely thank the honorable ladies who organized this good and fruitful meeting. Today, I really benefited from the ladies\\\' statements and I thank God for the depth of issues, thoughts and efforts which can be seen in the speeches of outstanding women throughout our country. The issues which you discussed were mostly good. There were certain suggestions which, by Allah\\\'s favor, will be examined. By Allah\\\'s favor, I will follow up the part which is related to me. There are many things to say about the issue of women and what is related to women. We suffer from a kind of backwardness in this regard which you ladies - the ones who delivered a speech - referred to. Backwardness in this area is not similar to backwardness in scientific areas, which we suffer from. When we say that we suffer from backwardness in this area, this means we have many outstanding points to make on the issue of women, the issue of gender and issues which are related to women - such as the issue of family, children, marriage, settling down, tranquility in the family environment and other such issues - but we have not managed to convey these points to the world and discuss them with the public opinion throughout the world. We mean backwardness from this point of view. This is while the world needs valuable, comprehensive and clear ideas and concepts in this regard. As a number of ladies pointed out, when we discuss these points in international arenas, they receive a good reception. Or as a number of ladies said, research findings in psychological and other areas confirm that Islamic rules are true on the issue of women. Well, this is only part of the capabilities of Islamic philosophy on this sensitive issue. But we failed to define and show these capabilities in the right way. The same is true of many other areas which are related to reasoning and thinking. In many of these areas, we failed to truly convey the opinion of Islam to the world. When I say, \\\"We failed\\\", it should not be thought that the Islamic Republic is responsible for this due to the fact that what has been already done in this regard is because of the Islamic Republic, the name of the Revolution and Imam (r.a.), the influence of their ideas and other such things. Thankfully, these ideas were developed to some extent, but we should work more than this. In order to do this, we need certain things which I will speak about later on. In order to form a front which is ready to attack and which is immune from others\\\' attack and in order to take up an offensive position, we need to promote and convey these ideas and thoughts. We really need this. In fact, our attack is launched for the sake of immunity and defense. Therefore, in my opinion, the more you work in order to make up for this backwardness, the more valuable it will be. It is necessary to do this. We should not hesitate and stop in treading the path of this movement which is an awakening movement related to the issues of women. We should not stop in the middle of the way. Despite the fact that we benefit from a perfect, valuable and convincing Islamic discourse, we have adopted a passive outlook in the face of the western discourse on the issue of women. The western discourse on the issue of women has adopted a very calculated and political outlook. That is to say, the day when this idea and this discourse on women started to develop in the west, there was a careful calculation behind it. Of course, this is not based on fact and what I am saying is not based on precise information, but there are clear signs which support this interpretation. Since the beginning of Renaissance in the west and the emergence of industrialism and the development of new industries in the west, this discourse gradually achieved growth. And it reached its peak during our own times. Of course, this peak will be accompanied by decline and, by Allah\\\'s favor, disgrace and destruction. The western discourse on the issue of women has different dimensions, but it has two distinct dimensions. One is that it wants to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, it wants to make women behave like men. This is an important dimension of this discourse. Another is that it wants to make women prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure, whether the pleasure of watching women or other kinds of pleasure which are beyond this. This is another dimension of the western discourse on the issue of women. The issue of feminism and other such things - which have become popular in the world today - are, in fact, the products of western discourse. These are the consequences of what western discourse has done. They wanted to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, they were trying to make women do jobs which are more compatible with the physical and intellectual characteristics of men. They consider it as a source of honor and they would like to describe it as an advantage and a source of honor for women. We have adopted a passive outlook in the face of this. We have been deceived and we have unwillingly and unknowingly accepted this. As you see, today we are proud of having such and such a number of women in certain executive positions. What I am saying should not be misunderstood. I do not have any problems with the idea of giving women executive positions. That is to say, I do not forbid women from doing this and I do not deny this right. I do not think it is wrong. Our minister of health and vice presidents were female and women have positions in different sectors. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is to be proud of this, to boast about this in the world and say, \\\"See, we have such and such a number of women in executive positions\\\". This is the same as being deceived and passive. This is not a source of honor. Take the case of a lady who has certain qualifications, who has developed her capabilities and who is suitable for a specific position. She can be allowed to hold this position because it is not illegal, but if we are proud of having such and such a number of female officials in charge of executive affairs, this is wrong. If we feel proud of having a large number of intellectual and educated women, this is good and it is alright. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in cultural and political areas, this is alright. If we say that we have a large number of mujahid women in different areas, who are ready to be martyred, this is good. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in political and revolutionary arenas and who write and deliver speeches, this is good. Being proud of these things is good, but being proud of having such and such a number of female ministers, MPs, deputies and managers in financial organizations, is wrong. This means adopting a passive outlook in the face of the enemies. Are we supposed to entrust women with masculine occupations? No, the position, identity and characteristics of women are very noble and respectable. This identity is, in certain ways, superior to men\\\'s identity. If we adopt a comprehensive outlook, we see that men and women have no differences. Certain privileges have been granted to women and certain other privileges have been granted to men and this is based on their natural characteristics which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on them. Allah the Exalted has given each gender certain characteristics. Each gender benefits from certain outstanding qualities. Therefore, they have no differences in terms of human qualities. They have no differences in terms of the privileges which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on humanity such as human rights, social rights, spiritual values and spiritual perfection. That is to say, a man can become Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and a woman can become Fatima Zahra (s.a.). A man can become Jesus (a.s.) and a woman can become Mary (s.a.). They are not different from each other. Therefore, it is the right outlook to know women - the way they are, as true women and true females - by taking their gender into consideration and we should see what values can help a female individual or the female community achieve growth and transcendence. This outlook is the right outlook. We should not have adopted a passive outlook in the face of western outlook but, unfortunately, we did. As for the second dimension of western discourse - in which women are made to prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure - it struck defenseless Islamic countries like a flood with the purpose of helping men to easily indulge in sexual pleasure. And this was done by the west. It also struck our country. By pleasure, I do not mean spiritual, psychological and scientific pleasure. Two people may sit and enjoy speaking to one another or increasing each other\\\'s knowledge. But this is not the case in western pleasure. Fortunately, the Revolution came and it prevented this to a great extent. This should be prevented because this is a big danger and a big disaster. The issue of hijab is one of the preconditions for this. The way we should dress and the way men and women should interact are among the preconditions for this issue. These things should be done so that this great disaster - for both men and women - can be prevented. Of course, this moral corruption humiliates women, while they are not aware of it. Today, this issue is thoroughly discussed in the world. I know and I have read in a number of texts, newspapers and books that western intellectuals have started to feel fear and distress because of this condition. They are right, but they have understood this late. The issue of encouraging people to indulge in lust - which is centered around women - is not something of little importance. Today, you can see that the situation is getting worse in the world with issues such as homosexuality and marriages between two people with the same gender. These are great, deep and dangerous abysses for western civilization and for those who are managing this civilization. This is an unusual precipice and it will completely annihilate them. And they are just in the middle of the path of destruction. In my opinion, they will not be able to prevent this because their problems are far beyond these things. A few years ago - around seven, eight, ten years ago - I read in foreign newspapers that the Americans are trying to make a movie based on the books of such and such a novelist who writes about the family. They want to do this so that they can draw filmmaking, cinema and other such things to these issues. Well, they have done and are doing certain things, but these efforts are like thin streams against a great flood which has struck them because of what they themselves did. And it will continue to strike them. Of course, we enjoy a kind of immunity from this event which is because of hijab and other such things. But we should not underestimate this issue and we should regard it as very important. As a number of ladies pointed out in their speeches - and they are working on these issues - the issue of sexual attraction and the danger it has for women, men, society and the family should be taken very seriously. Well, I said that Islam speaks about women in the real sense of the word. As I pointed out, we should promote this discourse by taking up an offensive position. We should not at all take up a defensive position. A number of ladies said that those who are members of a so-called women\\\'s convention or organizations affiliated with the United Nations threaten to issue a resolution against us if we do such and such a thing. Well, who cares? They can issue resolutions. The Islamic discourse on the issue of women should be promoted by taking an offensive position and behaving in a determined way. If they say, \\\"Why do you not give women the freedom to appear without hijab?\\\" we should answer, \\\"Why do you give them this harmful and threatening freedom in such a way?\\\" What is being pursued in the west regarding the issue of immodesty and lack of hijab makes one distressed. One wonders what they want to do and where they want to go. You may have more information in this regard but I also have a lot of information about what is being done on this issue. These things are done at different levels which range from higher levels to occupational levels, living conditions and other such things. In the Islamic discourse, respect towards women and the characteristics, dignity and delicacy of women should be highlighted. By delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean the delicacy of women\\\'s psychological and intellectual structure and also the delicacy of their responsibilities. It is only the delicate and gentle fingers of the mother which can separate the extremely thin nerve fibers of a child\\\'s nervous system from one another so that he will not have any emotional complexes or problems. Nobody else can do this. That is to say, nobody else except for a woman can do this. This is a feminine task. A number of tasks require such delicacy that one wonders how the divine will has bestowed such a great capability and such delicacy on women. I always say to my friends and relatives and to women that, contrary to the idea that has been established, women are the stronger gender. Women are stronger than men. Women can completely control and influence men with their wisdom and delicacy. We can see this in practice and we can prove it by reasoning. This is a reality. Of course, there are a number of women who do not adopt wise measures and who, as a result, cannot do this. But if a woman is wise enough, she can tame a man. This is like the situation in which a person can bridle and ride on a wild lion. This does not mean that he is physically stronger than the lion. Rather, this means that he has managed to use his mental power. Women have this capability, but they should do this with delicacy and subtlety. When I say delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean delicacy in implementing thoughts and ideas, showing acumen and making decisions. These are capabilities which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on women. In my opinion, this should be the basis. This discourse should be improved and pursued. The second point that I want to discuss is that, in my opinion, there are two issues regarding the current situation of women in our country which are more important than other issues. Or, let us say they are more crucial than other issues and they require more attention. One issue is the significance and the value of the home and the family. We should regard the home in which we live as important. One cannot imagine human beings without a home and without a place to live. Any human being needs a home and the family environment. The family is like the soul of the home. This should be regarded as important. This should be thought about in a careful way. The second issue is that we should prevent women from being weakened and oppressed at different levels. We have women who are weak and deprived of many things. We also have women who are oppressed. This oppression should be prevented. It is necessary to pass important laws in this regard. There are essential behavioral rules which should be enforced. It is necessary to establish certain social conventions and customs so that women will not be oppressed in different areas such as - I have written them down - social, sexual, familial, cultural and intellectual areas. These kinds of oppression, which women may be faced with, range from individual and private issues - that is to say, sexual issues - to social issues, such as social interactions, and familial issues. I have written down certain points about familial issues. Husbands, children, fathers and brothers should behave in a respectful way towards women. If women are regarded as respectable in the family environment, an important part of problems in our society will be solved. We should do something to encourage children to kiss their mother\\\'s hands. This is what Islam is after. We can see this behavior in deeply religious and moral families which have a close relationship with religious concepts. The children in a family should behave towards their mother in a respectful way. There is no contradiction between such a respectful behavior and the emotional and warm relationship between a mother and a child. There should be such respect and women should be respected in the family environment. This is the way to prevent oppression against women. Imagine that in a family and in a home, the man hurls all kinds of insults at his own wife, including behavioral and verbal insults and physical abuse. Unfortunately, there are certain places in our country in which there are still instances of physical abuse. This issue should not occur. Of course, this occurs many times in western countries. And this is not unexpected. Westerners, particularly European races, are wild. They have a neat appearance, they wear ties and they use perfume and other such things, but they still have the same wild nature and they still behave in the same wild way that they have always behaved throughout history. They easily kill people and they coldheartedly commit crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising if women are beaten in the home by the Europeans and by the Americans. But such a thing should not be even imagined in an Islamic environment although it unfortunately exists. Therefore, these are two fundamental issues. In my opinion, there is room for detailed planning in this regard. Besides these two issues, there are other important issues such as the issue of marriage and liberating oneself from being single. Obstacles in the way of marriage should be removed. As the ladies in this meeting pointed out, certain things are being done in this regard and I really became happy to know that, thankfully, these issues are receiving attention. On the issue of hijab and social relationships, things should be carried out in a fundamental and serious way. You should pay attention to the issue of financial and legal support for oppressed women who are deprived of their rights. The lady from Razavi Khorasan province pointed out that the issue of courts of law - which was one of my worries - has been addressed by the legal system. I hope that this will be done in practice. One of my anxieties and worries is that women may not be able to defend themselves in courts of law and such legal environments. They may not have the money to hire a competent lawyer, nor may they be able to defend themselves and their rights may be violated. This is one of the important issues. It should be followed up. The issue of women\\\'s employment, limitations for their employment, the kind of job that they should do and the way they should do it - that is to say, the delicacy and flexibility that I spoke about on the issue of women\\\'s employment - are things which should be addressed. However, the most crucial issues are the two issues that I discussed. One of the issues which occupies my mind is that all the different activities which are done on the issue of women in our country - ranging from legal issues and issues related to Islamic jurisprudence to social, executive, emotional and all the other issues which are discussed about women - should be done in a systematic way. It should have a coherent structure. Of course, a number of the reports which were presented to me or the points which were discussed in this meeting show that certain ideas have been developed in this regard. But, I believe that a comprehensive plan should be formulated in this regard. We should delineate the issues of women in a completely systemic way and we should give it a proper form. Moreover, there should be an outstanding and permanent center [for this matter] with competent personnel and with a long-term plan. I do not at all believe in short-term plans in this regard. After this, certain organizations and institutes should be formed to work for different parts of this prominent and permanent center. They should inform one another of what they are doing and there should be a suitable databank. Many things are being done by women in our country about which even ladies participating in this meeting may not be aware of. Well, thankfully, we have so many outstanding and knowledgeable women in different sections and with different outlooks. We should benefit from this large number of women. Another point - I will make this the last point because it is noon and there is no time - is that active women in the camp of the Islamic Republic played an outstanding role immediately after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, during the early years after the Revolution and during the Sacred Defense Era. They showed their presence in an outstanding way. You should not let this outstanding presence of active women in the camp of the Revolution be undermined. Those who confront and oppose the Revolution try to benefit from competent women. The camp of the Revolution has far more competent, active and knowledgeable women who are authors, orators and scholars. It enjoys women who are ready to take action and who are interested in thinking, writing, delivering speeches and conveying their ideas and thoughts. They should not leave the arena of the Revolution and defending the Revolution. This is one point. I will finish the last point by saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) should play a completely fundamental role in promoting the things which I discussed and the issues which you raised. I believe and I recommend that the IRIB should definitely play a fundamental role in this regard. It can do this. In society, the IRIB can build the culture of respecting religious, active and mujahid women who wear hijab and who enjoy Islamic characteristics. Other people want the opposite to happen. Unfortunately, a number of the programs of the IRIB are in line with the goals of these people. The opposite should be done. That is to say, the IRIB should be completely at the service of this idea. In any case, the conclusion that we can draw from all these things is that, thankfully, we have made certain achievements on the issue of women in the Islamic Republic, but these achievements do not meet the needs and the expectations of Islam and they are not compatible with the possibilities and resources that exist in Islam. We are backward in this regard. By Allah\\\'s favor, you ladies should make up for this backwardness in the best way possible. I hope that Allah the Exalted will protect you and increase your achievements on a daily basis. And I hope that we can move towards what Islam wants in this regard on a daily basis. Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\'s mercy and blessings Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1784&Itemid=4

Description:

Credit: Ziad B If Hezbollah was defeated is a 17 episode series surrounding the Middle Eastern issues. It is an in depth analysis. Al Manar takes you back to the very start of the Palestinian issue and fast forwards to the present day crises that has developed. Al Manar presents you with the establishment of the Zionist entity, the loss of consecutive Arab wars to reclaim the mother land and to how Israel lost to Hezbollah? An intensive analysis and documentary on the most prevalent issue in modern day society that has an affect on everyone who is rooted to the Middle East. I have added english subtitles to the documentary that will benefit non Arabic speaking people who are interested in learning about the history and the current day political and military situation in the region. If Hezbollah Was Defeated is brought to you by Al Manar TV. All rights are reserved to the Al Manar Broadcasting Network.

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.

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.

Description:

Credit: Ziad B If Hezbollah was defeated is a 17 episode series surrounding the Middle Eastern issues. It is an in depth analysis. Al Manar takes you back to the very start of the Palestinian issue and fast forwards to the present day crises that has developed. Al Manar presents you with the establishment of the Zionist entity, the loss of consecutive Arab wars to reclaim the mother land and to how Israel lost to Hezbollah? An intensive analysis and documentary on the most prevalent issue in modern day society that has an affect on everyone who is rooted to the Middle East. I have added english subtitles to the documentary that will benefit non Arabic speaking people who are interested in learning about the history and the current day political and military situation in the region. If Hezbollah Was Defeated is brought to you by Al Manar TV. All rights are reserved to the Al Manar Broadcasting Network.

Description:

Credit: Ziad B If Hezbollah was defeated is a 17 episode series surrounding the Middle Eastern issues. It is an in depth analysis. Al Manar takes you back to the very start of the Palestinian issue and fast forwards to the present day crises that has developed. Al Manar presents you with the establishment of the Zionist entity, the loss of consecutive Arab wars to reclaim the mother land and to how Israel lost to Hezbollah? An intensive analysis and documentary on the most prevalent issue in modern day society that has an affect on everyone who is rooted to the Middle East. I have added english subtitles to the documentary that will benefit non Arabic speaking people who are interested in learning about the history and the current day political and military situation in the region. If Hezbollah Was Defeated is brought to you by Al Manar TV. All rights are reserved to the Al Manar Broadcasting Network.

Description:

Credit: Ziad B If Hezbollah was defeated is a 17 episode series surrounding the Middle Eastern issues. It is an in depth analysis. Al Manar takes you back to the very start of the Palestinian issue and fast forwards to the present day crises that has developed. Al Manar presents you with the establishment of the Zionist entity, the loss of consecutive Arab wars to reclaim the mother land and to how Israel lost to Hezbollah? An intensive analysis and documentary on the most prevalent issue in modern day society that has an affect on everyone who is rooted to the Middle East. I have added english subtitles to the documentary that will benefit non Arabic speaking people who are interested in learning about the history and the current day political and military situation in the region. If Hezbollah Was Defeated is brought to you by Al Manar TV. All rights are reserved to the Al Manar Broadcasting Network.

Description:

Credit: Ziad B If Hezbollah was defeated is a 17 episode series surrounding the Middle Eastern issues. It is an in depth analysis. Al Manar takes you back to the very start of the Palestinian issue and fast forwards to the present day crises that has developed. Al Manar presents you with the establishment of the Zionist entity, the loss of consecutive Arab wars to reclaim the mother land and to how Israel lost to Hezbollah? An intensive analysis and documentary on the most prevalent issue in modern day society that has an affect on everyone who is rooted to the Middle East. I have added english subtitles to the documentary that will benefit non Arabic speaking people who are interested in learning about the history and the current day political and military situation in the region. If Hezbollah Was Defeated is brought to you by Al Manar TV. All rights are reserved to the Al Manar Broadcasting Network.

Description:

Credit: Ziad B If Hezbollah was defeated is a 17 episode series surrounding the Middle Eastern issues. It is an in depth analysis. Al Manar takes you back to the very start of the Palestinian issue and fast forwards to the present day crises that has developed. Al Manar presents you with the establishment of the Zionist entity, the loss of consecutive Arab wars to reclaim the mother land and to how Israel lost to Hezbollah? An intensive analysis and documentary on the most prevalent issue in modern day society that has an affect on everyone who is rooted to the Middle East. I have added english subtitles to the documentary that will benefit non Arabic speaking people who are interested in learning about the history and the current day political and military situation in the region. If Hezbollah Was Defeated is brought to you by Al Manar TV. All rights are reserved to the Al Manar Broadcasting Network.

Description:

Credit: Ziad B If Hezbollah was defeated is a 17 episode series surrounding the Middle Eastern issues. It is an in depth analysis. Al Manar takes you back to the very start of the Palestinian issue and fast forwards to the present day crises that has developed. Al Manar presents you with the establishment of the Zionist entity, the loss of consecutive Arab wars to reclaim the mother land and to how Israel lost to Hezbollah? An intensive analysis and documentary on the most prevalent issue in modern day society that has an affect on everyone who is rooted to the Middle East. I have added english subtitles to the documentary that will benefit non Arabic speaking people who are interested in learning about the history and the current day political and military situation in the region. If Hezbollah Was Defeated is brought to you by Al Manar TV. All rights are reserved to the Al Manar Broadcasting Network.