UN gives theocracy the right to kill

UN's Explotation Of Human Rights

read more | digg story

GE trades with Iran's Seyyeds

And a lot of other US companies. Why can't Bush start there?

read more | digg story

Misplaced Iran/WMD files found

They were said to include details of how trade and banking systems could be manipulated to finance weapons of mass destruction in Iran.

read more | digg story

Unreported protests in Iran (video)

The people are not religious rent-a-crowds.

read more | digg story

Seyyed Neocon of Iran who would press the button.

His moral order is on a different plane that anybody else.

read more | digg story

"Accept our nuclear package", Iran's Seyyeds tell world powers.

The package also proposes that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) step up its supervision of nuclear sites around the world and asserts that more should be done to ensure nuclear programmes are not diverted to military ends

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5Cg2j6fnd0UGB7nJNCva3amFeFw

How hypocritical can you get? These criminals now suddenly want to be accepted as the bastions of morality. It only goes to show, that they have little regard for world institutions, that are there to protect proliferation. They think they represent a new world order. In fact, they just represent an anti-US ideology - nothing more than that. And the US uses them in that regard. This "Goodguy-Badguy" syndrome is what keeps the warmongering necons alive on both sides with all its useless economic and trade ramifications.

Bombing Iran? It's Not So Bad, Really - How stupid.

Would Iranians "rally 'round the flag" if Iran is attacked? Maybe, maybe not, they say. "One cannot assume that a preventive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure would necessarily prompt a nationalist backlash.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080613/cm_thenation/1096329613

The flag of the Seyyeds is not Iranian. Why would any Iranian, rally around that flag. Go inside every home in Iran, and you would see the proper Iranian flag.

A major point, that this paper completely misses, is that within Iran, there is an "us and them" situation. The Seyyeds enticed Saddam to attack Iran, and so obtained some kind of moral support, from Iranians, who felt that the enemy within, is not as bad as the enemy on the border. What should have happened then of course, was that if Iranians then, could have objected to all those theocratic warmongerings from Khomeini: -to rise against Saddam and cleanse the world in preparation for their Mahdi etc etc, and shut him up, the Saddam army would not have marched into Khuzestan. At the time, all Iranian nationalists said to me, that you are too silly and naïve with your non-violence talk, and I should look at such mad acts of Saddam.

So here we are with one of Khomeini's staunchest believers, beating his drums of war and enticing the world with the threat of nukes. This time we don't have Saddam to get worried about a divided Iraq, but we have the Israelis worried about Seyyeds' proxies dropping mini nukes across from their borders, once Natanz has concentrated enough of the wretched stuff.

Peace comes from having your cause for your own home. False ideologies whose cause is just a cause, fuel fanaticism that becomes war. So back to this article, it seems the authors have forgotten, that if Iranians really were that fanatic then they would have risen up against the Seyyeds a long time ago with a lot of blood on the streets. But Iranians believe in Life and Peace, as enshrined in our Zend Avesta, and books derived from it like the Shahnameh. We all know where our hearts and minds are; and they are now certainly not with the Seyyeds' ideologies.
A lot has happened in the past thirty years. Iranians have realised how their very culture has been threatened from within. There is a war already going on in Iran, and if the recent Seyyed selection (SS) is anything to go by, then the fact that the people abstained en-masse, shows how weak the Seyyed support is. In fact the Seyyeds' loved Saddam for the war, and would love the Israelis to attack. The Seyyed ideology thrives on war. If attacked the Seyyeds will have reason to exist as defenders of Islamic Iran, even though the peace movement in Iran is much more popular amongst pure Iranians.

So how can we Iranians convince the Israelis that we are not the same as the Seyyeds, and that they should be dealing with us? I have said it before, and I will say it again. The UN must pass a resolution to create a provisional government in exile that will represent Iran. The unions and other corporations will show their allegiance as proof. This new body of Iranians who put Iran first, will sit at the negotiating tables with the UN, and not those that went through the SS. A call for general strike will be stronger than any Israeli or US air strike.
But the world corporations just do not want to think along such lines of thought. A new modern Iran, with its energy based on gas, is a huge competitive concern. Iran has in the past benefited from being at the cross-roads of civilizations; with its real estate located in the centre of three continents. Just imagine how easily any company can produce and distribute their products from Iran. The competition is far too threatening. And so it is best to trip Iran into another war and wound it for a couple of generations.

Ya Ahuramazda in the Spirit of Nowrooz we will not let that happen.

Calling MIT Iran's plan bluff

The US neocons don't want that. The neocons actually prefer the status quo with the option of attacking Iran.

read more | digg story

Iraq will not be used against Iran, PM vows

But Iraq will be used by the Seyyeds against the US forces. The peaceful way will come from media writing more about the ancient cultural freedoms.

read more | digg story

Seyyed Empire in Iraq and Iran vs USA

A week ago we have Sistani rejecting the US and Iraqi government draft, and just now Khamenei has rejected it.  So the modern Shiites like Al-Maliki have do not have anyone's "Blessings" really.

Religion in Iraq is beginning to interfere big time in the politics, and the neck-tie wearers in Iraq, are just as dispised by the Seyyed there, as the Seyyeds are in Iran.  Basically the Seyyed Empire is trying to do a coup, just like they did in Iran, in Iraq.

These Imperialists, are no different from any other authoritarian non-cultural dogma.  It does not matter whether it is a religious, or political utopia, when the intrinsic culture of the country is secondary to politics or religion.

Imposition of any sort is wrong, and these relgious warriors are doing just that.  They put Iran and Iraq second to their Koranic belief.  Ancient Babylon, and Iran are not what they respect.  But does the world press put it this way?  No.  They will look at it purely from pro-US and anti-US perspective.