[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Big 3 EU Foreign Policy (England, France, and Germany)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kerravon



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 65
Location: australia

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stefania wrote:
If it was pro-american, italian prime minister Frattini did not go to Egypt to say to Mubarak that Bush's plan for Mideast are not good, because this is what he said.

If it was pro-israel it did not bring the Israel's Security Fence issue at the U.N. and present a EU-backed resolution against the Fence !!

There is a group of quasi-extreme right youth which fill the cities' walls with anti-israeli writings , one of them stating: "No to the Israeli Apartheid Wall-Yes to the Palestinian Warriors".

Next time i will stay home.

They are similar to the italian left..

I wish to have a President as President Bush in Italy, but since we are in the French-influenced Euro zone, this is impossible..


Stefania, obviously I would have preferred Italy did not do these things. However, don't be too harsh on your president. He is probably being forced to vocally be mildly anti-Israel because of the left-wing nutcases in your society (and all societies, including USA). If he fights every battle, he will lose. If you don't vote for him, he will lose. Please. Vote for him. What is important is the big battles.

And he turned out on freedom's side for the big battles. The Israeli wall is a side-show. The really important thing is that no-one is shooting at allied troops (like they were in WWII). Anything above that is a dream come true. If you allow US planes to cross your airspace, or land in emergencies, or ANYTHING, the neocons the world over will be happy and grateful. Italy provided much more than this. With a left-wing government, we probably would have got less.

Those people posting racist slogans on your walls are probably under 5% of the population, right? Do not judge your country by what 5% do. Every country has idiots.

When it mattered, your countrymen are currently dying for Zeyad et al. That is something to be immensely proud of. Don't spend too much time looking at the comparatively small faults. Also, don't be so sure that he isn't deliberately playing "good cop". It may or may not be immoral to play "good cop" on this issue. I don't know. E.g. if he prevents Egypt forming an alliance with Syria etc, by convincing Mubarak that he will "prevent" Bush from invading Egypt, then who's to say that's not a good thing?

Even France may not have been so bad. Russia would have vetoed it anyway. Better to be able to berate a NATO member than have to berate Russia. The coalition members were able to vent their frustration on a relatively friendly country, rather than antagonize Russia. Much better for us to keep this sort of thing "in the family" (family of western democracies). Our family is growing bigger. Estonia et al will join 2nd April 2004. Be happy. Smile

Oh yeah, one other thing is that Italy is part of NATO, helping to protect countries like Estonia. That is worth a lot. Ask the Estonians. Risking the wrath of USSR's nukes for decades was something to be proud of too. Italy is a modern-day ally. Don't be too harsh on yourself. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sudi



Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 235
Location: Plano, TX

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If you don't want me to repeat the same thing over and over, then stop asking questions, or posting incorrect info.


Never asked you a question. You don't seem knowledgable enough to answer anything.

Quote:
As for bellicosity, you're the one who decided to resort to personal insults when you couldn't find any fault in logic or facts.


Wrong again. It was you who started insulting/attacking Iranian expats back in your "war or revolution" thread. Calling us mullahs' agents who don't mind seeing women and children getting slaughtered ... that is the worst insult for any Iranian activist. Many of us have sacrificed quiet a bit ... and now you are essentially calling us traitors. Eventhough that is unforgivable, you do need to apologize.

Quote:
If any children get killed it is by accident, and a once-off cost.


It is amazing how children getting killed fall into your "once-off cost".

Quote:
You are the one advocating sending women and children through a meat grinder, not me.


No mate, you are.

Quote:
And stacking these forums with people calling for Iranian children to face down automatic weapon fire is also very clever!


I thought you didn't believe in conspiracy theories!! Keep contradicting yourself.

Quote:
As for "loquacity", if you stop advocating the slaughter of children or raising other technically incorrect points that don't stand up to the light of day, there would be no need for the continuous cycle of correction.


What is amazing is that you actually believe your posts are technically accurate and are filled with facts! Not so, deary! They are however filled with assumptions and wishful thinkings.

Quote:
I don't suppose in your next message you could actually provide some technical rebuttal, instead of passionately calling for mullahs to be given the opportunity to slaughter unarmed children?


The sad fact is that many people have presented you hard real facts that have obviously fallen on deaf ears, but here it goes ... again.

War with Iran:

1. President Bush will not move on Iran until after the elections (count them, 9 more months). But first let's pray that he is re-elected.
2. President Bush has said that US will offer "moral" support to the Iranian people struggling for freedom.
3. There are many influencial mullah supporters within even this administration and certainely around the world ... England and France are prime suspects, and for good reasons.
4. Remember all the anti-war activist that came out before/during the Iraq war? Specially in Australia? Those numbers will double at the onset of a war with Iran. Timing is just wrong.
5. US military can handle it, US tax-payers can/will not.
6. Every American I've talked to says let's give revolution a chance.
7. Why aren't you using your "fact-filled" and "technically correct" arguments for a massive deployment of Australian troops to Iran? Australia has a 5 million military manpower and a $9.3 billion military budget. I'm sure the US will chip in ... say, 2000 marines?
8. Mullahs will not allow a fair fight. They never have (this is my biggest worry). Only Iranians will suffer, but you don't care about that ... that will be your "once-off cost".
9. Primary opposition groups in and out of Iran do not want military intervention, or they see it as a last resort.
10. The last opposition group to get engaged militarily with Iran (MKO) is now on US' terrorist watch list.
11. The 1953 coup has not sat well with many in and out of Iran ... Personally, I agree with the outcome of that coup.
12. As for Iran's nukes (or nuclear aspirations), US will be overly careful about using WMD to justify a war. Not that they did before, but that's not how the liberals and big medias will portray it ... The US may get too careful, to the point of non-action.
13. Not to mention the strong possibility of a "revolution" in the near future ... not matter how much you like to dismiss those possibilities.
...
and many other reasons ... but certainely nothing that hasn't been said before.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kerravon



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 65
Location: australia

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sudi wrote:
1. President Bush will not move on Iran until after the elections (count them, 9 more months). But first let's pray that he is re-elected.
2. President Bush has said that US will offer "moral" support to the Iranian people struggling for freedom.
3. There are many influencial mullah supporters within even this administration and certainely around the world ... England and France are prime suspects, and for good reasons.
4. Remember all the anti-war activist that came out before/during the Iraq war? Specially in Australia? Those numbers will double at the onset of a war with Iran. Timing is just wrong.
5. US military can handle it, US tax-payers can/will not.
6. Every American I've talked to says let's give revolution a chance.
7. Why aren't you using your "fact-filled" and "technically correct" arguments for a massive deployment of Australian troops to Iran? Australia has a 5 million military manpower and a $9.3 billion military budget. I'm sure the US will chip in ... say, 2000 marines?
8. Mullahs will not allow a fair fight. They never have. Only Iranians will suffer, but you don't care about that ... that will be your "once-off cost".
9. Primary opposition groups in and out of Iran do not want military intervention, or they see it as a last resort.
10. The last opposition group to get engaged militarily with Iran (MKO) is now on US' terrorist watch list.
11. The 1953 coup has not sat well with many in and out of Iran ... Personally, I agree with the outcome of that coup.
12. As for Iran's nukes (or nuclear aspirations), US will be overly careful about using WMD to justify a war. Not that they did before, but that's not how the liberals and big medias will portray it ... The US may get too careful, to the point of non-action.
....
and many other reasons ... but certainely nothing that hasn't been said before.


1. fine.
2. fine
3. depends what you mean by "supporters". The people you refer to are supporters of CHANGE. They may or may not have a good technique to bring about that, but there is no doubt that they want change.
4. "especially Australia"?! What are you on about? Either way, you are making a classical error that these tinpot countries make - assuming that the less than 1% of the country that decides to burn their bras publicly represents anything more than 1% of the country. Saddam thought that the protestors would save him too. Good grief.
5. This is where the real battle is - winning the hearts and minds of the Americans.
6. See (5). It doesn't tally with the reality on the ground. The revolution was given a chance. The men with automatic weapons were willing to fire. The mullahs won. I wish it weren't the case, I really do.
7. The idea of the western alliance is burden-sharing. 2000 Australian special forces is commesurate with our capability. I wish we were 20 times more powerful than the US and were running the world ourselves, but we're not and we're not.
8. Crikey - I'm not after a fair fight! Multiple western forces against some tinpot mullahs using mercenaries is not a fair fight! As for suffering, the Iranians are suffering right now. Better to have a once-off cost to END THE SUFFERING.
9. There are naive people everywhere. Some naive people think that Islamofascists will be too ashamed to shoot unarmed demonstrators. Admittedly it was nice to find out for sure.
10. So?
11. The US support for Israel didn't sit well with many Iraqis either. So long as the idiots don't pick up a gun, the troops have been specifically told to offer no opinion on this.
12. In this case, it's the IAEA who has found the dirt. It's a good excuse. Certainly, it's not such a bad excuse that any western forces are willing to military oppose a US intervention, which at the end of the day is all that matters.

By the way, I'd like to thank you for listing those technical points. It is things like this that allow me to anticipate future arguments I will have with others. Even to get Australia to support the operation, it requires the argument to be made here too. Australia is not a US poodle, no matter how many left-wing Australians (and others) attempt to say that's the only reason we went in.

Oh, and you were right about the forum-stacking being another conspiracy theory. Smile I just threw that in to make the point that advocates of revolution are advocating a policy that the mullahs can handle. They can't handle western firepower, they can handle unarmed demonstrators. Most tinpot dictators can handle this. Unfortunate as it may be, that is the technology of our time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnathan
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:20 pm    Post subject: I ask you Reply with quote

Kerravon, I ask you to comtemplate this for a moment.. What do you think happens if 95% or more of the Iranian people decide not to go to work anymore, not to go to school, flood into the streets, -- do you think the Bloody Mullahs will be able to stop them.. The answer is NO: Reason Being: They have no legitimacy, Europeans won't be able to defend such behavior of slaughtering civilians - the US will throw support behind Iranian people, demanding the regime to step down - and leave the country/ or face the wrath of the Iranian people - and perhaps some US special units if need be..
Back to top
kerravon



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 65
Location: australia

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sudi wrote:
7. Why aren't you using your "fact-filled" and "technically correct" arguments for a massive deployment of Australian troops to Iran? Australia has a 5 million military manpower and a $9.3 billion military budget. I'm sure the US will chip in ... say, 2000 marines?


Oops, forgot to mention one other aspect of the burden-sharing. Australia predominantly deals with the Pacific region. It may not be as sexy as Iraq, but the liberation of Solomon Islands was *spectacular*. The Australian forces just needed to land, and a 5 year civil war came abruptly to an end as the protagonists all lined up to go to jail. No US troops were sent to help.

In East Timor, a small number of US troops were sent to help, despite the fact that the US is 20 times our population.

In WWI and WWII, Australian troops were fighting long before the US bothered to help.

In Vietnam, the Australian sector was free of Viet Cong, which is more than can be said for any American sector.

Australia pulls its weight. To suggest otherwise is grossly dishonest, and certainly not something an ally would say.

I'm not complaining about America - at the end, it was chiefly responsible for the successful conclusion to WWI, WWII and the Cold War, something which I, for one, am eternally grateful for, even if my vocal left-wing countrymen are spoiled undeserving brats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kerravon



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 65
Location: australia

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:31 pm    Post subject: Re: I ask you Reply with quote

johnathan wrote:
Kerravon, I ask you to comtemplate this for a moment.. What do you think happens if 95% or more of the Iranian people decide not to go to work anymore, not to go to school, flood into the streets, -- do you think the Bloody Mullahs will be able to stop them.. The answer is NO: Reason Being: They have no legitimacy, Europeans won't be able to defend such behavior of slaughtering civilians - the US will throw support behind Iranian people, demanding the regime to step down - and leave the country/ or face the wrath of the Iranian people - and perhaps some US special units if need be..


I think something similar to what happened when Venezueala shut down a year ago would happen. And I don't think that 95% of the population can afford to not work. It's a poor country, everyone needs to eat. I would certainly be interested to find out for sure though. If you can organize this to happen, I am interested to see. So far, from the outside, we haven't even been able to organize people to switch their lights off on Thursday night. That is somewhat depressing.

Europeans have NOT been defending "slaughtering civilians". Not now, not before, not in the future. The US can stamp its foot and demand whatever it wants. These tinpots believe they can do whatever they want, Treaty of Westphalia says so.

I am interested to hear how you think US special forces could be used though. Something like the Afghan campaign would be great, very small footprint. If you can get something workable, it could be used as a template for future wars (e.g. Syria, Burma, wherever). An air war is always far more palatable to a fickle US public.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iran va Jahan
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:57 am    Post subject: Can the EU Afford to Underestimate the Threat Posed Reply with quote

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Can the EU Afford to Underestimate the Threat Posed by the Islamic Republic?

March 07, 2004
Iran va Jahan
Darius Dana
Source: http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=03&d=09&a=4


The impressive boycott of the Iranian parliamentary election has put the European advocates of "critical dialogue" at an awkward position. It will no longer be easy for the EU to claim to be encouraging indigenous reforms in Iran when the last elements of the supposed reformist movement have been chased out of the system. Of course the temptation to continue to cut deals with the theocracy will always be there. What better way to build thriving economies than trading with a desperate dictatorship willing to dish out just about any trade incentive in return for "turning a blind eye" to its abuses of human rights and violations of international law?! It's an ironic dilemma indeed; A young union of nations bound by a firm belief in liberty and democracy on one side and a medieval, oil-rich theocracy with no respect for the civilized world on the other. These unlikely partners are drawn to one another by very different reasons. For the EU, the attraction is commercial gain, but for the Iranian regime the stakes are much higher. With Washington piling up the pressure and growing unrest at home, the mullahs need the EU for their political survival. Be that as it may, there are at least three practical reasons why the EU should refrain from throwing a lifeline to the Islamic Republic.

1 - Islamic Republic's Stability

Although the Islamic Regime seems fairly stable now, it has never been weaker in its 25 year history. The departure of the so called reformist faction means that the whole weight of the system lies on the back of a few aging and insecure mullahs totally out of touch with the popular mood inside the country and ignorant of the realities of the modern world. Put the spiraling rates of poverty, unemployment, prostitution and addiction together with the regime's inability to create jobs or hope for the young who constitute 70% of Iran's fast growing population, and you'll soon come to realize that the mullahs are fighting a losing battle. The right wing power brokers of Iran simply lack the flexibility and intelligence to formulate any rational policies in domestic or foreign affairs. Paranoid as ever with the "plots of the enemies", the mullahs have increased repression at home while turning to yet more terrorism abroad. Hardly a safe environment for trade and commerce!

2 - EU and Iranian Perceptions

Britain, France and Germany are already mistrusted by most Iranians of all classes and backgrounds. The general perception amongst most Iranians is that the EU trio are ignoring the demands of the vast majority of Iranian people and are engaged in appeasing their oppressors for commercial gain. The failure of EU to make a clear stand on the issue of human rights has caused most Iranians to look to the US for inspiration and support. It is said that "seeing is believing"; What Iranians see these days is the obscene spectacle of cordial embraces and handshakes between EU foreign ministers and the most hawkish elements of the Islamic Republic who're directly responsible for the arrest, torture, and murder of Iranians. Insisting on such unwise policies will go a long way in downgrading the EU trio from "misguided rivals" to "colonial adversaries" in the eyes of Iranian people and opposition. It's always hard to predict the future, but most analysts agree that Iranian society is reaching boiling point and that some kind of change in the Iranian political scene is likely. In the event of such change, it is plausible that the prevailing forces most likely to be of secular and nationalist nature, will seek to retaliate against the EU for its support of the Islamic Republic. A future Iranian government of almost any complexion will probably seek to sideline the EU by favoring the US for strategic partnership and trade.

3 - A Pattern of Deception and Lies

The size and scope of Iran's nuclear program and the ever increasing evidence of a grand deception by the mullahs will only serve to embarrass the advocates of dialogue in Europe. The European visionaries who beat the drums of a "multi-polar world" can not afford to ignore the fact that some regimes do not play by the rules. The old school of "deterrence" and "balance of power" only apply to those who appreciate the limits and understand the rules. Both the well intentioned and the cynical EU decision makers are well advised to read through the short and bloody history of the Iranian revolution. They will find a disturbing tale of broken promises and deception on a grand scale; A revolution whose leaders promised a nation freedom and democracy, but unleashed death and destruction upon them once they grabbed power; A regime that compromises only when it's under serious threat and flouts international law when it's not; A regime whose leader is regarded as the "biggest predator of press freedom" and a president that talks of reforms and democracy while on trips to EU capitals and condones public executions and torture at home. Can the EU really count on the goodwill of a regime with such history? Can the EU afford to underestimate the threat posed by the Islamic Republic?
Back to top
The Wall Street Journal
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:51 am    Post subject: Caving In to the Mullahs Reply with quote

Thursday, March 11, 2004

Caving In to the Mullahs

March 11, 2004
The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook
Source: http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=03&d=11&a=8

With new evidence of Iran's nuclear deceptions emerging almost daily, it is troubling that Europe seemed to have coaxed the U.S. into yet another wrist-slapping exercise. At the board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna Tuesday, Washington gave in to European demands and agreed in a draft resolution to tone down criticism of Iran's clandestine nuclear program and even praise Teheran's "cooperation" with the IAEA.

Yet there is no longer any doubt that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Hassan Rohani, of the Supreme Council for National Security, practically admitted as much: "We want Iran to be recognized as a member of the nuclear club, that means Iran be recognized as a country having the nuclear fuel cycle, and enriching uranium."

The issue is how to deal with the problem. As always, Europe is more interested in process than results and wants to keep the dialogue alive. Many Europeans like to distance themselves from gung-ho Americans, advocating instead traditional diplomacy, preferably of the multilateral kind. Multilateral is eurospeak for any initiative that enjoys French and German approval.

That's why they were so quick to congratulate each other last October, when the British, French and German foreign ministers appeared to have struck a deal with Teheran. In return for European technical assistance, Iran pledged to come clean on its nuclear program.

But recently, IAEA inspectors found designs for hitherto undeclared advanced uranium enrichment facilities and polonium, a radioactive element for triggering nuclear weapons. So it seems diplomacy isn't working so well after all. British Prime Minister Tony Blair remarked himself in his recent defense of the Iraq war: "When they talk, as they do now, of diplomacy coming back into fashion in respect of Iran or North Korea or Libya, do they seriously think that diplomacy alone has brought about this change?" In other words, the few, albeit questionable results the trip to Teheran produced, such as Iran's promise to allow intrusive inspections, weren't really the fruits of French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin's labor but rather "collateral benefit" from disposing of the butcher from Baghdad.

But even with thousands of U.S. troops breathing down the mullahs' necks, Iran seems determined to soft-pedal the negotiations and to draw them out. Europe's diplomacy, ostensibly designed to bring about a peaceful solution, is so inadequate that it may actually create a situation where nothing short of military intervention will stop the Iranians from acquiring the ultimate weapon.

To quote Mr. Blair again: "This is not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favor playing it long." Unfortunately, when it comes to Iran, Mr. Blair too favors playing it long, even though Iran may only be a year or two from having the bomb. So time is certainly on Teheran's side.

What should concentrate the minds of the diplomats is that Iran already possesses the delivery capability to hit Israel, European targets and soon also the U.S. Iran is working on putting satellites into orbit, which would give it the technology to launch intercontinental missiles. Not to speak of the possibility of Iran passing on nuclear material to terrorists for a "dirty bomb" that could go off anywhere in the world.

If diplomacy is to have any chance, the Western world needs to up the ante. All the Europeans are telling the Iranians at the moment is that if they don't play ball the EU won't sign an extended trade agreement. But Teheran knows that with its current human rights record and last month's sham elections, even the EU couldn't justify extending economic ties.

Europe must be willing to drag Iran before the U.N. Security Council. It must threaten economic sanctions and go through with them if necessary. Given that Europe is Iran's biggest trading partner, this would seriously hurt the mullahs. Iran clearly wants to muscle its way into the select fraternity of nuclear-armed nations. But if the weak-kneed "diplomacy" of the West allows that to happen, we may as well write off non-proliferation policy and let everyone who wants to extract nuclear blackmail in the door.
Back to top
patriot



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:23 am    Post subject: join freedom Reply with quote

Dear friends I would like to present you the community of royalties to join us and leave your message for his majesty Cyrus Reza shah II
We are looking for the voices of Iranian people and share it with his majesty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shahineazadi
_________________
I am Babak Khoramdin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
empire2_lran
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam hamvatanan gerami
Neveshteye ahang ey nazanin Shahbanou ra be zaban farsi tahrir kardam, ba sedaye zibaee Sattar mitavanid dar in link tamasha bokonid. Man az tamame shoma mihanparastan khahesh mikonam link zir ra feshar bedid.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/pahlavi/shahbanoosong.html

Shahbanou nazanin ra ham daavat kardam az in safhe didar farmayand.
Back to top
patriot



Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

doostane shahdoust be groupe Reza shah II be peyvandid chon ma dar anga tasmim darim gomhourye Islami ra rosva konim!
Shoma be har zabani ke doost darid mitavanid dushmanane Iran ra rosva konid!
Ma doost midarim ta shoma ra az payamha va koushesh haye Reza shah II bishtar agah konim!
Chon Ishan ganeshine Kouroshe Bozorg hastand va ma farzandane Kouroshe bozorg!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shahineazadi
Tanha fardi ke mitavanad Iran ra abad konad va zendegye derakhshan ra baraye ma hedyeh avarad Reza shah II ast va bas!
payame khod ra baraye Ishan begozarid
Reza shah II be hamyarye shoma nyazmand ast !
_________________
I am Babak Khoramdin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 7:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Quick Background Info. Reply with quote

Prof. Norman Livergood wrote:
According to Professor Norman D. Livergood with impressive educational background (Ph.D., Yale University, 1961, Philosophy, Ph.D., Union Institute, 1989, Artificial Intelligence, .......) in the following URL
http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm states:
"In 1979, the Standard Oil-backed Shah of Iran was thrown out by a British-backed coup and the long-time British asset, Ayatollah Khomeni, put into power.
When the new British-controlled regime in Iran came into power"
The above statement by Professor Norman D. Livergood clearly states that the so called Islamic Revolution by vast network of Ayatollahs and Clerics were clearly a complex hidden coup by British intelligence with ordinary Iranian people participation for achieving more political freedom therefore part of British government (Secret Society, Queen husband, Prince Charles .... ) are completely responsible for Khomeni (British Agent) terrorist regime actions, human rights violation, Genocide .... in past 25 years and Iranian people have every rights to go to any International Court against England Secret Society for England and Mullahs crimes against humanity.
The corrupt oil and other contracts between MUllahs and Britain in past 25 years and American Hostage crisis by Khomeni (British Secret agents) are supporting the above facts. England is not true friend of U.S.



God Bless Prof. This is what we've been saying all along. Rest assured 99.9% of Iranians know this.

What is left out here is prior to British-Islamic Coup of 79, the Brits have been busy with their plots against Iran's Culture & Resources using same Islamists and ayatollahs for decades after decades.

World knows where British Royalty got their assets from. They have STOLEN most of it from other nations. Most of it using inhumane plots against the culture, integrity and well being of those nations. Rubbing them of their resources to the point of devestation for the country, and dividing the nation using different viscious plots. Britaina is responsible for Dividing Iran as well as India and you know the rest, and if not read the history to see who they have used the same Islamist agents to do so.

If these nations get together and take the British gov. or Monarchs to the International Courts for Crimes againt Humanity, the Crimes or Devestations they've brought about are so Enormous that not only them but England, as well as all the Common Wealth will go bankrupped in payback!
So, I suggest they get their acts together from this moments on!
Maybe, there is still a window of hope some of these nations could have some mercy on their greedy, evil souls!

I also suggest the other countries of common wealth to proclaim their LIBERTY ASAP, before all the blood washes off on them too!

At the end, I suggest one moment of silence for millions of lives lost due to these inhumane British Mafia of Crime worldwide, and throughout history.

May God Protect Our Naitons from Further Inhumane Breitish Plots!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:43 pm    Post subject: Re: I Reply with quote

kerravon wrote:
soleya wrote:

I have no problem with the British people.. The British Gov on the other hand continues to support the Mullahs. I have a big problem with that..


When you say "support the Mullahs", did you actually ask them what they would like to see for Iran? Did you ask them "would you like to see an Iranian system where the mullahs don't rape women and it is instead secular and also that there aren't unelected thugs stopping the people from choosing their representatives"?



1st of all - Shows how much you know about Iran's history. It's full of British suppression using their ayatollahs & Islamist thugs. and I mean FULL OF IT !

2ndly - I don't know what lies your gov. is feeding you people, but I'm tired of hearing that I should be "Greatful" to British!

Yes we're greatful for all your "Crimes against Humanity" and "Crimes against Iran", please keep up the good work!

Suckers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:53 pm    Post subject: Re: I Reply with quote

[quote="Liberty Now !"]
kerravon wrote:
soleya wrote:

I have no problem with the British people.. The British Gov on the other hand continues to support the Mullahs. I have a big problem with that..


When you say "support the Mullahs", did you actually ask them what they would like to see for Iran? Did you ask them "would you like to see an Iranian system where the mullahs don't rape women and it is instead secular and also that there aren't unelected thugs stopping the people from choosing their representatives"?


Yeah I can tell you "what they would like to see for Iran" another 100 years of Khomeinie gang, so Brits and EU can loot Iran.......hope that will answer your question... Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was interested in the post that Khomeni was a son of a Britisher. Very interesting.

I also remember talking to an Iranian friend at the time of the coup and remember he was in favor of Khomeni. To prevent this from happening again the Iranians need to be sure they understand their own part in the 1979 uprising and where things went wrong. From watching the Shia in Iraq, I'd say there is still much work to do. It may be Iran which is inciting the violence, but many of the Shia in Iraq are willing participating and are dying for the Mullahs.

I'm sure poor old Jimmy Carter though he was doing the Iranians a favor by supporting Khomeni. Since the US made a mistake by interfering once to help restore the Shah, he thought our interference again to take down the Shah would correct the problem. He still thinks that. The good news for the Carter fans is, the same party which gave us Jimmy has put up another man of equal courage and foresight for our next president, Jimmy II you might say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group