[slow moe]

http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3493.html

What is a matter of Euros and dollars for the French government is a matter of life and death for the Iranian people.

The French government is one of the strongest critics of the situation in Iraq. One might find this concern sincere at the first glance, but a closer look reveals that for the French government, lucrative deals take precedence over human rights.

Our historic memory is not that short to forget that the French government was Saddam Hussein’s major trade partner. With Saddam’s fall, French lost a major interlocutor in the Middle East. With its new partnership with Iran, it seems that the French government has chosen a new ally in the Middle East. A very dangerous partner indeed!

In 1985, France was ranked only 31st in trade with Iran. Since last year, it has moved up 28 places, to become Iran’s 3rd largest trading partner. With newly signed oil, automobile and cell phone deals it has now assumed the undisputed number one position.

Unfortunately the Iranian people have had to pay the price with their resources and with more pressure on their resistance.

The French government knows that to secure the mullahs’ friendship, one has to act against the Iranian people. This means ignoring the human rights abuses by the Islamic Republic of Iran and helping the mullahs suppress the Iranian resistance movement. The French government should feel disgraced by its actions.

On June 17th 2003, in an attack, coordinated with the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, 1,300 French policemen invaded the houses of Iranian dissidents in Auvers-sur-Oise, and elsewhere in Paris and arrested 165 Iranians, including the Iranian Resistance's President-elect Maryam Rajavi. The French accused the Iranian resistance of “intentions to plan terrorist attacks on Iranian embassies in Europe.” That was a false accusation and the French police had to release all those arrested after major protests by Iranians and the French. One year after the attack, the French police have yet to offer any reason to justify the raids against the Iranian resistance. After the June 17 attacks, trade between the two countries increased by 30 percent.

A new game against the Iranian resistance started a couple of months ago, when the French government began to hear charges against the Iranian resistance for an attack against the Iranian government in February 2000 in Tehran. Normally, the French would have nothing to do with such cases, because the attack was carried out by Iranians, against Iranian regime's targets and on Iranian soil. There was no French involvement whatsoever.

If the French feel obligated to investigate such charges, why then do they not investigate claims by hundreds of thousands of Iranians who have been victims of torture in Iranian prisons. The French government has disregarded all of those claims in the past fifteen years on the grounds that they had not been carried out in France. This double standard is nothing but the result of an appalling deal with the terrorist mullahs of Iran.

What did the French actually get from the mullahs to pursue this charge?

In March 2004, a French telecommunications company ALCATEL got the largest communications deal in Iran. ALESTOM, again a French company, got a four hundred million dollar deal to produce locomotives in Iran. On April 21, 2004, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, was received by the senior French officials. On the same day, the French oil conglomerate TOTAL (TotalFinaElf) won a 1.2 billion dollar bid to extract Iranian gas in the southern Pars region of the Persian Gulf. Three days later, the automobile giant, RENAULT, sent a delegation to Iran to finalize a deal that allowed the production of 500,000 cars in Iran each year. It was no surprise that on April 27th, the French government began to press charges against the Iranian resistance.

In the new world order, the French government has chosen to side with terrorists who have taken the lives of at least 120,000 Iranians and hundreds of foreign nationals. The French are in cahoots with a government that is the major sponsor of international terrorism and on the verge of producing nuclear weapons.

What is a matter of “Euros” and “dollars” for the French government is a matter of life and death for the Iranian people. The mullahs have destroyed their lives, violated their basic human rights, taken away their future, executed or imprisoned tens of thousands of their children and plundered their resources. Daily protests by workers, teachers, nurses, university students and all other walks of life in Iran, show that the Iranian people have rejected the clerical regime in its entirety. The French government should know that there is no honor in helping the terrorist and murderous regime of mullahs in Iran. The days for the mullahs’ regime are numbered. What the French government will gain in economical deals today, they will lose in the future when Iran is free again.

Hedayat Mostowfi is the Executive Director for nationwide Committee in Support of Referendum in Iran.

Additional links:

• http://www.lightreading.com/document...p;doc_id=49786
• http://www.eandpnet.com/ep/previous/...03offshore.htm
  
  Control of Phase 11 of the huge South Pars gas development project offshore Iran is said to be a scramble between BP, TotalFinaElf, Petronas of Malaysia, Statoil and Italy's ENI. And it is going to be an entirely European affair; US-based companies can only sit and watch while others win contracts to exploit one of the world's biggest gas resources.

[slow moe]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...1118-9171r.htm

Expatriates protest business contacts with Iran regime

By Jennifer Joan Lee
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

AUVERS-SUR-OISE, France — Thousands of Iranians from across the world streamed into this Paris suburb yesterday to demonstrate against French government leaders, whom they accuse of conspiring with Iran's terrorist regime in exchange for lucrative trade deals.

Joined by dozens of local and international supporters, the protesters also marked the first anniversary of a huge police raid on the offices of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a France-based political coalition that the State Department classifies as a terrorist organization.

The NCRI's military arm — the People's Mojahedin — also is listed as a terror group by the European Union.

The raid on the NCRI last year set off worldwide protests, including highly publicized self-immolations. Many people in France and other European countries have rushed to defend the organization, joining the handful of U.S. congressmen who have been expressing support.

Four months ago, dozens of French politicians, lawyers and human rights activists formed a committee calling for justice for the NCRI. "We make the distinction between terrorism and resistance," said committee Chairman Pierre Bercis, who also is the president of New Human Rights. "These fighters are not terrorists. They have committed violent acts only against their own terrorist regime."

Mr. Bercis said the idea that the NCRI was a terrorist group has been disappearing in the past year as more people show support. Backers of the NCRI think that its members are legitimate resistance fighters against Iranian terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. The organization had enjoyed the protection of French authorities.

That changed last year, when the French Interior Ministry sent more than 1,000 police to arrest about 170 Iranian dissidents, including NCRI President Maryam Rajavi.

Before the raid, Paris and Tehran had signed an accord to boost bilateral trade ties. NCRI spokesman Shahin Gobadi said the timing of the two developments was no coincidence. "The raid was specifically requested by Iranian authorities in exchange for back deals," Mr. Gobadi said.

Citing multibillion-dollar contracts that have been awarded in recent months to French companies such as Total, Renault, Alcatel and Alsthom, Mr. Gobadi said France has become Iran's second-largest trading partner in the European Union.

A spokesman at the French Ministry of Foreign Trade acknowledged that trade between the two countries has increased dramatically in the past two years.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/...cle_4235.shtml

Sporadic clashes erupt in Khoram-Abad as Freedom Fighters are executed
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Jun 9, 2004

Sporadic clashes erupted in the City of Khorram-Abad, on Monday, as three Freedom Fighters named "Safar Khovat-Siani", "Ali Irvani" and "Omid Davati" were hanged publicly under the false charge of "rape".

Tens of Khorram-Abadi shouted slogans against the Islamic regime and its leaders despite the presence of an impressionant security force deployment in the city and especially around the three areas of Shohada bridge and Shaghayegh and Great squares where each of these new victims of the Islamic regime were executed in order to increase the fear among the rebellious population of the city.

Sporadic clashes leading to the injuries and arrests of several demonstrators happened during the carrying and in the aftermath of these executions.

It's to note that Khorram-Abad has been scene of an increasing armed struggle against the regime forces and that the Islamic regime uses often labels, such as, Rapist, Drug Trafficker, Spy, Hooligan or Bandit in order to qualify some of its exasperated opponents. Such policy helps its European and Japanese partners, as well as the UN, to justify the continuation of their relations with a repressive and tyrannical regime vis a vis their public opinions.

[slow moe]

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...cle_2198.shtml

Torture Ban in Iran: "Mullahs' PR Ploy is Dead on Arrival"
Apr 30, 2004, 12:54
Hamid Namvar

If there were a contest as which country in the world is "the wonderland of the dark side", Iran under the mullahs' rule would have won it hands down. Just a quick look at the recent news headlines about Iran, would erase any doubts.

No, I am not referring to dozens of UFO citing in Iran, and, no, I am not talking about a court ruling in Tehran declaring that the United States should pay $600 million in compensation to the mullahs. I am talking about the mullahs' head of Judiciary, the Iraqi-born Shahroudi, declaring that from now on torture is banned in Iran.

Implicit in this statement, is the obvious admission that indeed torture to extract confessions for made-for-TV shows has been a common practice in Iran. One may ask what the meaning of this statement is given the fact that while the utterly anti-democratic Constitution of the mullahs' regime bans torture, and still the most barbaric medieval forms of torture, have been exercised on Iran's political dissidents in the last two and half decades?

Shahroudi's audience obviously is not the Iranian crowd; it is the mullahs' EU trade partners. The same EU which, as it was announced last week, has about $23 billion annual trade with the mullahs. The same EU which for the second time running chose not to not to censure the clerical regime's human rights violations. The same EU which is aiding the mullahs to get away with their nuclear weapons program.

Increasingly embarrassed by its inaction in the human rights front and as reports of ill-treatment of many political prisoners continue to get out - with many of them in immediate need for medical treatment - the EU needs a huge fig leaf to cover its ugly deals with Iran: Trade contracts in exchange for its silence.

And see how empty-handed the EU is that all it could get so far is an empty declaration form one the most fascist figures of the mullahs' regime. For sure, one should expect that as new EU delegations go to Tehran, they would heap praise on this regime, no matter how brutally Iranian students are suppressed, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.

As the mullahs' become more isolated at home, they will be ever more eager to put out the "going out of business Sale" for the EU to see. The give-away deals are reported every day. Just a few days ago IRNA reported that Iran has granted Total of France a $1.3 billion energy deal. And Britain announced today that, despite sanction on selling military parts to Iran, they are selling parts for military planes to the mullahs.

As major EU governments shed humanitarian tears for Iraqi people, they look the other way when the mullahs kill, rape, maim and suppress; they provide them with anti-riot gears and military hardware; they give them the diplomatic cover to crackdown on students and women; and then their diplomats in Tehran tell foreign reporters that there is "no serious opposition" to the mullahs. They enthusiastically assist the mullahs' campaign to bury the democratic opposition under a medieval suppression so that in the next breath the can claim there is no opposition.

Well, would they succeed? No, never.

Since our Constitution Revolution in 1906, the Iranians' fight for democracy has been always intertwined with facing up those foreign governments rushing to preserve the status que at the expense of democracy movement in Iran. The support of two great powers of the time, Britain and Russia, did not deter the Iranians during the Constitutional Revolution.

Britain which owes all of its industrialization and economic success to plunder of our oil wealth has historically been a staunch ally of the mullahs. And right now under the tacit approval of the British forces in the Southern Iraq, the mullahs are spreading their network there. The sly Brits are advancing their plan of having a friendly Islamic Republic eventually taking power in Iraq, while Washington gets the body bags.

Today as Iranian men and women, students and teachers, young and old, are standing up to this regime, we have a huge responsibility to expose the EU's reprehensible dealings with Iran which is legitimizing the mullahs' reign of terror, and compromising the human rights of Iranian people.

© Iranian.ws

[Spliffdaddy]

Typical.

The French are always looking out for themselves, first.

That's why they get so pissed when the US looks out for itself, first.

[slow moe]

Bush was exactly right when he made the 'Axis of Evil' speech.

Someone who should feel ashamed is Teresa Heinz Kerry, our potential first lady. When she passes out her cute little 'Asses of Evil' buttons she may as well be spitting on the people of Iran, and unless I fell asleep, Michigan Fats never mentioned anything in his stupid film about european oil companies receiving billion dollar contracts from one of the world's most brutally oppressive regimes, yet the Left doesn't seem to care.

Bush did the right thing by bringing democracy to Afganistan and then to Iraq - effectively pinning Iran and it's theocracy, it's Islamic jihadism, it's tyrannical gov't between two fresh democracies. It was especially right since the people of Iran would love to have the same taste of freedom and justice as their new sovereign neighbors, yet France doesn't seem to care.

The same people who don't care are the same ones jumping up and down, screaming for attention, and wanting the US to seek their permission on matters of foreign policy and national security. I can see why now. They don't want the right thing to come between them and the next billion dollar contract. You can take you're 20 minute standing 'O', and shove it up your ass.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Typical.

The French are always looking out for themselves, first.

That's why they get so pissed when the US looks out for itself, first.

good concise summary, spliffdaddy.

though, france and the us need to stop international relations and trade with countries with dictatorial countries. no more, 'if it's us, it's ok'. who will step up to the plate first?

[PacHead]

I am no expert on "Axis of Evil" terminology, but surely France could have been squeezed in and mentioned, along with the original three evil countries, when the speech was first delivered. Their pathetic charade inorder to protect Saddam failed, and now they are jumping into bed with everybodys favorite, number one world sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

France is an insignificant, puny little European country which nowadays must resort to bullying other smaller, insignificant European countries inorder to get their jollies. They also like to bad mouth the USA, though they are now quite aware that their scheming and crooked ways have little or no effect on our actions.

When Iran gets too "uppity" and somebody (USA) decides to take action against them, count on the French to be in the UN arrogantly defending this crappy evil country, all while counting the money they are making off of these terrorist lovers.

The French obviously have a Napoleon complex or something like that. Have you ever noticed that barely none of the French politicians that are interviewed on TV even speak English. What is their excuse ? Ignorance ? Arrogance ? Stubborness ? Even the population of other tiny European countries speaks English quite well, but NO, the "French" are special and they can not resort to such "barbaric" acts such as uttering a word of English in their lives. Pathetic. The French are a pariah when it comes to world politics and their schemes are particularly easy to see through, for any semi-intelligent person.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I am no expert on "Axis of Evil" terminology, but surely France could have been squeezed in and mentioned, along with the original three evil countries, when the speech was first delivered. Their pathetic charade inorder to protect Saddam failed, and now they are jumping into bed with everybodys favorite, number one world sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

Link?

France is an insignificant, puny little European country which nowadays must resort to bullying other smaller, insignificant European countries inorder to get their jollies. They also like to bad mouth the USA, though they are now quite aware that their scheming and crooked ways have little or no effect on our actions.

Compare Coalition of the Willing to the nations most against the invasion and it looks quite the opposite.

When Iran gets too "uppity" and somebody (USA) decides to take action against them, count on the French to be in the UN arrogantly defending this crappy evil country, all while counting the money they are making off of these terrorist lovers.

What would be the reason for invading Iran?

The French obviously have a Napoleon complex or something like that. Have you ever noticed that barely none of the French politicians that are interviewed on TV even speak English. What is their excuse ? Ignorance ? Arrogance ? Stubborness ? Even the population of other tiny European countries speaks English quite well, but NO, the "French" are special and they can not resort to such "barbaric" acts such as uttering a word of English in their lives. Pathetic. The French are a pariah when it comes to world politics and their schemes are particularly easy to see through, for any semi-intelligent person.

1. It's not France that is going around the world invading countries.

2. How much French do US politicians speak?

[PacHead]

Logic, I thought you were boasting the other day about studying to be a "rocket scientist" or something like that. And here, once again you ask me to waste my precious time in supplying you with a link, that is common knowledge for anybody who is remotely aware of world issues. So, no I will not give you a link. Iran is the number one sponsor of worldwide terrorism, as has been determined by the US state dept, and that is a fact.

And our reason for invading Iran ? Well, at the moment it is a bit premature. There could be any number of reasons, ranging from their nuke reactors, to various terrorist attacks, that can be traced backed to Iran.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Logic, I thought you were boasting the other day about studying to be a "rocket scientist" or something like that. And here, once again you ask me to waste my precious time in supplying you with a link, that is common knowledge for anybody who is remotely aware of world issues. So, no I will not give you a link. Iran is the number one sponsor of worldwide terrorism, as has been determined by the US state dept, and that is a fact.

And our reason for invading Iran ? Well, at the moment it is a bit premature. There could be any number of reasons, ranging from their nuke reactors, to various terrorist attacks, that can be traced backed to Iran.

Well if it is fact then it shouldn't be such a big deal for you to back it up. Seems like you have a habit of not backing your claims up so it doesn't surprise me.

And why should their nuclear reactors be a reason for invading them? And the tracing back. will that be done as well as the tracing back of 9/11 to Iraq? And if you are talking about tracing back terrorist attacks to a nation as a reason to invade, when will you start talking about invading Saudi Arabia?

Also why invade one of the few countries in the M.E. with some kind of democracy?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well if it is fact then it shouldn't be such a big deal for you to back it up. Seems like you have a habit of not backing your claims up so it doesn't surprise me.

And why should their nuclear reactors be a reason for invading them? And the tracing back. will that be done as well as the tracing back of 9/11 to Iraq? And if you are talking about tracing back terrorist attacks to a nation as a reason to invade, when will you start talking about invading Saudi Arabia?

Also why invade one of the few countries in the M.E. with some kind of democracy?

I do believe that Iran has a whole lot of pro-western people, especially the younger generation living there, or so I've heard. If this is the case, maybe they'll start some kind of revolution, kill all the idiot mullahs and imams who support terror and make it into a democratic, free state. If this scenario plays out, perhaps nobody will have to invade there. As for the nukes - Well, it's simple. Terrorists can not be trusted with any nukes, because we all know what their primitive, evil goals are. If islamic terrorists can kill 10 people, they will. If they can kill 50,000 people (or more) they will also not hesitate to do this.

As for Saudi Arabia, we will have to see what happens with the situation in that country with the terrorist amnesty scheme and other phoney baloney that they are currently implementing. If Saudi falls under the control of people who are more terrorist friendly than the current royal family, then we should of course invade, and take action against that lousy country.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I do believe that Iran has a whole lot of pro-western people, especially the younger generation living there, or so I've heard. If this is the case, maybe they'll start some kind of revolution, kill all the idiot mullahs and imams who support terror and make it into a democratic, free state. If this scenario plays out, perhaps nobody will have to invade there. As for the nukes - Well, it's simple. Terrorists can not be trusted with any nukes, because we all know what their primitive, evil goals are. If islamic terrorists can kill 10 people, they will. If they can kill 50,000 people (or more) they will also not hesitate to do this.

Why kill and not just use the elections they hold to develope their nation on their own?

And now you are talking about nukes, before you talked about nuclear reactors. Do you know if they are members of any non-prolifiration treaties? I can't remember it at the moment.

As for Saudi Arabia, we will have to see what happens with the situation in that country with the terrorist amnesty scheme and other phoney baloney that they are currently implementing. If Saudi falls under the control of people who are more terrorist friendly than the current royal family, then we should of course invade, and take action against that lousy country.

So democracy isn't something you are especially interested in? Especially not as long as the regimes are pro-American?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
And now you are talking about nukes, before you talked about nuclear reactors. Do you know if they are members of any non-prolifiration treaties? I can't remember it at the moment.

Tehran says it is pursuing a nuclear programme for energy production only.

But Iran does not have a significant and established nuclear reactor programme, and in economic and practical terms establishing an enrichment facility cannot be justified.

That means the enrichment facility is almost certainly for a nuclear weapons programme.


There are a number of treaties that require Iran to declare its intent with regard to developing nuclear weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2747283.stm

[Spliffdaddy]

Surrounded by oil, Iran seeks an alternative power source.





That's like Iceland building an ice cube manufacturing facility - as an alternative to, um, ice.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Their pathetic charade inorder to protect Saddam failed, and now they are jumping into bed with everybodys favorite, number one world sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

I'm pretty sure that Iran is only one among the big three - along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, your trusted allies and friends.

Regime change begins at home.

-s*

[Spliffdaddy]

You act as if we have friends outside the US.

heh.

We know we don't.

Saudi Arabia? so what? You trust those mofos?

Pakistan? where the f is Pakistan?

Dude, this is the middle east we're talking about. There is no sacred ground.

[Spheric Harlot]

[tie]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Their pathetic charade inorder to protect Saddam failed, and now they are jumping into bed with everybodys favorite, number one world sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

Link? This is just propaganda.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by tie:
Link? This is just propaganda.

Are you calling the US State Dept. Liars ?

[thunderous_funker]

What is France doing in the region that the US or UK haven't always done?

Perhaps its hypocritical of France to criticize the US when its hands are dirty, but that sword cuts both ways.

I suppose when France invades and occupies some country in the region we might be able to make moral equivalency arguments stick, but that probably won't happen.

So France meddles in the region to further its own economic interests even at the expesne of human rights. Again, how is this different from 50 years of US policy in the region?

[slow moe]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What is France doing in the region that the US or UK haven't always done?

I dunno, perhaps you should ask some Iranian students* what France has not done recently in the region, but the US has.

*real students, not the ones sitting in a madrasa somewhere learning to wire up explosive vests

[ambush]

ok ok

but didn't the CIA fund Bin Laden?

Boom

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by slow moe:
I dunno, perhaps you should ask some Iranian students* what France has not done recently in the region, but the US has.

*real students, not the ones sitting in a madrasa somewhere learning to wire up explosive vests

You mean one of the madrasas run by our ally General Musharaf, the military dictator of that wonderful little democracy we call Pakistan, that enjoys total US military and financial support?

[tie]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Are you calling the US State Dept. Liars ?

Actually, I was just trying to provoke you into providing a link, since you attacked Logic for his more neutral request.

Based on their record for Iraq's supposed support of Al Qaeda, one could easily make a case that the State Department has lied. I was curious how much this particular assertion was based on confirmed facts, and how much it was based on speculation or stories told by politically/financially motivated parties (like Chalabi).

[slow moe]

Originally posted by ambush:
ok ok

but didn't the CIA fund Bin Laden?

Boom

I suppose your theory goes something like this: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.

Wrong.

There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets in Afganistan. One, called Arab Afghans, was financed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists from all over the world. The another was composed of native Afghanis backed by the US. Bin Laden, at the time, was a quartermaster for the Arab Afghans, providing food and other supplies and also known for his ruthless anti-Americanism. Not one shred of hard evidence has ever been produced that shows the CIA ever dealt with bin Laden during the Afghan war.

And to all the Lefties that love to go around spreading lies about Reagan, it was Carter that signed off on covert ops inside Afganistan 6 months before Soviet involvement.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...10A.print.html

According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

M.C.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum

The URL of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Copyright, Le Nouvel Observateur and Bill Blum. For fair use only.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by slow moe:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/article...10A.print.html

Interesting to see that article translated from the French by the same Blum of Rogue State and author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA:Interventions Since World War II...

Also of interests, the interview published in Le Nouvel Observateur was omitted in the version of the Library of Congress (link):

[Note: There are at least two editions of 'Le Nouvel Observateur.'
With apparently the sole exception of the Library of Congress, the
version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version.
The Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.]

[slow moe]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Interesting to see that article translated from the French by the same Blum of Rogue State and author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA:Interventions Since World War II...

Also of interests, the interview published in Le Nouvel Observateur was omitted in the version of the Library of Congress (link):

French magazine, French thread title, and CIA/bin Laden involvement reply post. I couldn't pass it up.

[ambush]

Originally posted by slow moe:
French magazine, French thread title, and CIA/bin Laden involvement reply post. I couldn't pass it up.

someone has to go see Fahrenheit 9/11

[slow moe]

Already have. Didn't like it, it had to many holes that are easily picked through. Like when it gets to the part about the Carlyle Group, Moore forgets to mention that the anti-bush billionaire, George Soros is also an investor. Or the part were Moore is so taken back by Secret Service agents protecting the Saudi embassy. Well if you go the their website http://www.secretservice.gov/opportunities_ud.shtml it says

Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area.

Wow! They're doing their job. How about that.

Just lots and lots of things like that that make it a crappy movie.