Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Iran: Guilty As Charged?

Iran and its President, Mahmood Ahmenijad, have been under increasing government and media pressure to discontinue its uranium enrichment, but does it legally have to? (Iran's nuclear history)

Reading between the lines, the answer appears to be no. Although the British and American governments will twist it so that the media believe Iran is in the wrong, it is probably yet another excuse for UK/US to go to war on another powerful (aka oily) country.

The President himself is portrayed (by the media) in a cruel and unfavourable manner, and is reported to be a big inceptor of hatred towards the West. He is a critic of them in general matters, and doesn't support the war in Iraq (how can he?), so he is the latest to be placed on the Bush/Blair hitlist. But if you can be bothered to search a little deeper, you will find many of these arguments and criticisms are unfair. He is a very clever man, and he isn't afraid to stand up against evil (another reason for the hitlist). Please read his letter to Bush, in which he asks some clever and thought-provoking questions. In one passage, I quote him:

"Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the great Messenger of God, yet still:

Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilisation model,
Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMD's,
Make "War and Terror" his slogan,
And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the......of a.....criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze."

"Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMD's in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back close to fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and the bodies left with the families."

Isn't it coincidental that since this letter was sent (early May), Iran's popularity has suffered a severe dip with the US and other countries? They, like Saddam Hussein, complained against America and now seem to be next on the list of attack. (The difference being Ahmenijad is no evil dictator who kills innocent people). Nafeez Mosadeq Ahmed

So, back to the uranium enrichment. In this article, it is proved that Iran has the choice of whether to stop or not.

"It’s easy to get confused about developments in Iran because THE MEDIA DOES EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO OBFUSCATE THE FACTS AND THEN SPIN THE DETAILS in a way that advances American policy objectives. But, let’s be clear; the Security Council did NOT order Iran to stop enriching uranium. It may not even be in their power to do so since enrichment is guaranteed under the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty). For the Security Council to forbid Iran to continue with enrichment activities would be tantamount to repealing the treaty itself. They didn’t do that.

What they did was “request” that Iran suspend enrichment activities so that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) could further prove that Iran’s nuclear programs were entirely for peaceful purposes.

Iran, of course, did the only thing they could do; they graciously declined. After all, Iran followed every minute step that the Bush administration took in the long march to war with Iraq, so it is only natural that they would choose to take a different path. Why would they invite more intrusive inspections allowing the UN to ferret through every inch of Iranian territory in an attempt to uncover every armoury, radar station, and missile site before the INEVITABLE US BOMBING? Why would they endure the humiliation of being singled out and scorned for complying with the NPT when NUCLEAR CHEATERS LIKE INDIA ARE REWARDED WITH PRAISE AND OFFERED BANNED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY BY WASHINGTON?

No thanks.

The Security Council is looking for a peaceful way out of the stand-off, so they are bending as much as possible, but, make no mistake, there will be no sanctions, no Chapter 7 resolutions, and no outright ban on Iran enriching uranium."

So there you have it. Iran is being unfairly judged by the media, and the Middle east is looked down upon by the West furthermore. They have rights too, but the US and the UK are not respecting them. When will this persecution of the Middle East/ Blacks/ Muslims end? It reminds me of the July 7th bombers. Unfairly treated and judged without evidence.



Post a Comment

<< Home