Posts
In the above illustration, The Decider (aka Arbusto, aka Mr. President, aka Bush, aka G.W. or “Greasy Weasel”) approaches Ahmadinejad from behind, trying hard to decide what to do. A sent B a longish letter (see #3, below) and the Decider sent a reply (see #4, below). British newspapers (see #2, below) point out that the war against Iran has already begun. So what difference does it make? See #1.
Meanwhile, while I have been too busy until today to look through for significance, I did not some items on the mainstream media.
Nancy Grace of CNN sent an e-mail to other employees stating that she was the father of Anne Nichole Smith’s daughter.
For Presidents’ day, the Decider said that he was like George Washington – his revolution is for all the people, not just Americans. [Words that would have me, if I lived in another country, pretty apprehensive].
Brittnany? Spears? Shaved he head and said “Mom won’t like this.” I gather she has been in rehab three times this week.
Some guy in Australia busted open 48 watermelons in 56 seconds. Didn’t anybody think of sending the remains to Africa? Someone said that this is something this guys grandchildren can tell him about.
Besides that, I’ve been to busy with day to day idiocy to organize anything, but Art, our managing editor, said I had better publish this today as I probably have relatives in Germany.
1 Tomgram: McKibben, The Real News about Global Warming
2 *American preparations for invading Iran are complete
Iran - Ready to attack*
*by Dan Plesch; New Statesman
3 Mr George *Bush*,
President of the United States of America
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the
4 DeadBrain Exclusive: Bush's reply to Ahmadinejad letter
Here are this weeks’ articles as mentioned above.
1.
TomDispatch.com a project of the Nation Institute
compiled and edited by *Tom Engelhardt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomgram: McKibben, The Real News about Global Warming
This post can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=167460
The world is, it seems, melting
like an ice cream cone in the sun. Let me leave it at that.
As all Tomdispatch readers know, I write the introductions to posts at
this site. This post is undoubtedly the exception that proves the rule.
The editors of The New York Review of Books
have been kind enough to let me put out Bill McKibben's striking essay
on the real news lurking in the latest major report on global warming.
(His piece appears in the March 15 issue of the magazine, now on the
newsstands.) McKibben whose new book, Deep Economy: The Wealth of
Communities and the Durable Future
about to be published (and eagerly awaited by me), has been involved in
important recent organizing efforts re: climate change. So I decided to
give him the first -- and last -- word today. /Tom/
/Bill McKibben/: "This piece is an account of a scientific triumph --
the ongoing effort to understand and warn about climate change in a
timely fashion -- and also, of course, of a political debacle -- the
complete failure of our government over two decades to address the
problem in any fashion whatsoever. But it ends with a paragraph about an
effort now five weeks old and, so far, entirely confined to the Web.
When we launched stepitup07.org
mid-January, we hoped we might be able to find a couple of hundred
groups and individuals around the country who would agree to hold
rallies on April 14.
"That would have represented by far the largest demonstration against
global warming in U.S. history. By this point, our wildest imaginings
have been long since surpassed -- we're nearing 700 actions scheduled
for April 14, and the sheer genius people have brought to designing some
of them boggles the mind. There will be underwater demonstrations,
rallies on top of mountains, and on and on. All of it makes me think of
the example and the words of Rebecca Solnit
recent years: As far as I can tell, she's absolutely right in her
confidence that people around the country and around the world can,
joyfully and powerfully, rise to the challenges in front of us. People
power is a lovely thing to behold!"
Warning on Warming
By Bill McKibben
[*This piece, which appears in the March 15, 2007 issue of The New
York Review of Books
the kind permission of the editors of that magazine.*]
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its
latest report in early February, it was greeted with shock: "World
Wakes to Climate Catastrophe," reported an Australian paper. But
global warming is by now a scientific field with a fairly extensive
history, and that history helps set the new findings in context -- a
context that makes the new report no less terrifying but much more
telling for its unstated political implications.
Although atmospheric scientists had studied the problem for decades,
global warming first emerged as a public issue in 1988 when James
Hansen, a NASA scientist, told Congress that his research, and the
work of a handful of other scientists, indicated that human beings
were dangerously heating the planet, particularly through the use of
fossil fuels. This bold announcement set off a scientific and
political furor: many physicists and chemists played down the
possibility of serious harm, and many governments, though feeling
pressure to react, did little to restrain the use of fossil fuel.
"More research" was the mantra everyone adopted, and funding for it
flowed freely from governments and foundations. Under the auspices
of the United Nations, scientists and governments set up a curious
hybrid, the IPCC, to track and report on the progress of that research.
From roughly 1988 to 1995, the hypothesis that burning coal and gas
and oil in large quantities was releasing carbon dioxide and other
gases that would trap the sun's radiation on Earth and disastrously
heat the planet remained just that: a hypothesis. Scientists used
every means at their disposal to reconstruct the history of the
earth's climate and to track current changes. For example, they
studied the concentration of greenhouse gases in ancient air trapped
in glacial cores, sampled the atmosphere with weather balloons,
examined the relative thickness of tree rings, and observed the
frequency of volcanic eruptions. Most of all, they refined the
supercomputer models of the earth's atmosphere in an effort to
predict the future of the world's weather.
By 1995, the central Herculean tasks of both research and synthesis
were largely complete. The report the IPCC issued that year was able
to assert that "the balance of evidence suggests" that human
activity was increasing the planet's temperature and that it would
be a serious problem. This was perhaps the most significant warning
our species, as a whole, has yet been given. The report declared (in
the pinched language of international science) that humans had grown
so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energy that they
were now damaging the most basic of the earth's systems -- the
balance between incoming and outgoing solar energy. Although huge
amounts of impressive scientific research have continued over the
twelve years since then, their findings have essentially been
complementary to the 1995 report -- a constant strengthening of the
simple basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel.
The 1995 consensus was convincing enough for Europe and Japan: the
report's scientific findings were the basis for the Kyoto
negotiations and the treaty they produced; those same findings also
led most of the developed world to produce ambitious plans for
reductions in carbon emissions. But the consensus didn't extend to
Washington, and hence everyone else's efforts were deeply
compromised by the American unwillingness to increase the price of
energy. Our emissions continued to soar, and the plans of many of
the Kyoto countries in Western Europe to reduce emissions sputtered.
(At the same time, most tragically of all, China and India had just
begun their rapid industrial takeoffs using precisely the
technologies we then knew were wreaking havoc; they did not seek or
find much aid from the Western countries that could have encouraged
them to take a more benign path.) In 2001, the IPCC issued its Third
Assessment Report (TAR), but it coincided with the start of the Bush
administration, which refused even to consider a serious policy for
climate. The IPCC's new Fourth Assessment of this February (known as
AR4) arrives at a more congenial moment, as the new Democratic
Congress takes up a wide variety of legislation designed, finally,
to curb emissions.
The finding of the new report that attracted the most attention in
the press was that scientists were now more confident than ever that
the warming we've seen so far (about one degree Fahrenheit in the
average global temperature) was caused by human beings. Instead of
being merely "likely," the conclusion was now "very likely," which
in the IPCC's lexicon means better than a 90% chance. But it's been
years since any reputable scientist specializing in climate research
doubted that conclusion. More important findings were ignored in
accounts of the report and in some cases were obscured by the
document's very poor prose, which is much more opaque than its
predecessors. Those findings include:
* The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a
faster rate even than before.
* Temperature increases would be considerably higher than they have
been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution
that is temporarily helping to cool the planet.
* Alternative explanations for some of the warming (for example,
sunspot activity and the "urban heat island effect," the raising of
temperatures in cities caused by high building densities and the use
of heat-retaining materials such as concrete and asphalt) are now
known to be relatively negligible.
* Almost everything frozen on earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are
becoming more common since the air is warmer and therefore holds
more water than cold air, and "cold days, cold nights and frost have
become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves
have become more frequent."
These facts serve as the prelude to the most important part of the
new document, its predictions for what is to come. Here, too, the
news essentially confirms the previous report, and indeed most of
the predictions about climate change dating back to the start of
research: if we don't take the most aggressive possible measures to
curb fossil fuel emissions immediately, then we will see temperature
increases of -- at the best estimate -- roughly five degrees
Fahrenheit during this century. Technically speaking, that's
enormous, enough to produce what James Hansen has called a "totally
different planet," one much warmer than that known by any of our
human ancestors.
The process by which the IPCC conducts its deliberations --
scientists and national government representatives quibbling at
enormous length over wording and interpretation -- is Byzantine at
best, and makes the group's achievements all the more impressive.
But it sacrifices up-to-the-minute assessment of data in favor of
lowest-common-denominator conclusions that are essentially beyond
argument. That's a reasonable method, but one result is that the
"shocking" conclusions of the new report in fact lag behind the most
recent findings of climate science by several years.
That's most obvious here in the discussion of the rise in sea level.
Researchers know that sea levels will rise fairly quickly this
century, in part because of the melting of mountain glaciers and in
part because warm water takes up more space than cold. The new
assessment refines the calculations of the rise in sea level and
puts the best estimate at a foot or two, which is actually slightly
less than the last assessment in 2001. Though it doesn't sound like
much, a couple of feet is actually a large amount -- enough to
inundate many low-lying areas and drown much of the Earth's coastal
marshes and wetlands. Still, it might be more or less manageable.
During the last eighteen months, however, new research has indicated
that a far more rapid rise in sea level may be possible, because the
great ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic appear to have begun
moving more quickly toward the sea. Some of this research appeared
in Al Gore's movie /An Inconvenient Truth/, and James Hansen has
written in The New York Review
it is responsible for much of the recent increase in the level of
alarm. But it is not included in the IPCC report, except as a
caveat: "larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of
these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a
best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise."
In short, the new report is a remarkably conservative document. That
it is still frightening in its predictions simply indicates the huge
magnitude of the changes we're now causing, changes far larger than
most people fully understand. Even using its conservative
projections, the panel states unequivocally that typhoons and
hurricanes will likely become more intense; that sea ice will shrink
and perhaps disappear in the summertime Arctic; that snow cover will
contract. Later this year, a second working group will outline the
effects of these changes on humans, translating inches of sea-level
rise into numbers of refugees, showing the effects of increases in
temperature and humidity on malaria-carrying mosquitoes as well as
the impact of heat waves on crop losses. The language will still be
bloodless, but the findings obviously won't.
The IPCC has always avoided taking political positions -- it doesn't
recommend specific policies -- and it continues this tradition with
its new report. In its discussions of the momentum of climate
change, however, it does introduce one particularly disturbing
statistic. Because of the time lag between carbon emissions and
their effect on air temperature, even if we halted the increase in
coal, oil, and gas burning right now, temperatures would continue to
rise about two tenths of a degree Celsius per decade. But, the
report writes, "if all radiative forcing agents [i.e., greenhouse
gases] are held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming
trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1ºC
per decade."
Translated into English, this means, to put it simply, that if world
leaders had heeded the early warnings of the first IPCC report, and
by 2000 had done the very hard work to keep greenhouse gas emissions
from growing any higher, the expected temperature increase would be
half as much as is expected now. In the words of the experts at
realclimate.org
analyses of the new assessment can be found, climate change is a
problem with a very high "procrastination penalty": a penalty that
just grows and grows with each passing year of inaction.
This is why the most important news about climate at the moment may
come not from the IPCC but from Washington. After twenty years of
inactivity -- a remarkably successful bipartisan effort to
accomplish nothing -- the first few weeks of the new Congress have
witnessed a flurry of activity. A series of bills have been
introduced by people ranging from California Representative Henry
Waxman and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to Arizona's John McCain
that would call for more or less aggressive carbon reduction
targets. Some of the bills would set in place a "cap-and-trade"
system that would set overall limits on emissions of carbon dioxide
but would allow companies to freely buy and sell credits permitting
them to emit certain amounts of it; this would produce a market for
carbon-cutting measures.
The IPCC report doesn't call for particular reduction figures. It
does, however, make clear that reduction in emissions must be quick
and deep. There is no more optimistic alternative. Even if we do
everything right, we're still going to see serious increases in
temperature, and all of the physical changes (to one extent or
another) predicted in the report. However, there's reason to hope
that if the US acts /extremely/ aggressively and quickly we might be
able to avoid an increase of two degrees Celsius, the rough
threshold at which runaway polar melting might be stopped. This
means that any useful legislation will have to feature both a very
rapid start to reductions and a long and uncompromising mandate to
continue them. Sanders's bill, also endorsed by California's Barbara
Boxer, who heads the relevant committee, comes closest to that
standard. It calls for an eventual 80% cut in emissions by 2050.
McCain's bill, cosponsored by one of his challengers for the
presidency, Barack Obama, is somewhat weaker in its eventual
targets. But the bargaining has barely begun, and in any event quick
initial implementation of any cuts will be almost as important as
the final numbers.
No one expects President Bush to sign such a bill. In fact, it was
widely considered a minor miracle that he uttered the words "climate
change" in this year's State of the Union address. (His limp
proposal, centering on alternative fuels for some vehicles, was
equally widely considered a dud.) What's happening now has much to
do with positioning for the next presidential election, and the
legislation that will eventually be passed and signed in 2009. What
the IPCC report makes clear by implication is that that legislation
will be our last meaningful chance: anything less than an all-out
assault on carbon in our economy will be rendered meaningless by the
increasing momentum of global warming. And of course by now our
economy is only part of the problem. Though we use more energy per
capita than any other country, the Chinese may pass us in total
carbon emissions by decade's end. Even if we start to get our own
house in order, we'll need to figure out how, with desperate speed,
to lead an equally sweeping international response.
The only really encouraging development is the groundswell of public
concern that has built over the last year, beginning with the
reaction to Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore's movie. In January, a few
of us launched an initiative called stepitup07.org
rallies in their own communities on April 14 asking for
congressional action. In the first few weeks the website was open,
more than six hundred groups in forty-six states registered to hold
demonstrations -- this will clearly be the largest organized
response to global warming yet in this country. The groups range
from environmental outfits to evangelical churches to college
sororities, united only by the visceral sense (fueled in part by
this winter's bizarre weather) that the planet has been knocked out
of whack. The IPCC assessment offers a modest account of just how
far out of whack it is -- and just how hard we're going to have to
work to have even a chance at limiting the damage.
[*Note:* This piece reviews /Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers, Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, 18 pp. It can be found by clicking
here
//Bill McKibben is a frequent contributor to The New York Review and
is scholar in residence at Middlebury College and the author of *The
End of Nature* and Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the
Durable Future
/*This article appears in the March 15, 2007 issue of The New York
Review of Books
/Copyright 2007 Bill McKibben /
-
Click here to read more Tom Dispatch
2.
*ZNet | Iran*
*American preparations for invading Iran are complete
Iran - Ready to attack*
*by Dan Plesch; New Statesman
American military operations for a major conventional war with
Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond
targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush
to destroy Iran's military, political and economic
infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.
British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of
anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to
Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It
continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry
bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared
battle plans and spent four years building bases and training
for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of
US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the
name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).
The Bush administration has made much of sending a second
aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the
preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into
battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS
John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be
joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S
Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz.
Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.
Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in
Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own
aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a
version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft,
tanks, jump- jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more
cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to
attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations.
They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution
of 1979.
Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces
in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme
Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo
Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to
manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.
Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair
with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the
fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold
the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all
nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.
Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of
the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and
missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine,
General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global
Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour
readiness.
The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American
analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the
possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified,
but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.
Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at
least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes
flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited
funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new
level.
New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb.
According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples"
the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as
recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack
between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of
accuracy using the global positioning system.
With little military effort, the US air force can hit the
last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders
and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be
sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand
accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.
"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was
done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of
Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it
until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the
fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.
The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from
some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as
trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in
Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with
facilities equal to its best in Europe.
Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with
Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the
border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of
Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and
hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.
The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and
UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the
population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such
reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's
claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war
with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north
where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran
are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the
Iran-Iraq border.
And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise
Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is
for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's
sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two
years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal
Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.
We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to
convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a
post-rubble Iran.
[Dan Plesch is a research associate at the School of Oriental
and African Studies. He has written for the Guardian, the
Independent, the New York Times, the Observer, Tribune, the
Washington Post and the Washington Times. He has regularly
provided live political and military analysis of evolving news
stories for the BBC, CNN, ITN and other news media.]
****
3.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
|http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:i_IYyb4kAfYJ:www.cs.unb.ca/profs/ghorbani/AhmadinejadLetterToBush.pdf+ahmadinejad+letter+to+bush&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us|
/Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor
responsible for its content./
These search terms have been highlighted: *letter * *bush *
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: *ahmadinejad *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 1*
Mr George *Bush*,
President of the United States of America
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the
undeniable contradictions
that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly
debated, specially in political
forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain
unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the
hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
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 convey set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs 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 perhaps 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 love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others,
subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those
returning home suffer
depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while
some are killed and
their bodies handed of their families.
On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to
engulf both the peoples
of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no
WMDs existed to
begin with.
Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to
topple him, the
announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass
destruction. He was
toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of
the region are happy
about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on
Iran Saddam was
supported by the West.
Mr President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses
actions be
reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this *letter*
and duty to the tradition of
Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 2*
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no
legal representation,
their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land
outside their own
country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and
fate. No one knows
whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in
Europe too. I could
not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in
secret prisons, with the
provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand
how such actions
correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this *letter*,
i.e. the teachings of Jesus
Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many
questions about the
phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the
establishment of a
new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to
our times.
Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist.
The show old documents
and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a
country named Israel.
I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told
me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the
war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the
most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million
Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically
translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for
such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
Mr President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns
and villages
were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment;
unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids,
destroys houses
while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and
plans to assassinate
Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such
a phenomenon is
unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ
(PBUH) or Moses (PBUH)
or liberal values?
Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these
lands – inside and
outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to
determine their fate, runs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 3*
contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of
prophets? If not, why
is there so much opposition to a referendum?
The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All
independent observes
have confirmed that this government represents the electorate.
Unbelievingly, they have put
the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise
the Israeli regime,
abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform,
would the Palestinian
people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition
to the Palestinian
government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people
are also saying “why
are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”
Mr President,
As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant
contact with them --
many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well.
They dot not have
faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the
people of the region are
becoming increasingly angry with such policies.
It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to
other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in
the Middle East
regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist
regime? Is not scientific
R&D one of the basic rights of nations.
You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other
point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of
scientific achievements
being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science
and technology
altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific
disciplines, including physics,
chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt
that telling lies is
reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
Mr President,
Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected
governments are being
opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be
threatened and live in
fear?
The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can
play an important and
valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to
its material and
spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are
preventing this from
happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth –
including minerals –
is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the
tenets of human rights?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 4*
The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and
grievances, including: the
coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government
of the day,
opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into
a headquarters
supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many
thousands of pages of
documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged
against Iran, the
shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the
Iranian nation,
increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and
nuclear progress of the
Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating
their country’s progress),
and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this *letter*.
Mr President,
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is
deplorable and
appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared
its disgust with the
perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed
its sympathies.
All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good
standing of their citizens.
Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and
intelligence systems
– and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple
operation. Could it
be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and
security services – or
their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess.
Why have the various
aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched
their
responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty
parties identified and put
on trial?
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for
their citizens. For
some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world
trouble spots do not
have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the
emotional wounds of the
survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised
by the attacks –
some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity
– some constantly
talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people
in fear. Is that service to
the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred
from fear and panic?
American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come
at any moment and in
any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and
at home. Who would be
happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a
feeling of security and
providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification –
for an attack on
Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.
In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest
reporting of a story are
established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown
by certain Western
media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was
the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally,
believe – and the ground
set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?
Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled
with the earlier mentioned
values?
Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 5*
Mr President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of
governments so that their
governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars,
spent every year to pay for
the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”
As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are
living in poverty.
Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of
course these
problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as
well. With these conditions
in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the
public treasury – be
explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?
What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the
world, in our region
and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will
agree to some of
it – is:
Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule
indefinitely, but their names will
be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate
and distant futures.
The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or
insecurity and
unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest
groups, and by forcing
many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and
powerful – thus
trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars
on them, interfered
illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated
some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of
intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or
presented an inverted
version of it?
Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic,
ethics, peace, fulfilling
obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and
respect for human dignity
or the force of guns.
Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the
progress and excellence of
other nations, and trample on people’s rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath
of office – to serve
the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets –
or not?
Mr President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?
Where will this trend lead the world to?
How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of
some rulers?
How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the
stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction – hunt the people of the world?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 6*
How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children
be spilled on the
streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?
Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?
Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop
movement were instead
spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of
health, combating
different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical
fitness, assistance to
the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities
and production,
development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace,
mediation between
disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and
other conflicts were would
the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably
proud?
Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have
been stronger?
And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing
global hatred of the
American governments?
Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.
If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH)
were with us
today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a
role to play in the
promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ
(PBUH) will be
present? Will they even accept us?
My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the
rest of the world? Today
there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of
Moslems and millions of
people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions
share and respect on
word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in
the world.
The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of
divine religions and
says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable
proposition between us and
you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not
associate aught. With Him
and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but
if they turn back, then
say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).
Mr President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one
God and follow the
teachings of divine prophets.
“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all
He pleases.” “The
Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the
future, knows what goes
on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”
“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all
universe is His court”
“planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants
the glad tidings of
mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed
and the enemy of
oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the
recourse of the faithful and
guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the
actions of His servants”,
“He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to
stay on the path of
righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His
prophets and He is a
witness to their deeds.” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have
chosen the life of this
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 7*
world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal
paradise belong
to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their
lascivious selves.”
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only
road leading to
salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings
of Jesus (PBUH), and
believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets
of the Almighty. He
has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted
in Koran as well;
[19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him;
this is the right
path, Marium.
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine
messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and
the rest of the world
is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all
His servants. He has
given greatness to Humans.
We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with
miracles and
clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity
them from sins and
pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people
display justice and avoid
the rebellious.”
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good
Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised:
The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of
the Almighty, so that
their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and
evildoers will meet
divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it
will not be easy to calculate
the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and
all others whose lives
have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on
monotheism, justice and
respect for human dignity.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these
principles, that is,
monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man,
belief in the Last Day,
we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result
of disobedience to the
Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees
peace, friendship and
justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles
are universally
respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the
teachings of prophets, to
monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the
Almighty and His
prophets?
Mr President,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Page 8*
History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive.
God has entrusted
The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and
humanity to their own
devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of
governments. These
tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are
determined by Him.
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?
Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years
ago? Changes happen fast
and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little
heed to the promises
and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people
around the wolrd
feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not
approve of and accept
dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the
have-nots and the rich
and poor countries.
The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their
cultural foundations and the
disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of
care and compassion.
The people of the world have no faith in international organisations,
because their rights are
not advocated by these organisations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help
realize the ideals of
humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can
already hear the
sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the
liberal democratic
systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a
main focal point –
that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the
teachings of the
prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you
is: “Do you not want to
join them?”
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the
Almighty and justice
and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
***********************
4.
DeadBrain's satire headlines feed
DeadBrain Exclusive: Bush's reply to Ahmadinejad letter
9 May 2006 by Malcolm Drury
In this exclusive scoop DeadBrain is pleased to share with you President
Bush 's reply to the letter he received from
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr Bush's reply is in his own
hand, often in joined-up writing.
The White House
US of A
Dear so-called president Jamhead,
Yeah rite, you think your a president, in your dreems, I'm a real
president, the war president even. Anyway I got your letter, sheesh you
don't rite very good, it was all in skwiggles, had to get some of the
guys to rite it out for me in American. It was reel wierd though, I gess
they couldn't read your riting very well, they said one sentence was
"You have the brane of a donkey", I said that must be rong, I'm the
smartest guy I know, maybe you couldn't read the skwiggle propperly, I
bet it ackcherly says genius, not donkey. Then the guys went reel red
and made noises like they was choking and finally one of them said yes
sir that must be it.
OK, number one, you go around riting any more letters saying we was
lying about Saddam's dubya em dees and we'll come in an libberate
Iranistan just like we done in Iraq, I'm down a bit in the poles just
now and a bit of Fox TV news film of American troops in action is a reel
good boost to my popperlarity, at least it was when we went into
Affgannistan and Iraq, so you've been warned, OK, just remember we got
Saddam in jail, there's plenty of room for you too.
Number two, we didn't keep anything secrit about 911, well OK, maybe the
bit about where Dick [Cheney] went into hiding, but that was for a reel
good reason. Not sure exackly what it was, he wouldn't tell me, he said
it was something to do with security. Ackcherly, come to think of it I'm
not sure where it was he went, he wouldn't tell me that either, he just
said it's best not to know just in case for instans you get capchered
and torchered by terrorists. Anyway the point is we didn't keep anything
secrit or tell any lies about 911, well not big ones anyway, so if you
don't want to be saying hello to some cruise missles I'd shut my yap if
I was you, kapeesh.
Number five, I'm just gonna tell you for the last time if you keep on
trying to enrich your harmonium to make nucular bomms my advice is to
stop, I know you probbly think we've run out of cruise missles and stuff
what with Iraq and Affganistan and getting ready for France but Donny
[Rumsfeld] says we still have enough left
to take you out so if you think your man enough bring it on!
Yours sinseerly
George W Bush,
President US of A
PS Sorry, forget what I said about France, that's still supposed to be a
secrit.
No comments:
Post a Comment