[Reader-list] US govt to work with banned terrorists!!

[Lehar ..]

can't the peace movement revive itself before the
complete breakdwon of the race??

---


so who's next on Master's List..?
The jewel in the Crown?? ie. India..??
doesnt matter- as long as we have our ACs and air
lifted food packets 
with 
MADE in USA tags.
Its cool.

The US govt plans to work with an outlawed terroist
organisation(!!!), 
Mujahedeen e Khalq-  to over throw the Iranian govt-
which has 
nationalised 
most industries since the 1979 revolution(and thus
doesnt hand over the 
much 
desired oil)- the revolution(which took a religious
tone under 
Khomeini)-  
overthrew the US supported dictatorship/ monarchy of
the Shah. The Shah 
took 
over with the CIA's support - by ousting the secular
democratically 
elected 
govt of President Mossadegh. becuse he had
nationalised the oil.

Who's working with terrorists now..? who's killed the
most civilans in 
terrorist attackes this century??

As and Indian letter in Outlook magazine said this
week:
http://www.outlookindia.com

FROM: Gajendra, New Delhi
Arundhati is right—democracy is America’s whore. But
why does she 
forget the 
pimp, Israel? In the name of the whore, Ariel Sharon
rolls into the 
Gaza 
Strip—on killing machines imported from the US—shoots,
bombs and 
massacres 
children, pregnant women and other innocent
Palestinians. That’s dubbed 
a 
war against terror. But when the Palestinians
retaliate and blow 
themselves 
up—in rage, revenge, anguish at losing their loved
ones and reclaim 
their 
occupied land—it is called a terrorist attack!

FROM: Gopal Krishna, Durham, US

Ms Roy expresses what ordinary people like me feel.
But unlike her I 
don’t 
expect American civil society to act as an engine of
social change. 
Having 
been in the US for some time, I can say it is totally
eaten up by the 
consumerist culture. It does not have a spiritualist
tradition of its 
own 
nor is it open to borrowing ideas from others. This is
particularly 
true of 
the white sections of the civil society. Of course,
there can be hope 
from 
the minorities of the country, particularly the
blacks. Their community 
is a 
case study in itself. They permeate every sport and a
lot in arts and 
entertainment. But when it comes to intellectual
workers, they cannot 
be 
seen. And the representatives they do have in the
government—like 
Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell—well, the less said
about them the 
better. 
What we need is a leader of the stature of Martin
Luther King II.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Religions are all limited because they concentrate on
only one aspect 
of the 
Truth. That's why they are always fighting amongst
each other. There is 
no 
end to the Truth, so you cannot confine it to one
scripture. When asked 
what 
religion I follow, 'I don't believe in
sampradaya-sect. I believe in 
Sampradaha- incineration.' Burn down everything which
gets in way of 
the 
Truth.
- Aghori Vimalananda; At the Left Hand of God

Organised religion is the prop of a man who has not
found his Self/ God 
within.
- Shaheed Bhagat Singh



>From: Shishir Thadani <shishir at mindspring.com>
>Subject: Iran - the new target Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003
18:56:19 -0700 
(GMT)
>
>Hi folks
>
>I dare say many of you would have already seen this
SHOCKING news 
report
>
>HERE IS a response to this report (of extending the
war to Iran) from 
an 
>Indian analyst Batuk Vora called: wwhy the U.S. is
Zeroing in on Iran 
after 
>Iraq??

>The ABC news report comes first. His article follows
it.
>
>Shishir
>
>
>
>The Iran Debate
>Pentagon Eyes Massive Covert Attack on Iran
>ABCNEWS.com
>
>May 29, 2003
>The Pentagon is advocating a massive covert action
program to 
overthrow
>Iran's ruling ayatollahs as the only way to "stop the
country's 
'nuclear
>weapons' ambitions", senior State Department and
Pentagon officials 
told
>
The proposal, will include covert sponsorship of a
group currently 
deemed 
terrorist by the U.S. government,the Mujahedeen e
Khalq is not new, and 
has 
not won favor with enough top officials to be acted
upon.
>
>But sources say it is a viable option that is getting
a new look as 
the
>administration ramps up its rhetoric against Iran,
and it is likely to 
be
>one of the top items on the agenda as high-level U.S.
policymakers 
meet
>today to discuss how to deal with the Islamic
republic.
>
>The Pentagon's proposal includes using all available
points of 
pressure on
>the Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian
dissidents and
>employing
>the services of the Mujahedeen e Khalq, a group
currently branded as
>terrorist by the United States.
>
>The MEK, which had been primarily supported by Iraq
and was 
responsible
>for >numerous attacks inside Iran, agreed after the
Iraq war to a 
truce 
>with
>U.S. >forces.
>
>The Pentagon specifically set aside a proposal to
reconstitute the MEK
>under >a different banner and promote their armed
incursions into 
Iran, 
>much as
>the
>MEK had been doing under Saddam. As the State
Department insisted, and 
the
>White House concurred, the MEK has been disarmed but
their forces are
>still
>in place and their weapons are in storage.
>
>The State Department argument was that MEK is on the
terrorist list 
and
>any
>failure to disarm it would be an act of hypocrisy,
which was the same 
line
>taken by the Iranians in confidential meetings that
have been ongoing 
in
>Geneva, until the United States recently cut them
off.
>
>The office of Doug Feith, undersecretary for policy
at the Department 
of
>Defense, argued that the MEK has not targeted
Americans since the 
1970s,
>which is true, and was only put on the terrorist list
by the Clinton
>administration as a gesture to improve relations with
Iran.
>
>The Pentagon argues that the MEK is disciplined (!)
well-trained, and 
an
>effective lever against the ayatollahs, and could be
renamed and 
placed
>under American clandestine guidance.
>
>For the moment, this proposal is blocked, but will be
revisited as 
part of
>the greater proposal to institute massive covert
action against the
>ayatollahs.
>
>This covert action program, which has not been
approved or even
>recommended
>by the so-called deputies committee of Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard 
Armitage,
>National Security Council Deputy Steven Hadley and
the deputy to the
>director of Central Intelligence, would include
intelligence 
collaboration
>with Iranian dissidents, as well as lethal aid (i.e.,
guns and other
>military assistance to anti-Iranian government
elements, both inside 
and
>outside Iran).
>
>The objective of the Pentagon proposal to destabilize
the Iranian
>government >is based on the belief that the religious
hard-liners are 
>opposed by the
>majority of the Iranian population and any pressure
would make them 
crack,
>a >view that some analysts find dubious.
>
>The debate over Iran comes after Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld on
>Tuesday warned Iran against meddling in Iraq, and
presidential 
spokesman
>Ari >Fleischer described the Islamic republic's
efforts to root al 
Qaeda 
> >leaders
>out of country as insufficient.

>
>Why the U.S. is Zeroing in on Iran after Iraq
>Batuk Vora
>06/01/03
>
>- While the world is still questioning the
Ango-American powers why 
did
>they
>lie about the alleged weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, neo-cons
>(neoconservative lobby of the Bush administration)
have already 
launched
>their drive now to 'change the regime' in Iran.
>
>Following the same method again, they have advanced
two reasons for 
such
>an
>action: Iran has harboured al-quaeda terrorists and
Iran is running 
its
>nuclear weapons programme. But if we dig for real
reasons, words of
>William
>Kristol, editor of the conservative Washington based
Weekly Standard, 
come
>as revealing the truth:
>
>First, Washington did not put up with losing its
positions in Iran
>following
>the 1979 Islamic revolution. In 1977, Washington and
Tehran had signed 
a
>$24
>billion-worth contract, which provided for the U.S.
constructing 8 
nuclear
>power plants in Iran within 10 years. Armaments worth
$14 billion were 
to
>be
>supplied. The U.S. military enjoyed diplomatic
immunity in Iran and 
any
>political decisions taken by Iran were agreed on with
the U.S.  Even 
now,
>with the absence of official contracts, the
U.S.-Iranian turnover is
>around
>$1 billion. By way of comparison, the trade turnover
of Russia and 
Iran,
>two
>'strategic partners', was $803 million in 2002!
>
>Thus a war for Iran's market is taking place.
Washington is unwilling 
to
>let
>Russia or Europe to monopolise it. It was under the
U.S. pressure that 
the
>European Union did not sign the programme of trade
and economic
>co-operation
>with Iran. This is basically the background of the
current U.S. claims 
to
>Russia with regard to Russo-Iranian co-operation in
the nuclear energy
>sphere.
>
>Second, Iran is at crossroads on the strategic ways
between Europe and
>Asia.
>The North-South transport corridor opened last year
and connecting 
India
>to
>Russia and west Europe via the Caspian basin running
across Iran.
>Large-scale transit of energy resources is carried
out via Iran. 
Russia
>and
>Iran have plans of transit of their electric energy
to third 
countries.
>They
>also plan to unify their electric systems via Armenia
and Azerbaijan. 
At
>last, Iran's gas resources are the world's largest
(after Russia). Its
>geopolitical role in the Caspian  region is also an
eyesore to
>Anglo-American companies.
>
>It is clear that breaking status quo in Iran will
change the entire
>situation in the Caspian region, Central Asia and the
North Caucasus 
and
>will directly affect Russia's interests.  'We are
already in a death
>struggle with Iran over the
>future of Iraq,' declared a top Bush administration
official last week 
in
>Washington DC.
>
>It may be necessary to mention here that prior to the
war on Iraq,
>Washington had promised Iran via intermediaries that
it would not 
suffer
>the
>fate of its neighbour. Tehran observed neutrality and
was quite 
reserved
>with regard to the U.S. war on Iraq. However, the
Iraq war has 
officially
>ended and Tehran cannot stay aside from the post-war
settlement 
anymore.
>
>Actually, current controversy among G-8 countries and
among the 
countries
>of
>Middle East and South Asia, is focused on the future
set-up of Iraq 
and
>the
>continuing imbroglio over anti-American violence
sporadically 
overturning
>the expectations of the Anglo-American occupation
forces.  Any attempt 
to
>create a political set up in Iraq has to take into
consideration 
Iran's
>aspirations also. Shiites are in majority not only in
Iran but in Iraq
>too.
>
>
>India, which is now pushed by the United States to
handle one of the 
Iraqi
>sectors with its armed forces, has expressed grave
concern over the
>developing situation before it takes final decision
to send its troops 
to
>Iraq. Kanwal Sibbal, India's foreign secretary, told
the media at St.
>Petersburg that 'instead of focus being on the
reconstruction and 
reforms
>of
>the institutions in Iraq, it has now shifted to Iran
which has 
complicated
>the matters.'
>
>Moscow based General Director of the Centre of
Contemporary Iranian
>Studies,
>Rajab Safarov, said that "new government in Baghdad
will anyway be
>pro-Iranian," because of Iraq's Shiite majority. The
American
>administration
>realises that it will not achieve stability in Iraq
(and also in
>Afghanistan, where the Iranian influence is
significant) without 
gaining
>control over Tehran.
>
>Most attention is now focused on Russia which has an
ongoing nuclear
>reactor
>programme to produce atomic power through five
reactors to be built in
>Iran.
>Two of them are already under construction.
International Atomic 
Energy
>Agency (IAEA), a Vienna based agency in charge of the
verification of 
the
>nuclear non-proliferation treaty of 1968, was given
an approval by 
Russia
>&
>Iran to go ahead with its inspection. Iran's nuclear
program has 
received
>IAEA
>approval, clear proof of its non-military nature.
>
>Nevertheless, Washington has pressured the IAEA to
declare Iran in
>material
>breach of its nuclear obligations in the upcoming
IAEA meeting in 
June,
>although the February visit of the IAEA head and his
inspector teams 
to
>Iran
>did not prove any wrongdoing by the Iranians. In
particular, 
Washington
>has
>tried to portray Iran's declared plan to establish
facilities to have 
a
>complete nuclear fuel cycle as a clear violation of
its IAEA 
obligations
>and
>a proof for its pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
This is
>notwithstanding
>the fact that having such objective and its required
facilities to 
enable
>the Iranians to exploit their own uranium mines and
to enrich uranium 
are
>well within Iran's rights under IAEA  rules and
regulations.
>
>In the light of these realities, Russia's clear
determination to 
continue
>its nuclear relations with Iran reflects not only its
attempt to 
preserve
>its economic interests in Iran, but its growing
concern about 
America's
>aggressive foreign policy, according to a recent
Novotsi press 
release.
>Undoubtedly, such policy has major security
implications for Moscow. 
In
>particular, the Russians are concerned about the
possibility of Iran's
>domination by the US, in one
>form or another, which could also lead to a long-term
American 
military
>presence in that country.
>
>Moscow's loss of its Iranian strategic ally, if it
happened, would
>seriously
>endanger its security at a time that it requires a
long period of 
peace
>and
>security to revitalize its devastated economy. Such
loss will complete 
its
>encirclement by hostile or potentially hostile
pro-American states 
hosting
>the American military. They are already stationed now
in Pakistan,
>Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.  Moreover,
the American 
behavior
>since late 2001 has indicated its pursuit of a plan
to ensure its
>uninterrupted access to energy resources and
strategically important
>regions, such as the Persian Gulf, its unchallenged
power and its
>leadership
>of a uni-polar international system. That requires
eliminating the
>potential
>"troublemakers", the current and future 'rogue'
states.
>
>Given this reality, Russia should have every reason
to believe it to 
be
>one
>of the next states, if not the next one, on the
American list of 
targets
>if
>Washington restores its influence in neighboring
Iran. Fear of such a
>scenario seems to be a major reason for the Russians
to continue their
>multi-dimensional ties with Iran, including in the
nuclear realm, to
>prevent
>its weakness and isolation, two tempting
prerequisites for any future
>American designs on Iran.
>
>Significantly When U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell came to Moscow 
on
>May 13 to press the Russians into supporting an early
lifting of 
sanctions
>on Iraq, the talks seemed to  begin with the sides
wide apart. While
>Powell
>was in Moscow, several Russian strategic bombers
--Tu-95 Bears and 
Tu-160
>Blackjacks - flew from a base in the Volga region to
the Indian Ocean 
to
>simulate an attack by nuclear -tipped long-range
cruise missiles on 
U.S.
>Navy ships and the main U.S. air base in the  region
at Diego Garcia.
>
>The mission by long-range bombers was coordinated
with a naval 
exercise in
>the Indian Ocean by a large task force of Russian
surface ships and
>nuclear
>attack submarines (sent to the region before the fall
of Saddam 
Hussein's
>regime),  which simulated attacks on U.S. aircraft
carrier groups. The
>Defense Ministry  did not make much of a secret of
the purely
>anti-American
>nature of the  Indian Ocean military exercise and
leaked the details 
to
>friendly
>journalists in an apparent attempt to influence
foreign policy
>decision-making.
>
>A Russian defense anlyst Pavel Felgenhauer wrote in
Russian Journal 
that
>'In
>fact, the Bush administration seems to be moving
toward sending the
>Kremlin
>an ultimatum: End Bushehr (Iranian site of the
ongoing nuclear 
reactor) or
>we will bomb it to bits anyway. The St. Pete. summit
may still survive 
the
>new controversy, but the strain is growing. Russia is
scheduled to 
supply
>enriched uranium to fuel the Bushehr reactor in the
coming months, 
while
>the
>U.S.
>is adamant this should not happen. What role India
would play in such 
a
>complicated situation' India's military ties with
both Russia and 
America
>make it even more complicated. Iran happens to be
India's close friend 
and
>there are ongoing trade, oil and cultural agreements
between the two
>nations. Iranian leader Khatami was the special guest
of honor during 
the
>last January 26 Republic Day celebrations in India.
>
>It is also interesting to note here that the leaders
of China, Russia 
and
>four Central Asian nations warned against unilateral
action in the war 
on
>global terror and pledged closer ties as Moscow seeks
to counter US
>influence in its traditional backyard.
>
>The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - which
comprises China,
>Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan -- agreed to
>transform  their fledgling six-nation body into a
proper international
>organisation by 2004.
>
>The host, Russian President Vladimir Putin, said the
six leaders 
agreed on
>the primacy of the United Nations, in a clear
reference to the US-led 
war
>in
>Iraq.  "We have a common stance. There is no
alternative to the United
>Nations as a universal organisation in the system of
international
>relations," he told a press conference after the
summit.
>
>On the other hand, Michael Ledeen, a fellow at the
conservative 
American
>Enterprise Institute, and a former employee of the
Pentagon, the State
>Department and the National Security Council, has
emerged in 
Washington as
>a
>main force who inspired a war on Iran. As a
consultant working with 
NSC
>head
>Robert McFarlane, he was involved in the transfer of
arms to Iran 
during
>the
>Iran-Contra affair -- an adventure that he documented
in the book
>"Perilous
>Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra
Affair." His most
>influential book is last year's "The War Against
>the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are
Now. How We'll Win."
>
>Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as
Richard Cheney,
>Donald
>Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually
define the stark
>departure
>from American foreign policy philosophy that existed
before the 
tragedy of
>Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence
in the service of 
the
>spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny.
Consequently, he 
has
>become the philosophical legitimator of the American
occupation of 
Iraq.
>Now
>Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond
Iraq. In an address
>entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of
Modern Terrorism," 
for
>the
>policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs 
(JINSA)
>on
>April 30, he declared, "the time for diplomacy is at
an end; it is 
time
>for
>a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon." THE END
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com