[wvns] Many Reactions to Ahmadinejad's New York Appearance
There is no shortage of commentary on the Iranian President's Speech.
Here is a sampling:
Israel Shamir:
"President Ahmadinejad' s appearance in Columbia University was a
great event and a powerful presence. A friend of mine compared it to
Jesus' stand before the Sanhedrin. Israelis openly discuss his
assassination, to make this comparison even more valid. An ET alien
could think that Ahmadinejad landed by mistake in Israel - or in
Brooklyn, - practically all questions were connected to the Jews;
whether it was the Holocaust or the Jewish state, as if the United
States of America had no interests of its own anymore, being just a
mighty enforcer of Jewish interests. Ahamadinejad' s stand was a proof
of our position: the question of Palestine is not a marginal issue but
the centrepoint of modern politics, and there is only one valid
solution, namely, deconstruction of the apartheid Jewish state and
introduction of full democracy, one man - one vote, in the whole land
of Palestine.
===
Self-Hating Jews vs Ahmadinejad
Maria Hussain
September 26, 2007
http://mariahussain.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/self-hating-jews-vs-ahmadinejad/
I signed my kids up for Arabic lessons recently and, having lived
before in an orthodox Jewish town in New Jersey, I noticed something
somewhat interesting. Arab mothers of young children weigh on average
20-30 pounds less than your average Jewish mother of young children
and not only that, their posture is astonishingly better. In other
words, Arab ladies are so much prettier and more self-confident than
Jewish ladies in the same station of life. Not only that but their
facial expressions are so much different. Orthodox Jewish women walk
around not only slumped over, but scowling with a tense frown on their
faces. They seem so discouraged, and seem to give off the vibe of
being unloved and unwanted at home. All they do I suppose is wash
dishes obsessive-compulsively and spend their Fridays ripping up
pieces of toilet paper in preparation for the Sabbath, so life must be
pretty dull in comparison to the Arabs who actually enjoy their
weekends partying with their families and friends.
The other difference is the men. I was going through a divorce when I
was living in New Jersey and although it may sound pathetic, I really
enjoyed all the attention I got from the Jewish men. I guess with my
26 inch waist, and my upright posture I was a goddess compared to the
orthodox Jewish ladies but the impression I got from the Jewish men's
response to my good looks was that all Jewish males are sexually
available, whether or not they are married. They used to stop their
cars just to watch me cross the street. By contrast, Arab men just
seem like people. Freshly showered, nice guys, but not even thinking
about "that."
So, when people talk about self-hating Jews, who is self-hating? I
can't imagine that an overweight woman married to a man who so
obviously wishes he could have a Muslim lady as a second wife could
have a very positive outlook on life. Not to mention that Jewish men
consider cheating on their wife with a non-Jewish lady to "not count"
as adultery, not to mention how they lie to their wives as
obsessive-compulsively as Jewish women wash their dishes. Suppressing
all that guilt about Israeli violence against Palestinians must be a
constant downer too. I think no one hates themselves as much as
Zionist women so no wonder they are the most vicious people on the
planet. I tend to blame all the problems in this world on Jewish
women, since the men are doormats who obey their wives or at least
pretend to obey their wives. But what's new. There are more Jewish
women marrying hot Palestinian men in "Israel" than there are
marriages between Ashkenazim and Arab Jews. It's over for the Zionist
project.
So anyway, how about President Ahmedinejad's speech at Columbia
University? It was so awesome, what I saw on video, and what
astonished me most was the warm, thundering applause after every
comment he made. I didn't know there were that many decent Americans
out there. Everyone protesting outside was of course a psychotic Jew
brainwashed by the David Project. But the thousands of people cheering
for Ahmedinejad, who is like the new Bruce Springsteen, really made me
feel better about this country. I would not be surprised if scores of
people converted to Shia Islam as a result of his really great
responses to the hostile questions (I did). He proved himself to be
someone with not only great intelligence and wit but saint-like
patience. It seemed to me that the Iranian President has more popular
support in this country than our own mentally retarded President Bush.
But I was really shocked and disappointed when Congress the next day
imposed harsher sanctions on Iran in contempt of the American people,
and despite all the rational, intelligent, kind, and good-natured
things the Iranian president said the day before.
But what do I expect. I did after all, watch the video of the kid who
asked Kerry too many questions getting tasered by the cops. What are
we going to do, you guys? There is nowhere to run. Even Europe is
controlled by Zionist crazies controlling the media.
It occured to me that maybe what we need is a Swiss solution. Instead
of allowing the police to become a hired paramilitary force
terrorizing our neighborhoods along with the hoodlums, maybe we should
do what the Swiss do. In Switzerland, every town has its own local
militia which includes every adult male in the town, all of whom have
a machine gun that was given to them for free by the Swiss Army. At
the sound of an alarm, within minutes, the men are in position and
ready to defend their town. Switzerland never invades other countries,
so this hyper-militarism is purely in the interest of self-defense.
Not only that but every family is required to have a bomb shelter
stocked with food in their basement and government representatives go
door to door making sure that your basement shelter is up to Swiss
standards. Given this level of preparedness it is no surprise that the
Nazis never bothered trying to take over Switzerland, while the Swiss
were hanging out in their bomb shelters eating their chocolate rations
provided to them by the government. Maybe it's time our country got a
real government.
Last but not least, it's Ramadan and most of us admittedly are
completely inadequate in our observation but don't forget the poor.
Every act of charity makes a difference. I sponsored a Palestinian
orphan some time ago and was astonished by the difference in his photo
from one year to the next. When I first got his "annual report" he
looked so painfully thin in the photo, but a year later I got a photo
of him looking like a regular teenager. Thank God. Nowadays people in
Gaza have to buy bottled water to survive, and that is really hard
when you have no income. If you don't know how to send money to Gaza
let me know because it's super easy and the fact is, if you are
feeding your own kids on your credit card (like most Americans) you
may as well pay for some poor orphan on your credit card as well. And
don't forget the world is not Palestine alone. You can save a child's
life in Africa for just $2. Can you believe that, for the cost of a
single beer. So please, I know it's not the solution for our political
problems but the best we can do is keep those wonderful children alive
until they grow up so they can take over the world and hopefully do a
better job than these aging neocons. Within twenty years all those
genocidal fanatics will be dead of natural causes. And what will be
left will be hundreds of millions of confused young people. We have to
help them survive until that day.
I'm crying now. I know this is not much of an essay but it's the best
I could do. Please, everyone, help the poor children hungry and
terrified and alone in this world and save them from the Zionist
selfish monsters that want to destroy everything because they know
they are finished and they want to take us all down with them, but we
can't let them do that. We have to save this world. It might be a
really long time until Jesus (pbuh) comes back. The world is not
ending. The truth is much harder. WE have to make it work, we have to
find a way to continue life on this planet into the next century and
beyond so may God help us.
===
Ahmadinejad Speech Columbia Universtiy Now On Youtube.com
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAM5S4lhMGw
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuLfO3GlWcc
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7rEqy5ohtc
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5e4GC8Zxn0
===
Ahmadinejad on Broadway
Free Speech? Arrest Him for God's Sake
By BRENDAN COONEY
http://www.counterpunch.org/cooney09252007.html
There was a big struggle on Broadway yesterday. It was a collective
attempt among U.S. citizens to figure out what exactly is meant by
this freedom of speech they had heard so much about.
I was curious, too. So I asked people protesting a speech by Iran's
president at Columbia University whether they agreed with New York
Assemblyman Dov Hikind's statement that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "should be
arrested when he comes to Columbia University, not speak at the
university, for God's sake."
About half gave an instinctive yes. Some recanted, either after
talking themselves through the arrest scenario or having someone
standing near them do so.
When one man said Ahmadinejad should be arrested "for crimes against
humanity in Iran," an acquaintance disagreed.
"Arrest him for what? That's not what this country's about," said
Stephen Detherage, an ironworker from Detroit who had worked at
"Ground Zero" after 9/11. He had a U.S. flag bandana tied around his
head. While he was for Ahmadinejad's right to speak, that didn't mean
he liked him. "Islam is trouble," he said. Vandelay nodded and they
were back on the same page.
As small circles of protesters chanted, "Don't talk with terror" and
"Free speech in Iran" and "Shame on Columbia," Nina Bursky-Tammam, 22,
a student at New York's Yeshiva University, told me, "There's a limit
to what people should be allowed to say. He's just a terrorist."
When I asked her how he qualified as a terrorist, she said he wanted
to destroy Israel.
"Does someone have to do something rather than say something in order
to be a terrorist?" I asked.
"If he's saying he wants to commit terrorist acts, doesn't that make
him a terrorist?" came her reply.
But her friend Talya Barth, a 22-year-old student at Queens College,
referred to actions. She said in Iran one receives lashes 71, she had
heard -- for speaking against the government. If there's no freedom of
speech in Iran, why should we give him freedom of speech here? she
wondered.
Many people had signs saying, "Hitler Lives?", with Ahmadinejad's body
torqued into a swastika. I'm noticing that ubiquitous caricatures of
Ahmadinejad seem to dwell on those upturned eyebrows of his, whereas
somehow Bush's angled brows conveyed to people the utmost sincerity
after 9/11 when he declared himself to be a "peace-loving guy."
Some of the Ahmadinejad sobriquets that I heard:
"I'm-a-dick-in-the-head"; "I'm-mad-bi-jad"; "Ahmadi-jihad," and
simply, "Ahmad-a-whatever the fuck his name is."
Moshe Grussgott, a rabbi at Ramath Orah, an Upper West Side synagogue,
said, "He should be arrested. He wants to nuke Israel. This person is
really an enemy."
When I asked if one could be arrested for wanting to do something, he
amended his answer to say that Ahmadinejad is guilty of actions as
well as words. His two main crimes are "supporting the insurgency in
Iraq and killing Iraqi civilians" and "funding Hezbollah," Grussgott said.
Two new acquaintances who saw eye-to-eye were protesters David Zucker,
a 30-year-old Manhattan attorney, and Colleen Barry, a small business
owner from Great Neck, N.Y.
"We're at war with (Ahmadinejad)," Zucker said. "It doesn't make sense
you would talk to him."
He was holding a sign with a color picture of a young, pretty girl. It
said, "My name is Shiri Negari and I would like to speak at Columbia
too, but I was murdered when Iran gave money to Hamas to blow up the
bus I was on." He said he had e-mailed her family to ask about using
the picture.
Zucker continued, "We can't arrest as many as we'd like to, because
the UN is here. If the UN weren't here I'd have no problem with
(arresting Ahmadinejad). ... He's actively murdering our boys and
girls in Iraq. They have shrapnel in their backs and faces because of
him."
Barry agreed. "He's saying what I was going to say," she said.
When I asked what their evidence for this supply line was, Zucker
said, "CNN," and Barry said, "General Petraeus." When I asked if there
were credibility issues with the U.S. military after the Iraq War, she
said, "I trust the military."
Assuming the supply story is true, does that mean the United States
should be held accountable for all the uses to which the weapons they
supply to the world are put? I wondered.
"That's different," Barry said. "(Ahmadinejad) knows who the weapons
are being used against."
The foreigners I talked to were not struggling with the idea of free
speech so much as the fact that Americans seemed so resistant to it.
"It's very strange," said Jonathan Abranyos, 38, a physicist from
Ethiopia. "I don't understand this idea that, 'I'm not going to talk
to somebody I don't like.' It's like kids."
Havovi Cooper, a Pakistani graduate student in journalism at Columbia,
didn't get it either. "Okay, (Ahmadinejad) is stupid, because he keeps
provoking the U.S. and he doesn't think about the consequences for his
own people, but he's not a terrorist. Which country has he bombed?"
Inside the gates the same struggle was going on, except that the
battle was inside the head of Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger. In
a talk before Ahmadinejad spoke, Bollinger praised his own commitment
to free speech. Then he launched a preemptive strike on Ahmadinejad
that, had he been addressing a U.S. instead of a foreign leader, might
have concluded with him pinned to the floor yelling "Don't Tase me, bro."
Bollinger was doing a good job heeding Assemblyman Hikind's call on
New Yorkers "to make the life of Ahmadinejad as he is in New York
miserable."
In addition to calling Ahmadinejad "ridiculous" and a "cruel
dictator," Bollinger launched a series of accusations at his guest
speaker. "Your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq
by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders,"
he said.
It was a common charge outside the gates as well among those who
wanted Ahmadinejad either gagged or arrested.
Is freedom-of-speech really such a difficult concept to grasp? Or
might it be that U.S. Americans are showing once again how susceptible
they are to propaganda? Official demonization of Ahmadinejad, after
all, has been in full-swing for quite awhile as the Administration
prepares to make the case for another invasion (taking August off, of
course, because "you don't introduce new products in August," as White
House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said five years ago of a different
product, same fragrance.)
And can you fully blame the people, when what they see on TV and read
in the paper are reporters who are paid to think critically about
their government but who show no inclination to do so? I mean, I found
it interesting upon visiting Beijing 13 years ago that I couldn't find
anyone who thought blood had been spilled at Tiananmen Square, but I
can't say I blamed individuals for believing what they read in the
People's Daily.
In a story in yesterday's New York Times, Helene Cooper proves once
again that the Times's reporters have a hard time detaching themselves
from admin propaganda. By most accounts Bush has espoused not a few
bewildering ideas over the years, but that adjective would be reserved
for the editorial page rather than a hard news story. Yet the second
sentence of her news story editorialized about Ahmadinejad's
"bewildering thoughts."
She goes on to describe John Coatsworth, a university dean and
moderator of the event, asking Ahmadinejad, " 'Do you or your
government seek the destruction of the state of Israel?'
"'We love all people,' Mr. Ahmadinejad dodged."
Does Bush dodge questions at press conferences? Would a hard news
story say, "Bush dodged"?
Reporters have already bought into the Ahmadinejad-as-mad-monkey
narrative, and so there is no risk for them in getting silly with
their reporting. Examples like this are run-of-the-mill; Salon.com's
Glenn Greenwald has already done an excellent job of exposing the
NYT's Michael Gordon as an admin stooge. (The piece is here)
If we devoted the same attention to all of the world's leaders, we
could probably find dozens with views we would regard as objectionable
or preposterous. But those views should have nothing to do with
whether we bomb those countries.
Mike Hunter, an African-American hip-hop artist, sees right through
the smoke. The fact that Ahmadinejad's speech was so contested "shows
you how draconian America has become," he said. "It's propaganda. They
want to create a despot so that they can have the American people
behind them for an invasion."
A guy helping set up the evening shoot for the Fox TV crew declined to
give his name but said, "It's interesting how our government calls
(Ahmadinejad) a terrorist"basically they should be shot sight
unseen"and we're letting him speak."
A few yards away, Hunter had a different notion of the word terrorist.
"This country's a terrorist to me," he explained. "They hung black
people from the trees here in New York."
Meanwhile, a heated debate broke out between a couple students and
Woodley Rosier, a 34-year-old Bronx security officer. "America's the
one that's used nuclear weapons," Rosier said. "Why can't (Iran) have it?"
Rosier was all for open communication. "The same way you negotiated
with Stalin, why can't you negotiate with him? Except Stalin did bad
things. (Ahmadinejad) hasn't done nothing wrong."
"Where do terrorists factor in here?" said one student.
"How can we learn if we don't listen?" shouted Jacob Sabat, raising a
fist in the air. In the other hand he held up a sign saying, "Free
Speech in USA" on one side and "NeoCons are enemy number one" on the
other. A beefy Fox employee kept him from holding it in the background
of the broadcast.
"Everyone in America is walking around with blinders on," Hunter said.
"You won't be able to say anything in America pretty soon."
Brendan Cooney is an anthropologist living in New York City. He can be
reached at: itmighthavehappened@yahoo.com
===
U.S. Ramps Up Threats Against Iran
by Larry Everest
http://www.revcom.us/a/102/iran-US-attack-en.html
The air is thick with intensifying U.S. threats against Iran. New
diplomatic and economic assaults by the U.S. are in the works, and
there are reports that discussion within the Bush regime has "tilted"
toward war with Iran. Since our last alert ("Alert: Bush Regime
Escalates Iran War Preparations" in issue #101, online at revcom.us),
the trajectory toward confrontation, possibly war, has accelerated.
Six years into the bloody conquests and occupations of Afghanistan and
Iraq, the U.S. is bogged down and facing major difficulties. Its
global war was launched post-9/11 with the aim of crushing anti-U.S.
Islamic fundamentalism and remaking the Middle East and Central Asian
regions, as part of a sweeping plan to create an unchallenged and
unchallengeable empire. But in many ways this has backfired. Anti-U.S.
anger rages across the region; Islamist movements have been further
unleashed and fueled; the U.S. has been unable to secure its imperial
grip on Iraq and faces years, perhaps decades, of combat; and the U.S.
military is strained.
The U.S. rulers have staked their global power on this war for greater
empire, waged under the banner of a "war on terror." So now they're
increasingly focusing on Iran, a prime target of this war from day
one. The imperialists' problem with Iran's Islamic Republic is not
that it's a reactionary theocracy that has imprisoned or executed
thousands of progressives and revolutionaries and enforces very
oppressive social relations. Far from it: the U.S., in fact, has
supported—or inflicted—bloody repression and oppressive relations
across the region, including in Iran during the reign of the tyrant
Shah. No, the U.S. rulers' problem with the Islamic Republic is that
it's a growing obstacle to their predatory agenda of unfettered
hegemony and regional transformation. Iran's fundamentalist regime has
been strengthened by the fall of Saddam Hussein to its west and
Afghanistan's Taliban to its east. In Iraq, Shi'a parties with close
ties to Tehran are the predominant faction in the new government, and
Iranian influence has greatly increased. It has a nuclear energy
program, which has the potential to give it the ability to make
nuclear weapons at some point in the future. It's an ideological and
material center of support for Islamist groups and trends throughout
the region.
In recent speeches on the U.S. war in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, Ambassador
Crocker, and Bush all targeted Iran. Winning in Iraq, Bush argued, was
key to countering the "destructive ambitions of Iran" and not allowing
it to "dominate the region." Crocker declared that "Iran plays a
harmful role in Iraq." Petraeus denounced Iran's "malign actions."
This week both Bush and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are
speaking at the UN, and New York has become a stage for whipping up
anti-Iran hysteria and hatred. New York authorities refused
Ahmadinejad's request to visit "ground zero" where the World Trade
Center stood. Controversy swirls over Columbia University's decision
to allow Ahmadinejad to speak there. And right-wing tabloids are in an
anti-Iranian frenzy—the NY Post ran a picture of Ahmadinejad with the
caption "NO DOGS ALLOWED." No doubt Bush will attempt to stoke this
belligerent atmosphere in his September 25 UN speech.
This war of words is being accompanied by new diplomatic and economic
assaults on Iran. Bush officials were furious when the UN
International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported that Iran was
being "unusually cooperative," and the IAEA director, Mohamed
ElBaradei, stated that "This is the first time Iran is ready to
discuss all the outstanding issues. It's a significant step." U.S.
officials dismissed the agreement between Iran and the IAEA and
denounced ElBaradei for "irresponsible meddling." This reveals that
the U.S. imperialists have never just wanted to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons—they're out for "regime change," whether
Iran's ayatollahs want to make a deal or not.
Rather than lessen tensions, the U.S. is intent on further tightening
the screws. The U.N. Security Council has so far has passed two
punitive measures against Iran, and the U.S. and Europe are waging
what some are calling a "financial war" against Iran, designed to
cripple its imperialist-dominated economy. Now the U.S. wants yet more
sanctions—"with teeth" in the words of Condoleezza Rice. U.S.
officials are meeting with other major powers to try and push this
through, although China and Russia remain opposed at this point.
On Sept. 20, U.S. forces seized and arrested another Iranian official
in Iraq, claiming that he is part of an elite Iranian military unit.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani condemned the action and demanded that
the official—who is part of a trade delegation—be released
immediately. And the stream of U.S. military "briefings" charging Iran
with arming and directing anti-U.S. militias continues.
"A CAREFULLY CALIBRATED PROGRAMME OF ESCALATION"?
Within the Bush administration, a sharp debate has reportedly been
taking place between Secretary of State Rice and Vice President Cheney
over whether to deal with Iran through continued diplomatic and
economic pressure (at least for now), or to more immediately use
military means. Rice and Defense Secretary Gates insist that the U.S.
still wants to deal with Iran "through diplomatic and economic means,"
but a number of recent news stories report that those advocating war
are winning the debate. Senior officials believe that "Bush and his
inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with
Iran," the Sunday Telegraph reported (9/16). "Pentagon and CIA
officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully
calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military
showdown with Iran." The Telegraph also states that Rice "is prepared
to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction
military action." The New York Times (9/16) says Bush's recent
speeches "indicated that the debate, at least for now, might have
tilted toward Mr. Cheney."
These stories come in the wake of French President Sarkozy's statement
(immediately after his "heart-to-heart" meeting with Bush this August)
that war with Iran is a real possibility—and the ominous declaration
by the French Foreign Minister, who said in mid-September that France
must "prepare for the worst" and that "The worst, sir, is war."
Meanwhile, two U.S. naval battle groups are positioned near Iran,
including an aircraft carrier battle group headed by the U.S.S.
Enterprise and the Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group, with some 10
warships, two submarines, and attack aircraft. The U.S. reportedly
plans to build a military base on the Iraq-Iran border. And Adm.
Fallon, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, is touring the region,
"pressing Arab allies to form a more united front against Iran." (AP 9/18)
While publicly discounting the possibility of a U.S. attack, Iran's
leaders are making counter-threats of their own. Iran has been
shelling Iraqi bases of anti-Iranian Kurdish forces and warns that
they will send troops into Iraq if the attacks in Iran by these
Kurdish forces don't stop. The new leader of Iran's Revolutionary
Guards publicly warned that Iran has identified U.S. "weak points" in
Iraq and Afghanistan and would "launch a crushing response to any
attack." Iranian officials have declared that they will launch missile
strikes at U.S. and Western targets across the region, including
Israel, if Iran is attacked.
THE DANGER OF WAR & THE URGENCY OF RESISTANCE
The U.S.'s belligerent threats, "financial war," demand for tougher
sanctions, and its funding of covert operations and anti-regime groups
inside Iran (as reported by Seymour Hersh last year) may be aimed at
forcing the Islamic Republic to capitulate to U.S. demands or to
trigger an internal collapse short of war. The Bush regime could also
be waiting to see how these moves play out before deciding on war. But
it's also quite possible that the rulers have begun a "calibrated
programme of escalation," as the Telegraph puts it, in preparation for
war.
In any case, Iran is increasingly the focus of U.S. imperialist
bullying, and the current trajectory is clearly moving toward
confrontation. Given these extreme and growing tensions, war could
even start by accident or miscalculation by either side—perhaps as the
result of a border clash, a naval incident in the Persian Gulf, or
some other event. War could also be triggered by what Steve Clemons
(Salon.com, Sept. 19) calls an "engineered provocation" by those close
to Cheney (perhaps Israel), leading to an "end run" around the rest of
the U.S. decision-making apparatus. A dry run for such a provocation
may have already taken place on Sept. 6 when, under still mysterious
circumstances, Israeli planes attacked targets in Syria. Bush's former
UN Ambassador John Bolton called this air strike "a clear message to
Iran that its continued efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are not
going to go unanswered."
What are the Democrats doing as Bush pours gasoline on the flames in
the Middle East? A few leading Democrats say they're opposed to
attacking Iran, but when Congressional Democrats have actually done
anything, it's been to pave the way for war—first, by removing
legislative language early this year demanding that Bush consult
Congress before any attack on Iran; and second, by voting
overwhelmingly this summer for a war-like resolution blaming Iran for
killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The top Democrats all agree, as Barack
Obama recently put it, that Iran "poses a grave challenge." Obama,
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have all said at one time that "all
options" against Iran were on the table. As a ruling class party, the
Democrats share with Bush and the Republicans the imperialist goal of
defeating Islamic fundamentalism, giving full support to Israel, and
maintaining the U.S. stranglehold on the region—even as they have
various differences over just how to navigate all the roiling
contradictions their empire faces.
Any U.S. attack on Iran—no matter the pretext—would be launched to
further America's imperialist aims, not to liberate anyone, save
lives, or lessen the danger of nuclear war. It would be unjust and
criminal, and could cause enormous suffering and death in Iran and
spark bloodshed across the region. U.S. aggression and war threats are
already fueling a very bad dynamic in which the reactionary poles of
imperialism on one side and Islamic fundamentalism on the other
reinforce each other, even as they clash.
All this makes it urgent for people to speak out and protest U.S.
bullying and war preparations now. The organization World Can't
Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime has called for people broadly to take
up the "Declare It Now! Wear Orange!" campaign. Anti-war protests are
scheduled for September 29 and October 27. (See www.worldcantwait.org
for details.) Read and distribute Revolution so that many, many more
can get the truth and be inspired to politically
resist the crimes that the U.S. imperialists are committing and
further crimes that they are planning.
===
ALERT: BUSH REGIME ESCALATES IRAN WAR PREPARATIONS
http://revcom.us/a/101/iran-alert-en.html
http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2538&Itemid=2
Over the last month, U.S. preparations for attacking Iran have taken a
leap, and war—in the near future—is a real possibility.
In mid-August, the Bush administration announced plans to designate
Iran's Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organization." This would be
the first time any state organization had been so designated and could
be an effort to prepare a "legal" basis for attacking Iran. Former CIA
operative Robert Baer wrote in Time (8/18) that "Officials I talk to
in Washington vote for a hit on [Iran] maybe within the next six months."
On August 28, Bush made a belligerent case for war to the reactionary
American Legion, charging Iran with threatening a "nuclear holocaust"
and murdering Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops. He warned, "I have
authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's
murderous activities."
The same day, a British think tank released a study concluding that
the U.S. was preparing a "massive" military assault on Iran which
could "destroy Iran's WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state
apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of
President George W. Bush giving the order." On September 2, London's
Sunday Times reported that the Pentagon had plans for a three-day
bombing blitzkrieg against 1,200 Iranian targets.
It's estimated that half the U.S.'s warships are now poised near Iran,
which means an attack could come very quickly – with little if any
warning.
Far too many are either unaware or in denial about this extreme
danger, and the capitalist media refuses to report it.
People need to call attention to and resist this U.S. escalation,
including by joining World Can't Wait—Drive Out the Bush Regime and
building anti-war protests scheduled for September 15 and 29. (See
http://www.worldcantwait.org/ for details.)
===
Iranian academics ask 10 questions from Columbia University president
Tehran, Sept 25, IRNA
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-235/0709256150181708.htm
Chancellors of six Iranian universities and academic centers on
Tuesday expressed indignation at aggressive tone and degrading
behavior of head of Columbia University Lee Bollinger in hosting
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
They forwarded a protest letter to Bollinger to voice outrage at his
ignorance of the principle of hosting the president of Iran, a country
of great civilization and a 7,000-year history.
"It is a shame for an academic center that such hateful and impolite
words are uttered by its president. It is regretful that the media
owners easily elicit what they want the president of a reputable
university to say in his lecture," they said in the letter.
"Your statement about Iran was full of undocumented charges brought by
the media and some of which were the outcome of misunderstanding which
needs dialogue and closer study," it said.
The Iranian academics posed 10 questions to Bollinger in return for
the 10 questions he asked from President Ahmadinejad.
1. Why did the US media exert pressure on you to cancel President
Ahmadinejad's lecture at University of Columbia and why did the US TV
networks broadcast programs for several days against the Iranian
president and did not allow him to respond to the allegations? Does
this not run counter to freedom of expression?
2. Why did the US come to the help of Iranian dictator (deposed Shah)
in 1953 and launched military coup against then prime minister
Mohammad Mossadeq?
3. Why did the US back Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in
1980 and supplied him with chemical weapons to attack both Iraqi
people and Iranian soldiers?
4. Why doesn't the US administration recognize the democratically
elected government of Palestine in Gaza and why does it oppose Iranian
proposal to hold referendum in Palestine to end the 60-year old
occupation.
5. Why did the US Army with its advanced weapons not capture Ben
Ladan. How do you respond to the longstanding family friendship of
President George W. Bush and Ben Laden and the oil deals with Bush and
sabotaging process of inquiry into September 11 by the US president.
6. Why does the US administration support the terrorist Mujahideen
Khalq Organization (MKO) despite that fact that it has carried out
terrorist operations in Iran since 1981.
7. Was there an international consensus when the US invaded Iraq in
2003? What is the aim of killing several thousand Iraqis and where are
the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for which the US unleashed the war?
8. Why does the US Administration always support the
non-democratic and military governments?
9. Why did the US administration give negative vote to resolution of
IAEA general conference calling for making the Middle East free from
weapons of mass destruction?
10. Why is the US administration dissatisfied with Iran-IAEA agreement
to resolve the outstanding issues about Iranian nuclear program?
They extended an invitation to Bollinger to visit Iran and talk with
intellectuals and ordinary people to see for himself the realities.
===
Jewry Versus Iran Is Jewry Versus Humanity
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
http://www.jewishracism.com
When we hear about Iran in the Jewish controlled media, we hear two
lies of concern to Jewry. One is that Ahmadinejad is a "Holocaust
denier" and the other is that Ahmadinejad has said that he "wants to
wipe Israel off the map". When we see protests against Iran, two
things are prominent. One is the dehumanizing signs, which are a hate
crime under current law causing fear among Moslems, which signs are
promoted by Jewish organizations. The other is Jews wearing yarmulkas
and scarves (Jewish women are not supposed to show their natural hair
and are required to wear wigs or scarves in public).
This orchestrated, artificial aggressive attack on Iran is clearly a
Jewish war on Iran and nothing else. Those who are not Jewish who are
sponsoring it are traitors, with either an interest in personal gain
or a psychotic religious motive for doing so which has been created
and sponsored by Jewry for the purpose.
As Jews around the world beat the war drums through the media and
politicians they own, it is important to remember that Iran is simply
the current target of their ancient war on the human race. Israel
attacked its neighbor Lebanon last year and Syria this year, and has
been committing genocide by attrition on the Palestinians for a very
long time.
By its own accounts, Jewry destroyed, or used others to destroy,
Egypt, Rome, Greece, Babylon, etc. Jewry was behind the Crusades, the
invasion of the Americas and subsequent genocides, Napoleon, Talaat
Pasha, Trotsky, Stalin, Tojo, Hitler, Mao, and now Bush.
Iran is not the first nation that Jewry has targeted, nor do they plan
to stop at Iran. After they have genocided the Iranians, they will
kill off the Arabs, Kurdish and Turkish Peoples who have helped them,
one nation at a time. They will again destroy Russia. And they will
most viciously crush America.
Iranians cheered as Saddam fell. Now Iranians are under fire. Saudis
cheer as Iranians are attacked. Next Saudis will rot. Americans wave
flags as they soldier and slave for Jewry. Next, Americans will die.
We all have a common enemy who is warring against us. We should unite
against it, instead of doing its work for it. We can end the Jewish
war on the human race quickly and humanely. We need only preserve our
dignity as human beings and work together for peace and the betterment
of mankind. We need only name the enemy and show its machinations. We
need only refuse to become degenerate, genocidal beasts, and extend a
hand of friendship to the world. It will be our lives and our souls we
save, together with the rest of the human race.
===
The Ugly Ambush at Columbia
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Monday, September 24, 2007
http://www.jewishracism.com
Columbia University invited the President of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, to speak today at the university.
Ahmadinejad graciously obliged the offer.
The invitation to the President of Iran to speak soon proved to have
been a dirty trap, a lure into an ambush. Under the pretense of
celebrating free speech, the President of the University, Lee
Bollinger, issued a humorless barrage of personal insults at the
President of Iran in a prolonged and uninterrupted diatribe; which,
rather than glorifying free speech and open debate, instead made a
mockery of free speech and civil discourse. Bollinger badly
embarrassed himself, Columbia University and the United States of
America. He obviously only extended the invitation to provide himself
with the opportunity to express his hatred. The talk began and ended
with slurs and ridicule from the leaders of the university.
Ahmadinejad handled himself very well, with the exception of his claim
that there are no homosexuals in Iran. I wonder if he instead meant
that there is no capital punishment of homosexuality in Iran?
At any rate, Columbia gave a very bad showing of itself, with the
university's president, Bollinger, asking loaded and insulting
questions, then condescendingly predicting that his non-serious and
highly disrespectful questions would not be taken seriously, nor given
the dignity of a response. Bollinger showed himself to be a pompous,
unfair ass. With a phony, sanctimonious air, Bollinger offered his
invited guest and his audience a platter of Bollinger's stool
smothered in a sauce of Bollinger's drool.
Ahmadinejad's talk with the National Press Club went very well. It is
vitally important that Ahmadinejad not let the ambush rattle him, and
that he give a strong and undistracted speech at the UN and not let
the press hound him over Bollinger's attack. Keep the focus on the
double standards of the Zionists, and on their persecution of the
Palestinians. Keep the focus on the double standards of the US and the
rights of Iran under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
Charter of the United Nations. The Zionist press is desperate to
change the subject. Continue to answer their false, loaded questions
with the facts.
===
Bollinger was rude, crass and vulgar
with President Ahmadinejad
LA VOZ DE AZTLAN
Los Angeles, Alta California
September 25, 2007
http://www.aztlan.net/bollinger_vs_ahmadinejad.htm
One of the fundamental rules of etiquette is that you do not insult
the guests you invite to your home. Impolite behavior can be forgiven
if exhibited by underage and not yet well educated youths, but what
should polite society do when crass and vulgar behavior is exhibited
by the president of a prestigious university?
Yesterday the President of Columbia University Lee C. Bollinger, like
a common street thug, literally "mugged" the President of the Islamic
Republic of Iran before he had a chance to speak at a university
sponsored World Leaders Forum. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was
invited by John H. Coatsworth, the Acting Dean of the School of
International and Public Affairs but was "ambushed" by a rude
introduction by Bollinger. The theatrics by Bollinger at the School of
International and Public Affairs forum might explain why the US State
Department is infested with foul mouthed diplomats who lack decorum.
Bollinger attempted to upset President Ahmadinejad with his impolite
introduction but Iran's leader just demonstrated calm and a lot of class.
Bollinger's "cheap shot" and "sucker punch" did not affect President
Ahmadinejad whatsoever. The lack of respect for Iran's president by
falsely calling him "a petty and cruel dictator" and other crass
things did not have the effect Bollinger intended but only cheapened
Bollinger and the university. Bollinger's attempt to infect the minds
of the student audience before President Ahmadinejad spoke failed.
First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not a dictator. He was
democratically elected in an election that was monitored by
international observers that included
US President Jimmy Carter.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Columbia University is
presently governed by a group of weak-kneed academicians with a
tendency to capitulate to political pressure from the right, Zionists
and Bush type politicians. The racist discipline of the three Chicano
students who deported the Minutemen vigilantes from campus is another
example of how the university administration does what is politically
expedient instead of what is right. It certainly appears that Lee C.
Bollinger succumbed again to the same sort of pressure when he showed
such extreme disrespect to the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
===
The following is a transcript of remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad to the United Nations General Assembly in New York,
Sept. 25, 2007
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2007/09/iranian-presidents-speech-to-un-sept.html
Madam President, Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Distinguished Heads of Delegation, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me
with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the
great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention
of the international community.
I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples
across the globe, their courageous presence in different international
settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations
regarding global issues.
Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion
to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings.
Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and
longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of
the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth,
who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and
replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek
justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future
on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise
the Almighty for this immense blessing.
What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human
dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could
transgress against others and oppress them.
By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination,
accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while
others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery. Some seek
to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in
perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from
their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and
other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily
in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys
of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.
Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the
Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is
that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice?
Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and
suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of
global justice? A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing
global issues can further illustrate the problem.
A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third
generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for?
Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to
promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact,
instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and
governments? How long should the people of the world live with the
nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the
powers producing and possessing these weapons?
How can they be held accountable before the international community?
And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of
their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive
arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom
instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more
compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then
oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away
and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition
because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the
powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to
devour the rights of others. People across the globe embrace justice
and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and
win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of
justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the
proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their
use? The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is
before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than
exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?
B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities
Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last
three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting
killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing
security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government
and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to
heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi
society, and instigate civil strife.
There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political
will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were
apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under
various pretexts by the occupiers. It seems that intensification of
hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued
presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Where can the people of Iraq seek
refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?
Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire
region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and
security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members
of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this
regard?
Consider the situation in Palestine: The roots of the Palestinian
problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of
protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine
was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions
of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War
survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in
the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and
a government was established in the territory of others with a
population collected from across the world at the expense of driving
millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and
homelessness.
This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees
continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still
hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal
reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations
accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?
The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods
Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice
trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding
light on the facts would undermine the raison d'être of this regime,
as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime
in the territory of others.
Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant
source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war
and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries,
and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division,
coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these
historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this
regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded
before our eyes. Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support
provided to this regime.
Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being
bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own
streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council,
can afford them any support or protection. Why?
At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through
the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian
territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called
champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are
illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international
community.
Which council or international organization stands up to protect this
brutally besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take
any steps?
Let me here address Lebanon. For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese
lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of
them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council
practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the
aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the
Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated
by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council
sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of
atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were
persistently repeated. Why?
In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind
the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council,
how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?
C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international
community
I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people
and speak to the injustices against them. The Islamic Republic of Iran
is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear
activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of
IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally
recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights?
Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel
cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful
ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a
bleak record of using them against humanity.
Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the
Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations
of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers
from impeding scientific progress of other countries? The abuse of the
Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a
source of grave concern.
Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are
themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten
others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision
by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council.
The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security
Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the
Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to
maintain security?
A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the
conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and
aggression. Many global arrangements have become unjust,
discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from
some of the powerful; Threats with nuclear weapons and other
instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for
the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and
tranquility;
For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can
only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and
intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests
of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of
self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence
of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This
is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the
Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to
the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in
Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged;
that must not violate human rights.
Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by
international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of
certain major powers. Apparently the Security Council can only be used
to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the
oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must
remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy
of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged
with maintaining the security of countries?
The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that
certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and
consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They
consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and
other nations as only second class in the world order.
The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United
States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security
Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international
law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account?
Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their
violations? Has this ever happened?
In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences
with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as
claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of
prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be
a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?
Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing
their exclusionist policies on international decision making
mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing
mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and
effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.
How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that
the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before
the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies.
The present structure and working methods of the Security Council,
which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the
expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of
humanity.
Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and
urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged
that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire
international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner,
it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct
relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy
and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably
established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or
even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without
reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.
Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions
and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this
generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves
about the world in which they want to live?
Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the
Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and
democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the
highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General
Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of
reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security
Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned
Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African
continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of
the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would
hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.
It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place
in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained
in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and
human rights cannot be guaranteed.
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and
spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence
and piety.
Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant
objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will
fade away.
Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity
and respect. No one has superiority over others. No individual or
states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they
disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure,
position themselves as the "international community".
Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over 6
billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.
Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in
maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained
through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for
human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.
We are all members of the international community and we are all
entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love
and justice. All members of the United Nations are affected by both
the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world. We
can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects
of a better life for current and future generations.
Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and
afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and
lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our
nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.
Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good,
Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take
giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection.
Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or
later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is
imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the
promotion of justice and virtue.
The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is
also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His
creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in
decadence and corruption.
He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and
virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the
Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon
him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet
Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism,
justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build
a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the
rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into
friendship?
I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before,
longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and
above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real
savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish
justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.
0h, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have
ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that
thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You,
and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his
return and his cause.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment