![[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index](http://www.activistchat.com/images/ActivistChatStandsLogo.jpg) |
[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.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ViaHHakimi
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: INDEPENDENT PAPERCHASE: Wednesday 15th February 2006 |
|
|
Are you searching for scandals in Europe?
Then read the news underneath.
H.H.
________________________________________________
INDEPENDENT PAPERCHASE: Wednesday 15th February 2006
By Jerome Taylor, Kate Thomas and Simeon Goldstein
THE POLITICS OF FEAR: (OR HOW TONY BLAIR
MISLED US OVER THE WAR ON TERROR)
The Independent leads with an exclusive report into how Tony Blair
“manipulated the serious threat of terrorism facing Britain to suit the
Government’s political agenda.”
The revelations come in an extract from the Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet by the journalist Peter Oborne, who argues both the Government and security services have exploited certain “scare stories” in recent years to justify their response to the terror threat.
An edited extract of the report, published today, investigates a number of recent cases involving the threat of, or response to, terror and concludes
that “the Government has persistently failed to tell the truth either to itself or to the British public about the terror threat in Britain.”
One example used to support these conclusions is the so-called “ricin plot”. In early 2003, at the height of the Government’s campaign to persuade the British public to go to war in Iraq, the police announced they
had foiled a terrorist plot to launch an attack using the deadly poison ricin.
Oborne argues the Government “latched onto” the announcement releasing a statement on 7 January saying “traces of ricin” had been found at a flat raided by police. On the same day, further tests at a research facility at Porton Down showed only materials to make ricin were present not the poison itself. Despite these results “the existence of ricin continued to be proclaimed fro over two years.
(Dears, this is the Brits way of turning every thing up side down to suit their false argument.
If there was material to make RICIN in the flat, what was the guaranty that it would never be used to make RICIN gas? And if RACIN making was not intended, then why the ingredients were in the flat?) H.H.
But, how about the French?
Read on.
H.H.
.
ASBESTOS TANKER INFURIATES FRENCH PRESS:
The debate over the future of the former French aircraft-carrier Le
Clemenceau, currently waiting in the Indian Ocean, has appeared in many
French newspapers, following yesterday’s interventions from the President’s office L’Elysee and the French Defence ministry.
The ship has been held in virtual limbo since campaigners revealed there
was a high chance the former aircraft carrier was loaded with asbestos. An
Indian shipyard was due to dismantle the carrier but India has refused entry to Le Clemenceau until the matter is settled in the Supreme Court.
The crisis comes at an unfortunate time for Jacques Chirac, who is due to
make an official state visit to India on February 19th.
Yesterday there were new calls for the ship to return to France.
French newspaper Le Monde says “France wanted to set an example with the removal of asbestos. What she has actually done is highlighted her
blunders, her incorrect manoeuvring, even her lies. The situation is at
best pitiful, at worst shameful.”
Liberation says, criticises the French Defence Minister Michele
Alliot-Marie saying, “To shoot yourself in the foot is a risk of the job
when dealing with weapons. But to shoot yourself in the foot with a
decommissioned aircraft carrier requires a politician of much higher calibre.” |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forwarded Message [ Download File | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]
To: hashem@hakimi.net
From: "H.Hakimi" <hhakimi@online.no>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:07:58 +0100
Subject: THY NAME IS COWARDICE
HTML Attachment [ Download File | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]
From Debsh,
Europe, THY NAME IS COWARDICE
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
This is a must read by all Americans. History will certify its correctness.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance,"now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.
Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
---God Bless America--- |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: Blaming the British |
|
|
Blaming the British
March 01, 2006
The Guardian
Robert Tait
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1720810,00.html?gusrc=rss
Watching his fellow countrymen observe the annual Shia Islamic mourning ceremony of Ashura, the disaffected Tehran taxi driver voiced a wish to convert to Christianity that may not have been as sincere as it was incongruous. But whatever his true ecclesiastical leanings, his beliefs about the source of the religious tyranny that so irked him about Iran were real.
"It is England that has imposed these mullahs on us," the cabbie mused, resisting all protestations at the notion's absurdity.
The idea that the Islamic revolution was a plot hatched in Whitehall, and that its spiritual leader, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was some sort of heavily disguised 007 in the secret service of Her Majesty's government does indeed seem weird. But not to many Iranians.
Suggestions that the convulsive events of 1979, which ushered in the Islamic republic, were manipulated and orchestrated by the British are widely accepted here as a given. It is a belief held, even before his reign was swept to oblivion in a revolutionary tidal wave, by the last shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.
Resentful that the British had deposed his pro-German father during the second world war, the shah commissioned a television drama, My Uncle Napoleon, whose main character's catchphrase was: "The British are behind everything". The shah echoed this mantra during his reign's last desperate days, telling the American ambassador, William Sullivan, that he "detected the hand of the English" behind the street demonstrations raging against him. Sullivan surmised that the teetering monarch had lost his mind and, with it, the will to survive.
But the shah was reflecting a broader mindset. The sun may have long set on British imperial might but in Iran it has been replaced by an enduring mirage of dominance which still shines brightly. If the rest of the world has become accustomed to the American hegemonic age, to Iranians Inglestan still wields the true power, albeit stealthily. Behind events great and small, they are ready to perceive the sleight of a hidden British hand. Belief in the "old coloniser's" diabolic powers unites Iranians in a way matched by no other issue, including the Islamic regime's pursuit of nuclear technology.
The regime's staunchest supporters cling to this belief with equal tenacity. Demonstrations by student Basij (Islamic volunteers) outside the British embassy in Tehran occur with bewildering regularity. The most recent railed against Britain's alleged responsibility for last week's destruction of the Shia shrine in Samarra, Iraq.
More generally, the Iranian authorities blame Britain for a wave of bombings that has killed more than 20 people in the southern city of Ahvaz over the past year.
It can be a bit of a jolt to Britons reconciled to their country's reduced global status to be instructed by Iranians of no particular ideological persuasion to "tell your government to leave us alone". It came as such to no less than Jack Straw. Having invested much energy and political capital cultivating a relationship aimed at breaking the ongoing nuclear imbroglio, the foreign secretary was said to be dumbfounded to discover the standard Iranian belief in his government's almost supernatural powers. He shouldn't have been.
For the all-consuming suspicion of British motives is rooted not simply in outlandish superstition, but in solid historical fact. Iran is hardly the only country where imperial Britain has form, but in few places are the memories - or wounds - so raw.
Top of the Iranian grudge list is the 1953 coup that toppled the nationalist prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, and cemented the rule of the shah. The coup was executed largely by the CIA but its genesis lay with the British secret services.
The British had been infuriated by Mossadeq's nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, a move prompted by widespread anger at its refusal to share a fairer proportion of its profits (vital to Britain's tax revenues) with Iran.
Having taken the matter to the UN security council and lost, Churchill's government persuaded the Eisenhower administration, then paranoid about the spread of communism, that Mossadeq was a dangerous radical who should be toppled. The resulting chicanery destabilised Iranian politics for the next generation and resonates to this day.
But it is just one among many historical grievances. Britain's dubious distinction is to have alienated just about every identifiable group in Iran. During the 19th century, Iran was a pawn in the Great Game played out between Britain and Russia for power and influence in central Asia.
The ruling Qajar dynasty of the time was bullied into a host of humiliating territorial and economic concessions to each side. The abuses continued into the 20th century and extended to interference in Iranian internal politics.
"Historically, people believe Britain engineered the coup which brought to power Reza Khan, who became Reza Shah [the last shah's father]," said Mohammed Hossein Adeli, until recently Iran's ambassador to Britain.
"His ruthless rule made people blame the British for interference in Iranian affairs. Later, the British deposed Reza Shah. As a result the shah's royal family and the elite affiliated to them were alienated. This united the people and the elite, both of whom became very suspicious of the British."
British policy makers should be sobered to learn that the one thing that unites Iranians is us. If, one day, the taxi driver gets his wish and the rule of the mullahs should end, there is no doubt who will get the credit - or the blame. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: Iranians still begrudge Britain for woes |
|
|
Iranians still begrudge Britain for woes
Big News Network
Wednesday 1st March, 2006 (UPI)
http://story.malaysiasun.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/d6e2be7a1d9b60bb/
The majority of Iranians believe that almost everything wrong in their country is rooted in fault with the British, The Guardian reported Wednesday.
The suspicion has long and deep roots, going back before 1979 when many believe Britain had a hand in ousting Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, allowing the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his conservative mullahs to take control.
Even the deposed shah blamed the British for deposing his pro-German father before World War II, the report said.
Historically, people believe Britain engineered the coup which brought to power Reza Khan, who became Reza Shah (the last shah's father), said Mohammed Hossein Adeli, Iran's former ambassador to Britain.
Now, demonstrations by Islamic students outside the British Embassy in Tehran occur regularly, and Iranian authorities also blame Britain for a wave of bombings that has killed more than 20 people in the southern city of Ahvaz over the past year. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject: US, British envoys differ on next UN moves on Iran |
|
|
US, British envoys differ on next UN moves on Iran
By Irwin Arieff
1 hour, 44 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060301/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_un_dc_2
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Wednesday the U.N. Security Council should be ready to act to ensure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons once the U.N. nuclear watchdog in Vienna refers the matter to the council next week, as expected. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
ViaHHakimi
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Blaming the British |
|
|
Dears,
Is it a long over due admission of guilt by the Brits?
Coming from Guardian?
Or, it is another plot?
H.H.
=========================
Blaming the British
Robert Tait, The Guardian:
Watching his fellow countrymen observe the annual Shia Islamic mourning ceremony of Ashura, the disaffected Tehran taxi driver voiced a wish to convert to Christianity that may not have been as sincere as it was incongruous. But whatever his true ecclesiastical leanings, his beliefs about the source of the religious tyranny that so irked him about Iran were real.
"It is England that has imposed these mullahs on us," the cabbie mused, resisting all protestations at the notion's absurdity.
The idea that the Islamic revolution was a plot hatched in Whitehall, and that its spiritual leader, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was some sort of heavily disguised 007 in the secret service of Her Majesty's government does indeed seem weird. But not to, many Iranians.
(What WEIRD? Was not Khomeini half Scottish?) H.H.
Suggestions that the convulsive events of 1979, which ushered in the Islamic republic, were manipulated and orchestrated by the British are widely accepted here as a given. It is a belief held, even before his reign was swept to oblivion in a revolutionary tidal wave, by the last shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.
Resentful that the British had deposed his pro-German father (Even your own Prime Minister of the time, Neville Chamberlain was pro Germany, do not say any thing about British Monarch of the day, Edward the 7th.? who was forced to abdicate apparently due to existence of the American Divorcee, Madam Simpson) H.H. during the second world war, the shah commissioned a television drama, My Uncle Napoleon, whose main character's catchphrase was: "The British are behind everything". The shah echoed this mantra during his reign's last desperate days, telling the American ambassador, William Sullivan, that he "detected the hand of the English" behind the street demonstrations raging against him. Sullivan surmised that the teetering monarch had lost his mind and, with it, the will to survive. (Later on it became obvious that Mr. SULLIVAN himself was a British agent in Carter Administration, betraying his own country!? – H.H.)
But the shah was reflecting a broader mindset. The sun may have long set on British imperial might but in Iran it has been replaced by an enduring mirage of dominance which still shines brightly. If the rest of the world has become accustomed to the American hegemonic age, to Iranians Inglestan still wields the true power, albeit stealthily. (Yeas through Mullahs. That is absolutely right! – H.H.). Behind events great and small, they are ready to perceive the sleight of a hidden British hand. Belief in the "old coloniser's" diabolic powers unites Iranians in a way matched by no other issue, including the Islamic regime's pursuit of nuclear technology.
The regime's staunchest supporters cling to this belief with equal tenacity. Demonstrations by student Basij (Islamic volunteers) outside the British embassy in Tehran occur with bewildering regularity. The most recent railed against Britain's alleged responsibility for last week's destruction of the Shia shrine in Samarra, Iraq.
More generally, the Iranian authorities blame Britain for a wave of bombings that has killed more than 20 people in the southern city of Ahvaz over the past year.
It can be a bit of a jolt to Britons reconciled to their country's reduced global status to be instructed by Iranians of no particular ideological persuasion to "tell your government to leave us alone". (True, What Mr. Jack Straw was doing in Iran during three trips to Tehran in less than a year? And what Prince Charles was doing over there suddenly visiting Tehran. Was he on a religion converting trip? Has he suddenly decided to become Moslem? – H.H.)- It came as such to no less than Jack Straw. Having invested much energy and political capital cultivating a relationship aimed at breaking the ongoing nuclear imbroglio, the foreign secretary was said to be dumbfounded to discover the standard Iranian belief in his government's almost supernatural powers. He shouldn't have been.
For the all-consuming suspicion of British motives is rooted not simply in outlandish superstition, but in solid historical fact. Iran is hardly the only country where imperial Britain has form, but in few places are the memories - or wounds - so raw.
Top of the Iranian grudge list is the 1953 coup that toppled the nationalist prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, and cemented the rule of the shah. The coup was executed largely by the CIA but its genesis lay with the British secret services. (Is not it right? H.H.)
The British had been infuriated by Mossadeq's nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, a move prompted by widespread anger at its refusal to share a fairer proportion of its profits (vital to Britain's tax revenues) with Iran. (You said it right!-H.H.)
Having taken the matter to the UN Security Council and lost, Churchill's government persuaded the Eisenhower administration, then paranoid about the spread of communism, that Mossadeq was a dangerous radical who should be toppled. The resulting chicanery destabilised Iranian politics for the next generation and resonates to this day.
But it is just one among many historical grievances. Britain's dubious distinction is to have alienated just about every identifiable group in Iran. During the 19th century, Iran was a pawn in the Great Game played out between Britain and Russia for power and influence in central Asia.
The ruling Qajar dynasty of the time was bullied into a host of humiliating territorial and economic concessions to each side. The abuses continued into the 20th century and extended to interference in Iranian internal politics.
"Historically, people believe Britain engineered the coup which brought to power Reza Khan, who became Reza Shah [the last shah's father]," said Mohammed Hossein Adeli, until recently Iran's ambassador to Britain.
"His ruthless rule made people blame the British for interference in Iranian affairs. Later, the British deposed Reza Shah. As a result the shah's royal family and the elite affiliated to them were alienated. This united the people and the elite, both of whom became very suspicious of the British."
British policy makers should be sobered to learn that the one thing that unites Iranians is us. If, one day, the taxi driver gets his wish and the rule of the mullahs should end, there is no doubt that will get the credit - or the blame. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: How we Duped the West, by Iran's Nuclear Negotiator |
|
|
How we Duped the West, by Iran's Nuclear Negotiator
March 05, 2006
Telegraph
Philip Sherwell in Washington
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wiran05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/05/ixportal.html
The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations.
The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.
In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the European troika. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.
He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb but Teheran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed IAEA seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.
Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes any UN sanctions, having unsuccessfully tried to persuade European leaders to give them more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.
He described the regime's quandary in September 2003 when the IAEA had demanded a "complete picture" of its nuclear activities. "The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the UN Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."
Mr Rowhani disclosed that on at least two occasions the IAEA obtained information on secret nuclear-related experiments from academic papers published by scientists involved in the work.
The Iranians' biggest setback came when Libya secretly negotiated with America and Britain to close down its nuclear operations. Mr Rowhani said that Iran had bought much of its nuclear-related equipment from "the same dealer" - a reference to the network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani atomic scientist. From information supplied by Libya, it became clear that Iran had bought P2 advanced centrifuges.
In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear programme, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told the Sunday Telegraph: "Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3 - and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the UN immediately." |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
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
|