Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------------------------
Rick,
I still agree with Kosta that neither Iran nor Sudan can be characterized as
secular r�gimes (they don't have to be calqued on the Taliban to be
non-secular), and that this is the case whether one is speaking of the
governing parties' ideology or the larger legal/constitutional order in
these states.
That quibble aside, I still think this analysis is one of the most important
for showing a neglected aspect in all this business - namely, the
instrumentality of an occupation of the Hindu Kush region in completing the
encirclement (or the "noose" around) Russia/FSU. With the arc of satellites
from the Balkans/Caucasus thus extended, the logical next/last step is the
"self-determining" of Xinjiang. (enter Human Rights). It adds another piece
to the picture showing "who gains from all this?"
Good job, all of you. I hope this is widely read by peace groups, and of
course, I fear it won't be.
Best,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Rozoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Kole: Secular regimes [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------------------------
Dear Kole,
Notwithstanding the lingering effects
of Khomeini era influence in Iran, nor the
introduction of Islamic law in Sudan, Iran now is
different than it was in 1979 - according to the US
itself at any rate - and neither Iran nor Sudan was
established as a theocratic state after World War II,
unlike several others I could name.
In no way can either be compared to Aghanistan under
both the Mujahedin and Talian regimes, as Western
propaganda is currently trying to portray them.
Similarly, Libya's constitution has an Islamic
flavoring, but could hardly be described as an Islamic
fundamentalist regime.
Both Iran and Sudan have had several governments since
1945, and the vast majority of years intervening
between then and now have seen purely secular
governments. As they may again at anytime.
Such is definitively not the case with US client
regimes and recipients of US military aid like
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the
United Arab Emirates, etc.
Without splitting too many hairs, the US is 'building
a case' against several countries with no connection -
or with Sudan, no current connection - with the
alleged evildoer Osama bin Laden, and it seems
incumbent on all of us to acquaint Western friends -
who do not understand why Shiite Iran would not harbor
Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalists, for example - with the
truth.
For peace,
Rick
__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
-------------------------------------------------
This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that
has been shut down
-------------------------------------------------
This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been
shut down
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: [email protected]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
