Iran seeks contact with 'Great Satan'

[Guest guest]

Published: May 13, 2006 Author: Andy Borowitz

Days after receiving an 18-page letter from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President George W. Bush called the lengthy missive "an act of war" and demanded that Iran halt its production of long letters at once.

 

At the White House, aides said that writing a letter of such length to President Bush, who is known for his extreme distaste for reading, was the most provocative act Mr. Ahmadinejad could have possibly committed. They said they were waiting for Israel to tell them how to respond.

 

"Everyone knows that the last book the president read was 'My Pet Goat,'" one aide said. "Expecting him to read an 18-page letter is really asking for it, and that Iranian dude must have known that."

 

According to those close to Mr. Bush, the president was infuriated upon receipt of the 18-page letter and asked aides if it was some kind of joke.

 

The president then demanded that the letter be boiled down to a one- or two-page format, or possibly adapted to a DVD version, just as he had ordered for news reports on Hurricane Katrina.

 

In Tehran, President Ahmadinejad said he was "taken aback" by Mr. Bush's refusal to read an 18-page letter, but said that all his future communications to the U.S. president would be in short, easy-to-read instant-messaging format.

 

In his first IM to President Bush, released to the press today, President Ahmadinejad writes, "Am building nukes. R U angry? LOL."

 

Elsewhere, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden vowed today that as director of the CIA he would push the agency to find more and better sources of false intelligence and would be flying to Tel Aviv at once.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

Published: May 13, 2006 Author: Andy Borowitz

Days after receiving an 18-page letter from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President George W. Bush called the lengthy missive "an act of war" and demanded that Iran halt its production of long letters at once.

 

At the White House, aides said that writing a letter of such length to President Bush, who is known for his extreme distaste for reading, was the most provocative act Mr. Ahmadinejad could have possibly committed. They said they were waiting for Israel to tell them how to respond.

 

"Everyone knows that the last book the president read was 'My Pet Goat,'" one aide said. "Expecting him to read an 18-page letter is really asking for it, and that Iranian dude must have known that."

 

According to those close to Mr. Bush, the president was infuriated upon receipt of the 18-page letter and asked aides if it was some kind of joke.

 

The president then demanded that the letter be boiled down to a one- or two-page format, or possibly adapted to a DVD version, just as he had ordered for news reports on Hurricane Katrina.

 

In Tehran, President Ahmadinejad said he was "taken aback" by Mr. Bush's refusal to read an 18-page letter, but said that all his future communications to the U.S. president would be in short, easy-to-read instant-messaging format.

 

In his first IM to President Bush, released to the press today, President Ahmadinejad writes, "Am building nukes. R U angry? LOL."

 

Elsewhere, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden vowed today that as director of the CIA he would push the agency to find more and better sources of false intelligence and would be flying to Tel Aviv at once.

 

Yes let america retreat from their position on the world's stage and just see who and what might rush to fill the void...

 

You don't really want to imagine that world - do you?

 

Here is a good link from Google cache:

 

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:wijOKGrDVMAJ:pnews.org/ArT/AiS/SOra.shtml+the+people+in+Iran+&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=40&client=firefox-a

 

Oh and I don't think that Mr. Bush has any aversion to reading - even long trashy diatribes by people like the president of Iran.

 

Of course I take Andy's comments as satire and - no more.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

In his recent illegitimate letter to the U.S. President - the president of iran wrote:

 

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles [and we don't have wonder if he intends it to be by radical and revolutionary force if needed!]<b>, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, <big>belief in the Last Day</big>...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, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive....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.</b>

 

So I would think that he aught to understand that he [and his terror program] are denonced within Koran - it is written thus:

 

<b>And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah <big>and the last day</big>; and they are not at all believers. They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive. There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied. And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers. Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive.</b> [Koran 2.8-12]

 

Any questions?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

"Our Common Home"

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

 

"Our Common Home"

 

 

Here is another simple animation of - 'the problem' that the world faces:

 

[Kulapavana]

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Source: www.raidersnewsupdate.com</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD vAlign=top>Published: May 23, 2006 Author: By GEORGE CONGER</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

<!-- -->World Council of Churches Slams Israel

 

By GEORGE CONGER

 

Israel bears the burden of responsibility for the present crisis in the Middle East, the World Council of Churches has announced, following a meeting of its Executive Committee in Geneva from May 16-19.

 

The Christian Left's leading ecumenical organization stated Israel's actions towards the Palestinians "cannot be justified morally, legally or even politically."

 

The failure "to comply with international law" had "pushed the situation on the ground to a point of no return," they concluded.

 

The WCC condemned the killing of innocent civilians by "both sides" in the conflict and called for the Palestinians to "maintain the existing one-party cease-fire toward Israel" and asked Israel to base its security on "the equitable negotiation of final borders" with its neighbors.

 

However, the present disparities between Israel and Palestine were "appalling," the WCC said.

 

"One side is positioning itself to unilaterally establish final borders on territory that belongs to the other side; the other side is increasingly confined to the scattered enclaves that remain. On one side there is control of more and more land and water; on the other there are more and more families deprived of land and livelihoods.

 

On one side as many people as possible are being housed on occupied land; on the other side the toll mounts of refugees without homes or land. One side controls Jerusalem, a city shared by two peoples and three world religions; the other-Muslim and Christian-watches its demographic, commercial and religious presence wither in Jerusalem," the WCC said.

 

The WCC claimed a double standard was at work in the international community that favored Israel, saying, "The side set to keep its unlawful gains is garnering support from part of the international community. The side that, despairing at those unlawful gains, used legitimate elections to choose new leaders is being isolated and punished."

 

"Democracy must be protected where it is taking root," the WCC said, calling for a relaxation of American, British and EU sanctions against Hamas. "Peace must come soon or it may not come to either people for a long time," they concluded.

 

The WCC's Executive Committee called upon its 340 member churches in over 100 countries representing approximately 550 million Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant Christians to "share solidarity with people on both sides of the conflict," and to "use legitimate forms of pressure to promote a just peace and to end unlawful activities by Israelis or Palestinians."

 

It also asked its members to "find constructive ways to address threats experienced among the Jewish people, including the nature, prevalence and impact of racism in local, national and international contexts."

 

In March 2005, the WCC urged its member churches give "serious consideration" to pulling investments out of Israel and endorsed the 2004 decision by the Presbyterian Church of the United States to seek "phased selective divestment" from Israel. "This [Presbyterian] action is commendable in both method and manner, uses criteria rooted in faith and calls members to do the things that make for peace," the WCC said.

 

The Presbyterian Church will revisit its 2004 divestment decision next month at its 217th General Assembly in Birmingham, Alabama, in response to criticism that the divestment call was one-sided and ill-informed.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

<table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Source: www.raidersnewsupdate.com</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td valign="top">Published: May 23, 2006 Author: By GEORGE CONGER</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td valign="top"></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

<!-- -->World Council of Churches Slams Israel

 

By GEORGE CONGER

 

Israel bears the burden of responsibility for the present crisis in the Middle East, the World Council of Churches has announced, following a meeting of its Executive Committee in Geneva from May 16-19.

 

The Christian Left's leading ecumenical organization stated Israel's actions towards the Palestinians "cannot be justified morally, legally or even politically."

 

The failure "to comply with international law" had "pushed the situation on the ground to a point of no return," they concluded.

 

The WCC condemned the killing of innocent civilians by "both sides" in the conflict and called for the Palestinians to "maintain the existing one-party cease-fire toward Israel" and asked Israel to base its security on "the equitable negotiation of final borders" with its neighbors.

 

However, the present disparities between Israel and Palestine were "appalling," the WCC said.

 

"One side is positioning itself to unilaterally establish final borders on territory that belongs to the other side; the other side is increasingly confined to the scattered enclaves that remain. On one side there is control of more and more land and water; on the other there are more and more families deprived of land and livelihoods.

 

On one side as many people as possible are being housed on occupied land; on the other side the toll mounts of refugees without homes or land. One side controls Jerusalem, a city shared by two peoples and three world religions; the other-Muslim and Christian-watches its demographic, commercial and religious presence wither in Jerusalem," the WCC said.

 

The WCC claimed a double standard was at work in the international community that favored Israel, saying, "The side set to keep its unlawful gains is garnering support from part of the international community. The side that, despairing at those unlawful gains, used legitimate elections to choose new leaders is being isolated and punished."

 

"Democracy must be protected where it is taking root," the WCC said, calling for a relaxation of American, British and EU sanctions against Hamas. "Peace must come soon or it may not come to either people for a long time," they concluded.

 

The WCC's Executive Committee called upon its 340 member churches in over 100 countries representing approximately 550 million Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant Christians to "share solidarity with people on both sides of the conflict," and to "use legitimate forms of pressure to promote a just peace and to end unlawful activities by Israelis or Palestinians."

 

It also asked its members to "find constructive ways to address threats experienced among the Jewish people, including the nature, prevalence and impact of racism in local, national and international contexts."

 

In March 2005, the WCC urged its member churches give "serious consideration" to pulling investments out of Israel and endorsed the 2004 decision by the Presbyterian Church of the United States to seek "phased selective divestment" from Israel. "This [Presbyterian] action is commendable in both method and manner, uses criteria rooted in faith and calls members to do the things that make for peace," the WCC said.

 

The Presbyterian Church will revisit its 2004 divestment decision next month at its 217th General Assembly in Birmingham, Alabama, in response to criticism that the divestment call was one-sided and ill-informed.

 

Quote:

 

Israel bears the burden of responsibility for the present crisis in the Middle East, the World Council of Churches has announced, following a meeting of its Executive Committee in Geneva from May 16-19.

 

Reply:

 

That is bunk - there is a collective responsibility [this includes the world too to some measure]!

 

Quote:

 

The Christian Left's leading ecumenical organization stated Israel's actions towards the Palestinians "cannot be justified morally, legally or even politically."

 

Reply:

 

Can the actions of the palestinian's - the homocide bombings and other terror directed at Israeli citizens - can that be justified? Well it appears that this left-wing council thinks it can be!

 

Quote:

 

The failure "to comply with international law" had "pushed the situation on the ground to a point of no return," they concluded.

 

Reply:

 

Oh yes it's all that simple isn't it - it must be great for those that have a biased and subjective view of things.

 

Quote:

 

The WCC condemned the killing of innocent civilians by "both sides" in the conflict and called for the Palestinians to "maintain the existing one-party cease-fire toward Israel" and asked Israel to base its security on "the equitable negotiation of final borders" with its neighbors.

 

However, the present disparities between Israel and Palestine were "appalling," the WCC said.

 

Reply:

 

Well duh I guess it might be - however to say that Israel is inciting this course of events is unfair. The course is being charted much more by the bent ideology of pseudo-political terror groups who have no desire to see a peace with Israel - in fact - they wish that Israel were wiped of the face of the earth [no it's never going to happen!] - these are the ones who keep the terror [and lack of resolutions] going.

 

Why is it that Israelis are the bad guys - this council thinks that Israel doesn't want to settle this issue? The only reason there is a push to impose borders is to make the other side wake up to the real process again. If they don't wake up to it - then there won't be peace and the borders shall be drawn - for security purposes - not for land grabbing.

 

Quote:

 

"One side is positioning itself to unilaterally establish final borders on territory that belongs to the other side; the other side is increasingly confined to the scattered enclaves that remain. On one side there is control of more and more land and water; on the other there are more and more families deprived of land and livelihoods.

On one side as many people as possible are being housed on occupied land; on the other side the toll mounts of refugees without homes or land. One side controls Jerusalem, a city shared by two peoples and three world religions; the other-Muslim and Christian-watches its demographic, commercial and religious presence wither in Jerusalem," the WCC said.

 

Reply:

 

Most of what is there on that land was created with the Israeli state - not to make offense - but - it was a desert when they went there and now look - so that has been a part of my plan outlined in other threads here on this issue - there will be a settlement that sees that all get a fair share.

 

But - this cannot happen if there is going to be contined abuse of the situation - the leaders of the palestinians should step aside - have another election - don't run again and - disolve hamas. If they are serious about a future for their people - that is what they aught to do.

 

Quote:

 

The WCC claimed a double standard was at work in the international community that favored Israel, saying, "The side set to keep its unlawful gains is garnering support from part of the international community. The side that, despairing at those unlawful gains, used legitimate elections to choose new leaders is being isolated and punished."

"Democracy must be protected where it is taking root," the WCC said, calling for a relaxation of American, British and EU sanctions against Hamas. "Peace must come soon or it may not come to either people for a long time," they concluded.

 

Reply:

 

Oh I see - we the world - should relax on hamas? Not going to happen.

 

Check out this link to this posting to see what I used to think - the benefit of the doubt that I extended to the so-called freedom fighters:

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/hinduism/18840-why-does-everyone-always-blame-jews-3.html?highlight=peace+plan+muntean

 

Of course now it appears that the picture has become more detailed - the issue has been shifting with the Islamic revolution - as noted by me before in many postings here - they are fighting for things other than peace and freedom for their people.

 

It became different with Arafat - yet the Palestinians the Israelis and - the world doesn't have the time for hamas to sort out what it stands and - for what it intends to accept.

 

These same people were part of the faction which started the latest intifada - because an israeli leader went to the temple mount - how can they be taken seriously as leaders for peace?

 

Have they ever made even a small effort to convince everyone that they don't wish to wipe out israel one day? No.

 

Can anyone give these leaders the benefit of the doubt without some serious and powerful transformations - within not only hamas but - within the rest of the groups and individuals forming the noted 'resistance' and - the islamic revolution in general?

 

Does this world council of churches thus know where they may fit into the present course of the noted Islamic revolution?

 

Quote:

 

The WCC's Executive Committee called upon its 340 member churches in over 100 countries representing approximately 550 million Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant Christians to "share solidarity with people on both sides of the conflict," and to "use legitimate forms of pressure to promote a just peace and to end unlawful activities by Israelis or Palestinians."

 

Reply:

 

That's all well and good but - let's not see the onesided blind assessments that we see in this statement. Let's see that this doesn't further corrupt from a political conflict to - become a nonsensical "those damn jews" issue - as the leaders of Hamas and - so many others want to make it into.

 

Quote:

 

It also asked its members to "find constructive ways to address threats experienced among the Jewish people, including the nature, prevalence and impact of racism in local, national and international contexts."

 

Reply:

 

First they must search out their own hearts - as that is where I see some of that residing - if their hearts aren't right - then that is the greatest threat to the Jewish peoples who are being demonized - of course starting long before the founding of the modern state of Israel.

 

Where was the real out-cry when so many Jews were slaughtered - for being jews! Where was our world? Well - seeing the comments of Leaders like the then prime minister of - canada - who said [when asked about jewish refugees to canada] 'one was too many' and who after meeting hitler in 1937 said something like 'he's a simple sort of fellow not any threat to anyone'!

 

Then there are the comments made by other leaders of that time too!

 

Yes the world said it was sorry after - but - too little too late if you ask me.

 

Who didn't know among those leaders of the plan to purge the world of the jews? Were any of them in on it? History is darker than we might want to see in this regard.

 

Thus when they say:

 

"find constructive ways to address threats experienced among the Jewish people, including the nature, prevalence and impact of racism in local, national and international contexts."

 

Let all of us see to it that this time - they mean it.

 

Quote:

 

In March 2005, the WCC urged its member churches give "serious consideration" to pulling investments out of Israel and endorsed the 2004 decision by the Presbyterian Church of the United States to seek "phased selective divestment" from Israel. "This [Presbyterian] action is commendable in both method and manner, uses criteria rooted in faith and calls members to do the things that make for peace," the WCC said.

 

Reply:

 

Already a confrontational and reactive plan! Just after saying that they agree with "a relaxation of American, British and EU sanctions against Hamas" - they wish to impose them on Israel?

 

Quote:

 

The Presbyterian Church will revisit its 2004 divestment decision next month at its 217th General Assembly in Birmingham, Alabama, in response to criticism that the divestment call was one-sided and ill-informed.

 

Reply:

 

Well that's obvious but - I think that they [we all] need to do a deeper searching - in themselves and in their respective faith groups to see where they should be making the adjustments - do this first...

 

There was a time that one could have easily said that to be born a jew was a curse - no matter where practically in the world.

 

So - use your imagination - we all have one - start there and -begin to think about how you or anyone might feel [about the rest of the world] - being part of a group - hated and hunted for 2000+ years - all due to a global ignorace - of those who hate you for your race and religion. How would you feel?

 

Time to cure our world of the disease of hate and - its preventable collateral damages.

 

I realize that some might not like that I have said these things - these things may make them feel uncomfortable - but we must do that - we all must search out our hearts and minds and clean out that trash that might lead us to hate and fear - for no good reason.

 

The global generational hate directed at Jews - is for no good nor justifiable reasons - they don't deserve to be demonized - as they are time and again!

 

We must know the truth and - know how we feel about it too. We cannot resent others due to prejudice as then we shall be resented too and - we would be the cause of it too!

 

Nearly everyone everywhere has a tinge of prejudices and we must work through them not give into them under the impetus of kali yuga or - the age of quarrel.

 

All the major faith groups teach inclusion - so - let's say we've all had enough with exclusionist and other useless tendencies within ourselves - individually and collectively...

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Well there's quite a few readers on this thread right now - hello to all in real time...wherever ya'll might be!

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

 

Iran TV debate challenge to Bush

 

 

Iran's president has challenged US President George W Bush to a live TV debate on world affairs.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the US and UK of abusing their "special privileges" and said a debate would let both sides air their views uncensored.

 

 

The White House called his suggestion a "diversion" from global concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

 

Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking two days before a UN deadline for Iran to halt work on its nuclear programme.

 

He said Tehran had proposed a framework for further talks but said no-one could stop Iran having a peaceful programme.

 

"Peaceful nuclear energy is the right of the Iranian nation," he told a news conference.

 

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td width="5">

</td> <td class="fact"> <!--Smva--> " The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say" <!--Emva--> <!--Smva--> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

<!--Emva--> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

"The Iranian nation has chosen that [course] based upon international regulations, it wants to use it and no-one can stop it."

 

He said Iran's response to an incentives package, offered by six nations in exchange for a halt to its nuclear programme, was an "exceptional opportunity" to resolve the dispute.

When asked if Iran would halt enrichment, he said any kind of dialogue "should be based upon the certain rights of the Iranian nation".

 

 

UN veto

"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr George W Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," Mr Ahmadinejad told reporters.

 

 

"The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."

 

Iran and many other nations "are against America's practices in managing the world", he said, calling such practices unjust.

 

He accused both the US and UK of taking advantage of their "special privileges", saying he thought they were the "the origin of all disturbances in the world".

 

 

And he also questioned their right to a veto in the UN Security Council. "Isn't it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" he went on.

But he did not rule out talks with the US in future, if certain conditions were met.

Mr Ahmadinejad's challenge to President Bush was dismissed by the White House.

"Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the US, has about Iran's behaviour," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

 

Sanctions

 

Iran has been given until 31 August to halt uranium enrichment - a possible route to nuclear weapons.

 

Earlier this week, Tehran had offered "serious talks" in response to a package of incentives put forward by the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany.

 

 

Washington has proposed implementing sanctions if Iran fails to meet the deadline, while Russia has said such a move would be premature.

 

 

Mr Ahmadinejad said it was "unlikely" the Security Council would take action against Iran, and said "sanctions are not an issue".

 

 

"We have said everything in our response. I think the time to use the instrument of the Security Council has expired," he said.

 

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5295550.stm

 

Published: 2006/08/29 14:51:09 GMT

 

© BBC MMVI

-------

 

I think that Mr. Bush should accept this 'challenge' because it would not be difficult to expose mr. president ego of Iran - for what he is.

 

 

Of course I think an even better direct 'international debate' could take place - over a longer time - on a message board on the web - as written questions and answers would be better for a more accurate exchange - again - it would NOT take long for the president of Iran to reveal 'what' his many errors are.

How odd that he thinks that he might earn ANY 'points' in front of westerners with such a debate......we could however earn points with his population - if he permits them to have accesss - uncensored.

Since he has used these operative words though it seems not likely:

He remarks: "The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth." - so he's saying "the American people" these are not broad and encouraging words - do not the Iranian [and all] people have the same 'rights' to hear the full and uncensored truths?

The president of Iran well knows the fact that there is NO LIMITING of information exchange in western nations - especially north america and europe...we are free to say what we want about the system and it's directors.

Do we wonder what is the level of intransigence in the acute state censorship in Iran right now - just how profoundly oppressive are the limitations being imposed on the Iranian people - limiting them from outside facts and opinions - does mr. president of Iran think that we all forgot that that is what is really going on in Iran? Of course that is all a part of their 'revolution' isn't it....

We could say that the president of iran's programme has already lost the debate - here on this discussion board at least - yes - there is a great deal of information here that cannot be escaped by his propaganda programme hucksters...

<!-- E BO -->