"There is no military solution to the nuclear file. An attack on Iran would unleash a protracted asymmetric war that would be played out globally." Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam
Obama fearing the wimp factor will he go to war with Iran???
Obama is now repeating history following in the footsteps of former president Bush by lying to the American people and US Media and NATO allies just to guarantee his re-election .
Margaret Thatcher for instance when public opinion turned against her to reverse this she went to war in the Falklands and her approval rating sky-rocketed!!! People do love their wars .
In the case of the Trayvon shooting the actions of George Zimmerman are a concern but for the public the and the media what is just as important is the actions of police in their superficial one-sided investigation. For some reason the police did not charge Zimmerman or test him for drugs and or alcohol or have him examined by a psychiatrist. The police and courts only took action and charged Zimmerman after several weeks of public outrage in the media and protests held in the streets.
Zimmerman's actions directly led to the confrontation and the killing of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was armed and followed Trayvon and Trayvon we are told was upset over being followed by Zimmerman. So Zimmerman can not use the defense of the Stand Your Ground Law or self-defense . Zimmerman may not have intended to shoot and kill Trayvon so it is uncertain whether Zimmerman could be found guilty of first degree murder or a lesser charche of mansalughter. If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehichle or didn't follow Trayvon there would most likely not have been a confrontation or fight and Zimmerman would not have shot Trayvon.
In another case that took place in Tulsa in which Black Americans were shot by two white males the evidence is much more clear cut since there were witnesses to the shootings and the two men confessed admitting they had gone out to hunt and kill black people.
In Tulsa Alvin Watts and Jake England went on a shooting spree shooting five Black people killing two. They had planned before hand to hunt down some black people because they hated all black people. We are told that though they were in hiding from the police once captured the two men volunarily confessed to these crimes which were racially motivated.
Tulsa Killing Spree Suspect Jake England Denies Hating Blacks By DEAN SCHABNER
April 14, 2012
England and Alvin Watts, 32, have reportedly confessed to carrying out the rampage on April 6 that left three people dead and two others seriously wounded. According to The Associated Press, England confessed to shooting three people and Watts confessed to shooting two.
...Police have said their investigation of the killings included England's racially charged Facebook postings.
The shootings occurred nearly two years to the day after a black man shot England's father, Carl England, to death on April 5, 2010, according to a post from his Facebook. Authorities believe Watts was a friend of England's father.
On April 5 at 4:04 p.m., England wrote, "Today is two years that my dad has been gone shot by a f------ n----- it's hard not to go off between that and sheran I'm gone in the head."
The two men were charged Friday with three counts each of first-degree murder, two counts of shooting with intent to kill and five counts of malicious intimidation or harassment.
Why the Tulsa Killings Are Just as Important As Trayvon's Death by Steven D. at Daily Kos.com, April 13, 2012
... I would like to remind you of another heinous crime that to me is a far more serious indication of what is wrong in our nation, a case that deserves far more attention than it is getting. I am speaking about the shooting of five African Americans in Tulsa, Oklahoma by two white men, Jake England and Alvin Watts. Watts and England were apprehended after a two day police manhunt, at which time they confessed that they drove around a predominately black neighborhood on the Thursday before Easter shooting fellow citizens of Tulsa for no other reason then they were black. Three of their victims died.
Prosecutors in Tulsa have now charged those two white men, who admitted to using their guns to slaughter innocent people, people they did not know, people with whom they had no connection, with three counts of first degree murder and two counts of attempted murder. More significantly, the Oklahoma prosecutors have also charged England and Watts with committing hate crimes based on the allegation that they targeted their victims because of their race.
...However, there is far less dispute about the motives and the actions of the Tulsa killers. Both England and Watts posted numerous racist screeds on social media sites. After their arrest both confessed that they chose their victims not because they knew them, but because of their race and the fact that they were outside on the day that England and Watts chose to engage in their killing spree. There is no question of self-defense, no evidence that the people who were shot posed a threat to England and Watts in any way. To me that makes their crimes far more frightening and of far greater concern than the actions of George Zimmerman.
We know that England and Watts planned in advance that they would be targeting African Americans for death by gun fire. We know there is significant evidence that they hated African Americans and intended to murder any black person who came across their path. We know they did not act out of fear of the people they killed. We know that Watts and England deliberately hunted fellow human beings as if they were animals and killed them in cold blood because they hated the race of the people they chose to shoot.
...I understand the media's fascination with the Zimmerman/Martin case. It is regrettably a "Made for TV event" much as was the OJ Simpson case in the 90's. But please, do not let it obscure the actions of two white racists who murdered Bobby Clark, Dannaer Fields and William Allen as if they were rabid wild animals instead of innocent human beings. These murders are clearly the acts of terrorists, and I believe our country needs to be as focused on the horrific killings in Tulsa as much or more than the tragedy of Trayvon Martin. The uncertainties of the Martin/Zimmerman case allows racists to muddy and obscure the role that race played in Trayvon's death. The prominent role that racism and race hatred played in the Tulsa killings, on the other hand, could not be more apparent, nor more damning.
Meanwhile back at The White House President Obama and US Media and public are all hoping to start bombing Iran soon.
President Obama may be concerned with his chances of re-election to such an extent that he will drum up support for another unnecessary war as Bush did in Iraq and as Obama himself did regarding Libya.
In order to insure his re-election Obama is considering going to war with Iran.
Obama knows very well that Iran is not an imminent threat to the USA or Israel. Israel has some 300 nuclear war heads and could easily wipe Iran off of the face of the earth.
It must be noted that no matter what Obama or the US Mainstream Media contend the truth is Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program nine years ago.
The religious leaders of Iran have decreed that using WMDs such as chemical or biological or nuclear weapons on even its enemies would be wrong under Islamic ethics and law - it would be Haram
War on Iran: America's Next Catastrophe in the Middle East? April 13, 2012 By Emanuel Stoakes, Truthout |
An interview with academic and author Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam on the consequences of a future war with Iran.
...the national news media airtime dedicated to talk about the next potential big war in the Gulf, one that appears increasingly inevitable, has been generous. However, little has been said about how a war with Iran - at present seemingly urged into near outbreak by the national news media airtime dedicated to talk about the next potential big war in the Gulf, one that appears increasingly inevitable, has been generous. However, little has been said about how a war with Iran - at present seemingly urged into near outbreak by Binyamin Netanyahu and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - could be averted, with the Islamic Republic's nuclear program completely halted in 2003. We can thank the architects of the Iraq War for rejecting this wasted opportunity, a grossly myopic decision that may yet cost thousands of lives.
Also underreported have been statements made by former senior figures at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) alleging "pro-western bias, over-reliance on unverified intelligence" at the organization and the credibly suspected, compromising political leanings of its director. In Britain, David Cameron's dubious and Blair-esque claims that Iran could develop "intercontinental" nuclear missiles that would be capable of hitting London did not rouse appropriate public exasperation, nor a weary, widely felt sense of deja vu, a collective public oversight likely due to the media's focus on Europe's economic woes, among other affairs.
Seeking an informed dissenting viewpoint, Truthout spoke to the UK-based academic and author Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a man known for his heterodoxy when it comes to his views on Iran and the Middle East region.
...Adib-Moghaddam: There is no military solution to the nuclear file. An attack on Iran would unleash a protracted asymmetric war that would be played out globally. This is exactly what all reputable US intelligence and security officials have signalled to the Netanyahu administration. An attack on Iran is entirely irrational, even if the aim is to destroy the nuclear program. Alas, politics does not always operate in a rational mode. It is all the more important to continuously mobilize the forces of peace. Let us assume for one moment that Iran weaponizes enriched uranium and builds a bomb. There is no indication - historically, and in terms of my own research on foreign policymaking in Iran and beyond - that the country would act in a dissimilar way as existing nuclear states, that it could not be deterred through conventional strategies. Certainly, Iran would not be any more threatening than Mao's China, Kim Jong-Il's North Korea and the Soviet Union.
Having said all of that in a rather hypothetical mode, Iran has repeatedly stressed that it does not want to develop a nuclear weapon. In the last few weeks, Iran's supreme leader, the highest political authority in the country, reiterated the verdict of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that it is considered haram, or religiously impermissible, to use weapons of mass destruction because they don't differentiate between civilians and soldiers. Now, we can all go ahead and say that these are a bunch of metaphysical lies of a rather utopian order. Yet, if there is no way for the Iranians to prove us wrong, then there is no real difference if they build a nuclear weapon or not, for they would be punished anyway. I am not sure if the illogicality of this simple consequence has penetrated the minds of Israeli decisionmakers: an attack on Iran would signal that it doesn't really matter if you're developing a nuclear weapon or not; you will be attacked anyway. A rather dangerous precedence, don't you think?
...Historically, sanctions have never produced the desired results, especially when the results are not well defined. If the United States couldn't break revolutionary Cuba, which is a stone's throw away from the US mainland, it is certainly hard-pressed to effect any serious changes in a country like Iran. Moreover, if Castro and Khomeini would have cared about being sanctioned by the United States, they wouldn't have adopted the anti-Western rhetoric that their followers espoused in the first place. And what is it that the so-called "West" wants, anyway? I see a clear lack of strategy and a lack of clear aims and benchmarks in the sanctions policy, apart from signalling to the hawks in Israel that something is being done, lest they would embark on unilateral military action. It is not as if Iran is not cooperating: the nuclear installations are under the supervision of the IAEA; Iran repeatedly indicated that it does not need to produce highly enriched uranium if the supply would be guaranteed by the international community; there has been an agreement to that end sponsored by Brazil and Turkey, according to which Iran would ship much of its stockpile of enriched uranium abroad for further processing - the uranium would then return as fuel rods for a medical-research reactor; in 2003, the country ceased enriching uranium altogether and none of the serious sanctions were lifted, etcetera.
...The real aim seems to be to keep Iran as the regional pariah so that weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the disproportionate military presence of the United States can be justified. Iran is also very functional to sell the missile shield system. So, there is a wider, aggressive agenda that has nothing to do with the nuclear file. As for the sanctions and the people of Iran: the lower strata of Iranian society have suffered at the hands of Western sanctions for a long time, but the situation is less dire than the calamity of the people of Gaza or the situation of Iraqis in the 1990s, where a whole generation was wiped out as a consequence of the UN-sponsored sanctions against the country. It is ironic, because the poor in Iran are doubly punished, facing as they do the wrath of the Leviathan, America, the "West" and the incompetency of the bureaucratic apparatus in Iran. Yet, in the words of the Iranian rapper Hich-Kas, who reflects on the sentiments of the poor in his accomplished lyrics: "We help each other even though we are all in poverty." There is an immense amount of social solidarity in Iran, a civic consciousness that is geared to the revolutionary ideals of justice, equality and independence. Sanctions merely strengthen these bonds; they create a siege mentality that lends itself to divisive categorizations - us versus them. As such, the sanctions are moulding Iranians together. Ironically this is exactly what our decisionmakers in the "West" do not want.
No comments:
Post a Comment