Giuliani should address the non-violent movement of Iran

'You have one chance to talk to the people of Iran. They are watching. You want to create a reformist element in Iran and you don't speak to that? ... This is why terrorist will say, we can take advantage of the guy.'

Here he is picking on Obama, like I did, but he could use his position to address the Seyyeds directly. Why doesn't he ask them point black, "what could you do, if the people of Iran went on a general strike?".

But that would be too easy. Fact is, that the US does not want to remove the Seyyeds. Otherwise what else would "morally justify" their gun-boat diplomacy.

Acrimonious World

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, "young and inexperienced" in an acrimonious and threatening letter, the daily newspaper Le Monde reported Friday.

Report: Iran president sends "acrimonious" letter to France's Sarkozy - International Herald Tribune

I came across this comment first, and then thought, "ah well, yet another quip, from that madman".  But as I was reading the newswires, I came across the word acrimonious again.

In a statement following the vote on the resolution on moratorium on the use of the death penalty, the representative of Singapore congratulated the co-sponsors of the resolution on their “pyrrhic victory”. He said the vote had proved that there was no international consensus on the resolution, as almost half of the delegations had not voted in its favour. That should be an indication that many delegations were uncomfortable with the text. Co-sponsors had brought the resolution forward fully aware of how acrimonious and divisive the issue was.

TWO-DAY DELIBERATIONS END WITH CONTENTIOUS RESOLUTION CALLING FOR MORATORIUM ON USE OF DEATH PENALTY APPROVED BY THIRD COMMITTEE AFTER VOTE

There is something weird, and yet wonderful about coincidence, and with the internet, it happens a lot.  It defies logic, because how often is it, that one comes across such a word as acrimonious.

Now maybe there is a hidden meaning to all this?  One can talk about the split world we live in.  That all those for capital punishment are with the likes of the Seyyeds.  Is this the great divide in the world?

I know that on a personal note, when I first meet someone, I don't ask about their religion or their politics.  What I do ask is their position on Capital Punishment.  And I ask you, dear reader,  where do you stand?

Let me tell you where I stand and why.  I believe in Life.  I do not think there is such a thing as death.  But my definition of Life is different.  I believe that there is a greater existence, and that we are always part of that.  So nothing just disappears and is gone.  The energy of the person remains.  Astrologers and many non Astrologers connect to these energies.  So with that attitude, it is ridiculous to believe in death.

Now look at the all the political, nationalistic, religious and other movements or motives, that have been based on death, and have not done Good.  The world that we live in now, is only where it is, because on balance, more people on Earth are learning, that death is a divisive issue, and at best helps the person who kills the most.

As for Iran, it will be only a free society, as and when Capital Punishment is outlawed.  That will take care of the Seyyeds' dogma, and any other awkward political movement.  The Iranian Opposition needs to be fully united on this, and non-violent regime change.  This can be done by having peaceful General Strikes, whereby the Seyyeds' authority will be undermined, with no harm to anyone.

US hits at Beijing over Iran stance

“We are disappointed by the lack of co-operation by China on a third Security Council resolution,” said Nicholas Burns, US under-secretary of state, representing Washington at the meeting. “We don’t think that China is moving with us.”

FT.com / World - US hits at Beijing over Iran stance

And folks with that statement, the real culprit in this whole saga, is cornered.  If China washes its hand from the Seyyeds, then the Seyyeds are well and truly on their way out.  Somehow the Chinese need to be pursuaded.

Two faced Blair

"This ideology now has a state, Iran, that is prepared to back and finance terror in the pursuit of destabilising countries whose people wish to live in peace."

Blair accuses Iran of fuelling 'deadly ideology' of militant Islam | Iran | Guardian Unlimited

So why wasn't Tony Blair making such punchy statements last year?  Blair dared not say such things, when we had the boat hostage situation did we.  We now have the UK government openly critisizing the US in Iraq.  But more importantly, they let the Seyyeds' men creep into Basra, and inflitrate the forces.  Ask any modern Iranian, and they will tell you that the Brits are behind the Seyyeds.  So what in the world is he going on about?

Putin's real friends are not the Seyyeds in Iran

Russia may not be with Iran, but it is not with America and Europe either.

Russia's foreign policy | Last tango in Tehran | Economist.com

So where is Russia?  Is it everything to everyone, or nothing to no one.  The funny part is that everyone thinks that the Russians are with them.  The Seyyeds will rejoice that the Russians have not disagreed about anything, and of course we all know that they have not agreed to anything either.  The US will also go on about how their relationship is fine, and yet the Russians will cut them down.  Finally look at the number of deals that the multinationals are doing in Iran, Russia and China.  So it has nothing to do with governments.  It is all about the various companies.   And the US has got it right by limiting the transaction with the Seyyeds.  It does not matter whether corporations or nations are dealing with the Seyyeds, they will get a warning and eventually forced to make a choice like the German banks had to a couple of months ago.  The Russians and Chinese, need to make a choice between the Seyyeds and the US.  And that is the bottom line.  It is strictly business, and the US Treasury is quite right to put the world corporations on the spot.  Mr Putin can come and go as much as he likes.  But if the US Treasury does not allow some of those US corporation to trade with Russia, then who is Mr Putin going to go to?

ElBaradei buys more time for Iran's Seyyeds' nuke bomb program

“Resolving all outstanding verification issues in the next two to three months, after a long deadlock, would go a long way towards building the confidence of the international community in the peaceful nature of Iran’s past nuclear programme,”

Despite progress, important issues of Iran’s nuclear programme still remain – UN


And what will ElBaradei do next January when nothing had happened, and the Seyyeds had not come completely clean?

Tone of the press on Iran's horrible regime

With the Islamist regime in Tehran making clear that it has no intention of complying with U.N. Security Council

Options on Iran -- The Washington Times, America's Newspaper


One look at the above tone, and you can see how the world is now clearly separating the Islamist regime from the people of Iran.  That was not the case not so long ago.

The more the Seyyeds are seggragated in the media as distinct from the rest of Iranians, the better and easier the regime change will be.

Iraq crisis is Iran's Seyyeds' trap

Iran may well provide the glue that keeps that from happening - all the more reason for the US and its allies not to view every Iranian involvement in Iraq negatively, or as an act of subversion.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - Iraq crisis is Iran's opportunity


Sometimes you read comments, and you think, "well that goon is not aware of Iranian history", and you let it go.  But we Iranians have some real weirdos.  Above is a perfect example.  In wanting to be different, this character always says the wrong things.  He highlights the fact that the Seyyeds are over the moon because the Brits are out of the Basra area.

In fact what will happen, is that the Seyyeds will rush in, and be spotted very clearly, and held accountable for what they are doing, as the Sunnis and Kurds will start to complain.  Up to this point, the Seyyeds where pretty much camoflaged by the Brits, who were silent, too silent about the Seyyed involvement in Iraq.  So it is just as well that the apologists for the Seyyeds are out of the area, and we can all see the real interferrence taking place right on TV.

Personally I think that the sooner the Seyyeds have their own country in southern Iraq the better.

Finally the French turn against the Seyyeds in Iran

"We are considering additional measures, in the framework of a new Security Council resolution, against members and backers of the Iranian regime refusing to comply with demands of the international community," Hugues Moret, a French Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in an online briefing Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070817/...a/iran_nuclear

That's where the change in government in France shows the difference. Chirac was never so blunt.

Allez La France!

What are the valid roots of Shiite Islam in Iran compared to much older civilizations?

I find everyday, that someone asks me, or I notice in the press mention, that we Iranians have always been Shiite. That is wrong. Iran actually lost all its connection to Shiism, after Hulagu the Mongol conquerors literally wiped out Islam from the area.

So how come it came back? Well read this article. You will notice that there was a priest called Al Hilli, who converted what was a Christian Emperor of Iran, yes Christian as in Nestorian Christian, to become a Shiite. This is the root of the Shiites and in particular, the Seyyeds in Iran. People in Iran in those days really did not know about the ancient history of Iran. But we can say that after the Monguls, much of Iranian art and literature flourished, because the people were allowed to read other books than the Koran.

For two hundred years though that whole area seems to be in pieces, with many Kings and states. It is not clear what Iran looked like.

We had all these Kings:

Muzaffarid dynasty 1314–1393
Chupanid dyansty 1337–1357
Jalayerid dynasty 1339–1432
Timurid Empire 1370–1506
Qara Qoyunlu Turcomans 1407–1468
Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans 1378–1508


But eventually another King, Shah Ismail whose mother was Greek, yes Greek called Martha, converted to the ways of the Seyyeds. Why you say? Well he lost his father early on. I suspect that he was told by some Seyyed that he was descended from a Sufi called Zahed Gilani. He then felt he had a mission. So the Seyyeds helped Iranians like Shah Ismail, find a spiritual reason to oppose the Sunni Turks, and reunite Iran. At that time, the map of Iran then was pretty much the same as it is now, but for what is now called Iraq. The Seyyeds managed to capture Baghdad.

How this happened, was more to do with war tactics than what the Seyyeds did. We had a couple of English men, called the Shirley brothers come across from India and Afghanistan to help Shah Abbas to stop the Turks, with advanced war tactics. The Safavid lasted until 1700s It wasn't of course until three hundred years later, that the Turks were defeated in the WWI. But what is really important, was that the Brits forgot to give the eastern part of Iraq to Iran. They had created Iraq, which did not exist ever. So what about Babylon you ask? Well much of what became Babylon was inherited from Sumerian in Iran. Anyway, half of present day Iraq was Iran, and the western part was part of the Assyrian Empire. The Kurds were part of the Iranian Empire. But with the birth of Seyyeds suddenly we had a new area of the world purely because of Seyyed's "holy" shrines.

No one asks, what about the Holy Shrines that existed there for 6000 years for Iranians. If Cyrus the Great or Zoroaster were around, they would tell you what the map should look like. But the Brits did not bother to look at the history properly. As they and the Jews looked at the Old Testament and Torah and nothing else they just wanted to find the birth place of Abraham. And Uruk was were they found it. The name Iraq was created from the Uruk archaeological discoveries. But they are beginning to realise that much of what is Babylon comes from much older cultures to the east in Iran. I mentioned Sumerians, but recently there have been even older civilizations in:

Zayandeh Rud civilization 5th millenium
Jiroft civilization (Aratta?) 3000–5th cent.
Proto-Elamite civilization 3500–2800

Every day new discoveries are being made so look up the updates at wiki and chn.ir

US and Seyyed Future vs Real Iranians

Ok I know what your thinking. But just read this article. First of all it, is a really good summary. Secondly, it shows the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

From a person who is a Royal Democrat, and believes in Non Violent Resistance, the log-jam the US political parties or their superficial politicians, have got themselves into, is good. No American is going to solve Iran's problems.

I do not say that lightly. The reason is clear. No American has ever spoken about Iranian nationalism. You do not hear any person there, talking about reasserting Iran's nationalistic virtues that have to be there, before any ideology; be it religious, political, or otherwise.

The Iranian people who are Real Iranians, and let me make this clear, are people who have nothing to do with the Seyyed ideology; are inspired by the myths and legends in the Shahnameh, more than any other book, and celebrate Nowrooz.

But the impending US political cockfight will not refer to the Real Iranians. The US would like to keep the Seyyeds in charge of Iran. This serves their view of the world. The Seyyeds serve their need for sporadic terror alerts, that is just enough to keep the world energy prices high enough, and give a good reason to keep that Armada afloat in the Persian Gulf.

The simplest solution would be, for both the US political parties to agree with the Real Iranians, and help us change Iran non violently. Questioning the real support of the Seyyeds, will be enough to put a finger on a very very sore point. Releasing polls on the level of resentment against the Seyyeds etc etc. A media campaign that serves to broadcast the benefits of Non Violent Resistance. The script is academic.

The masses of US and Iran know that the world media can change Iran in a snap. The US political forum needs to be united with the Real Iranians. But will they, or will they use Iran as a ping pong ball for themselves yet again?

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=7631

Modern Iran, not Seyyeds are the real threat to US companies

One of the most interesting dead-ends surrounding Iran's current affairs, is the nuclear issue. The Seyyeds, who know that their culture is totally ignored by the Iranian population, have had to resort to activities, that are both nationalistically important, and can serve as a tool to promote their petty ideology. They love the international limelight, and world politicians who use external threats as part of their political agenda (eg: GW Bush), use the Seyyed nuclear posturing to whip up popular votes.

So the latest comment is:

"(It is not clear yet) whether the centrifuges are operating at normal speed, whether the cascades are linked together and whether they are working continuously. Until then, they cannot be said to have mastered the technology..., (although) at some point this year or next, Iran likely will reach that breakthrough," he told Reuters.

Blah blah blah. Who cares. Let's imagine that the Seyyeds do have the same power as anyone else to blow up the world. So what? In fact it would be a good thing. Why? Because they would never do it. It would make a complete farce out of their 12th Imam thing. And moreover it would make utter non-sense out of other people's ideologies who think that the Seyyeds are mad enough to press the button, because they want to go to heaven etc etc.

So the sooner they and the rest of the world had all the ammunition to blow up the world the better. Why, because no one would actually do it. I believe that at the end of the day it is all about "relative difference", and not "absolute difference".

The main reason that the US or any other country will brand a country as an enemy is only to stop it from developing into an economic might that would threaten US companies. Iran actually has that potential. It sits on vast resources of gas and it is located at the cross roads of civilizations, and can become what its ancient Emperors did. No other country has that mix. So it is to the benefit of the powers that be to keep Iran with the Seyyeds and not let it become the next Japan.

Change the Seyyeds in Iran, and let the modern Iranians travel back home, and you will see giants the equivalent of GE, Sony developing in Iran. That is the threat, not the Seyyeds.

Why should authentic Iranians subsidize Mahdi force in Iraq?

So this is going to be the long term theme. The Mahdi force in Iraq has a blank cheque to do what it pleases, because it has the blessings of the Seyyeds in Qom. No longer is it important to have the blessings of Sistani, who does not like the Seyyeds in Qom. Some say that it is he who has got some US blessings. But that is the Sunni anti-US people talking.

Meanwhile it gives the warmongers all over the world an open theatre of war. In the long run the Iranian people have to realise what is happening to their poor and their oil income. The US loves to keep the whole mess away from its borders, and to send its poor there to fight. Both nations are using Iraq as a horrible hell hole to get rid of certain elements of their society, and use this whole scenario to keep the oil price up.

The only real way to change it would be to show the roots of Seyyeds and Islam in general. Films need to be made showing who Salman Parsi was, and how he created Islam as force to counter Christian proselytizing. And that brings to the fore the whole area called Ur, where Abraham was born.

And that is the spiritual reason why the die hard religious people of all three religions are so heated up about. All three are linked to Ur and its origins in the Abraham story. But what in the world have the authentic Iranians got to with it all? Why should the people who celebrate Nowrooz over and above anything else give two hoots about Ur? And so why should we waste our oil income on any of this?

Suddenly Seyyeds' Iraq diplomat accuses CIA

Why didn't JS say all this before the UK15 were released. Or should I ask, why is he opening his trap after the UK15 decided to make a fool out of the Seyyed abductors. But the Seyyeds have a FBI agent missing, and the French have a Professor. Anyway the media need at least a handful of people, before they consider the matter "newsworthy".

Did the Seyyeds order the capture of HMS Cornwall's personnel?

How to kill a few birds with one stone. The latest news about the HMS Cornwall and the Seyyeds did a lot, just when the oil price was not going to go up, the UN was going to give its ear to Seyyeds' Poodle, and many Seyyeds' people had left, or been seized in Iraq. I see that:

``The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters,'' the ministry said in an e-mailed statement. ``We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level.''

Now I am a bit of a cynic. Normally the Iranian Opposition unanimously agree that the Brits are closer than anyone to the Seyyeds. That this is all a show. Then you have to think that the Iranian Navy are not really with the Seyyeds, and are doing this to set them up. And this has happened before. The Seyyeds deny they had anything to do with it, and the whole matter is settled. What happens to the Navy personnel on the Iranian side we never hear about.

An international incident is then not allowed to become an international crisis, but the oil prices are go back up, and everybody is happy with the Seyyeds, ready to congradulate him as he goes to do his Nowrooz shopping in New York.

Iran now is not the same as that of 1979 and would not support the Seyyeds if attacked

Many Iranians think that Iran now is the same as the Iran of 1979. They think that the Seyyeds can bring on the nationalism of Iran, and stay in power. Just read this pathetic dialogue, that everyone is huffing and puffing about.

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

What Shehabi does not realise, is that first of all the Seyyeds know jolly well that the people of Iran do not associate them as Iranians. Secondly that any call for arms is just a political ploy to keep themselves in power. The Seyyeds do not have the hearts and minds of the Iranian people. If anything any call for war will cause major peace marches in Iran, which will be a precursor to massive uprising against the Seyyeds. It is then to their benefit to come to a settlement with US and UN and their Oil trading partners.

Getting up Iran's Seyyeds' noses in Iraq

Someone is getting up the Seyyeds' noses badly. They are nicking their agents, and no one knows who it is that's doing it. That's funny.

"We've checked with our units and it was not an MNF-I (Multi-National Forces - Iraq) unit that participated in that event," military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said, adding he could not confirm the diplomat was seized.

It is about time someone gave the Seyyeds a taste of their own medicine. After all, it was the likes of Ahmadinejad, who have taken so much, no too much credit, for the US Embassy hijacking.