Native killer Canadians are enemy of Iran

Greetings to All,
As you may know I have constantly warned of the Bernard Lewis Plan to divide the (so-called) "MIddle East" into puny statelets for the sake of controlling the oil of theh Caucasus, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. The principal targets of this plan are Iran, Iraq and Turkey, however the entire region is implicated as you will see on the maps below. View Bernard Lewis Plan unveiled in Austria in late May 19179 after the revolution in Iran Map by retired General by Ralph Peters (source: Peters, R. (2006). Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would Look. in Armed Forces Journal, June Issue.) Here is a quote from Dreyfus and LeMarc:"According to Lewis, the British should encourage rebellions for national autonomy by the minorities such as the Lebanese Druze, Baluchis, Azarbaiajni Turks, Syrian Alawites, the Copts of Ethiopia, Sudanese mystical sects, Arabian tribes…the goal is the break-up of the Middle East into a mosaic of competing ministates and the weakening of the sovereignty of existing republics and kingdoms…spark a series of breakaway movements by Iran’s Kurds, Azaris, baluchis, and Arabs…these independence movements, in turn would represent dire threats to Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan and other neighbouring states" {Dreyfus and LeMarc, 1980, P.157}.Saddam Hussein was supported by the west to help sever Khuzistan. One of the major reasons the scheme failed, was that the Iranian-Arabs themselves fought against the pan-Arabists: Iranian Arabs preparing to fight Saddam Hussein Baathist legions during the Iran-Iraq War. Note that the only non-Arab man is the individual with a green beret and rocket launcher. Engdahl notes that the Bernard Lewis Plan endeavours to “…promote the Balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along Tribal and religious lines” (Engdahl, ,2004, p.171)There is now a new book that clearly exposes this scheme clearly:"Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"By: Jonathan Cook http://www.jkcook.net/Clash-of-Civilisations.htmBelow is a quote from Cook:"The Pentagon and CIA are also active in "black operations" in Iran, have been for many months, and it's no secret why. As in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, it's to create ethnic tensions throughout the country, promote conflict, and hope it will destabilize the government and force it into a mistake Washington can jump on in response. A Pentagon source told Seymour Hersh that their operatives are working with Azeris in the north, Baluchis in the southeast, Kurds in the northeast, and their own special forces in-country as well." I just recieved news that pan-Turk activists are distributing thousands fo leaflets in Urumiya to encourage people to run into the streets to "protest against Persian chauvensim in the name of mother language day". There is also a silent cultural war being raged agianst Iran - many UN and EU bodies have issued statements that target the country of Iran (not just the government) - there have been motions passed in western parliaments such as Sweden and England (i.e. Keith Vaz in particular) condemning Iran's culture. Note the shocking photo below: LEFT: The Prime Minister of Canada Harper (before his election as Prime Minister) greets Rafiq Abu-Sharif on November 22, 2001. RIGHT: Abu-Sharif embraced by the Canadian Prime Minister of the time, Paul Martin (the same meeting seen on picture to the left on November 22, 2001). The woman to the left behind Abu-Sharif may be the England-based Dr. Al-Assad, who wrote bitterly against me after I posted an article with Mahan Abedin on Asia Times exposing Abu-Sharif's groups links with Great Britian. Her best retort was that we were stating "Pahlavi-era narratives". The openly racist leader of the Al-Ahwaz group proudly brags about "blowing up Persians". Interestingly, neither Harper nor Martin, indeed noone in the west or the UN in general, has ever condemned the terrorist actions of abu-Sharif's group nor the fact that his organization openly embraces Baathist ideology and regalia. The purported western excuse for shedding these crocodile tears is the worn-out expression: "language rights". There are now so many expressions for "rights", that one wonders what and whose "rights" they will advocate next - It would be nice if they were honest and simply stated "Petroleum Rights". Best RegardsKaveh Farrokh
New Book: "Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"In his thought-provoking new book, British journalist Jonathan Cook argues that Israel’s desire to be the sole regional power in the Middle East has shaped the Bush Administration's objectives in the 'war on terror'. Cook shows that the current chaos in the Middle East, far from being a disastrous mistake, is the true goal of the U.S. administration. It is a policy that has been greatly to the benefit of Israel.http://www.jkcook.net/Clash-of-Civilisations.htmSix months before the 2003 reinvasion of Iraq, the egregious neocon Michael Ledeen wrote: "We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize". Clearly, a cynical travesty of Schumpeter's "creative destruction" has become the motto for a breed of militaristic ideologues whose element is chaos.http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9289.shtmlThe Pentagon and CIA are also active in "black operations" in Iran, have been for many months, and it's no secret why. As in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, it's to create ethnic tensions throughout the country, promote conflict, and hope it will destabilize the government and force it into a mistake Washington can jump on in response. A Pentagon source told Seymour Hersh that their operatives are working with Azeris in the north, Baluchis in the southeast, Kurds in the northeast, and their own special forces in-country as well. The pot is bubbling, and Iran knows it.It's a new version of the older colonial "divide and rule" scheme that so far proved ineffective, and Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, thinks he knows what's going on. He says Israel and Washington want to partition Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Syria. If he's right, as seems likely, it means the idea is to change the way colonial powers ruled post-WW I, and Cook challenges it.He concludes his book saying a generation of Washington policy makers have been "captivated" by thinking the Middle East can be remade by "spreading instability and inter-communal strife." Instead, Cook sees a different outcome - new political, religious and social alliances forming across the region. If Washington pursues its "war on terror," he sees continued "war without end" with no victory. After the chaotic Bush years, it's hard disagreeing with him.http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16423On 24 May 2006, Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was invited to address a joint session of U.S. Congress. In his widely publicized speech, he claimed that Iran stood 'on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons', a development that would pose 'an existential threat' to Israel. He added: 'It is not Israel’s threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and to the well-being of the world at large'.Less than two months later, on 12 July 2006, Israel launched a war against the Hezbollah, publicly – if simplistically – identified by Israel and the U.S. as a proxy for Iran.Had Hezbollah been beaten [in 2006], what would this plan have required next? The answer, it seems, is an attack on Syria, with Israeli air strikes forcing Damascus into submission.105 According to reports in the Arab media during the early stages of the war against Lebanon, that was the fear in Syria and Iran. The newspaper al-Watan reported a phone conversation in which President Bashar Assad of Syria was supposedly told by the Iranian leader Ahmadinejad: ‘The Zionist-American threat on Damascus has reached a dangerous level, and there is no choice but to respond with a strong message so the aggressors will reconsider whether to launch a preventive attack against Syria.http://www.jkcook.net/Clash-Extract.pdfhttp://www.jkcook.net/Clash-Preface-Extract.pdf-----Original Message-----From: A Aryaian To: manuvera@aol.comSent: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 2:26 amSubject: Chaos & Creative DestructionNew Book: "Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"In his thought-provoking new book, British journalist Jonathan Cook argues that Israel’s desire to be the sole regional power in the Middle East has shaped the Bush Administration's objectives in the 'war on terror'. Cook shows that the current chaos in the Middle East, far from being a disastrous mistake, is the true goal of the U.S. administration. It is a policy that has been greatly to the benefit of Israel.http://www.jkcook.net/Clash-of-Civilisations.htmSix months before the 2003 reinvasion of Iraq, the egregious neocon Michael Ledeen wrote: "We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize". Clearly, a cynical travesty of Schumpeter's "creative destruction" has become the motto for a breed of militaristic ideologues whose element is chaos.http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9289.shtmlThe Pentagon and CIA are also active in "black operations" in Iran, have been for many months, and it's no secret why. As in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, it's to create ethnic tensions throughout the country, promote conflict, and hope it will destabilize the government and force it into a mistake Washington can jump on in response. A Pentagon source told Seymour Hersh that their operatives are working with Azeris in the north, Baluchis in the southeast, Kurds in the northeast, and their own special forces in-country as well. The pot is bubbling, and Iran knows it.It's a new version of the older colonial "divide and rule" scheme that so far proved ineffective, and Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, thinks he knows what's going on. He says Israel and Washington want to partition Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Syria. If he's right, as seems likely, it means the idea is to change the way colonial powers ruled post-WW I, and Cook challenges it.He concludes his book saying a generation of Washington policy makers have been "captivated" by thinking the Middle East can be remade by "spreading instability and inter-communal strife." Instead, Cook sees a different outcome - new political, religious and social alliances forming across the region. If Washington pursues its "war on terror," he sees continued "war without end" with no victory. After the chaotic Bush years, it's hard disagreeing with him.http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16423On 24 May 2006, Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was invited to address a joint session of U.S. Congress. In his widely publicized speech, he claimed that Iran stood 'on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons', a development that would pose 'an existential threat' to Israel. He added: 'It is not Israel’s threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and to the well-being of the world at large'.Less than two months later, on 12 July 2006, Israel launched a war against the Hezbollah, publicly – if simplistically – identified by Israel and the U.S. as a proxy for Iran.Had Hezbollah been beaten [in 2006], what would this plan have required next? The answer, it seems, is an attack on Syria, with Israeli air strikes forcing Damascus into submission.105 According to reports in the Arab media during the early stages of the war against Lebanon, that was the fear in Syria and Iran. The newspaper al-Watan reported a phone conversation in which President Bashar Assad of Syria was supposedly told by the Iranian leader Ahmadinejad: ‘The Zionist-American threat on Damascus has reached a dangerous level, and there is no choice but to respond with a strong message so the aggressors will reconsider whether to launch a preventive attack against Syria.http://www.jkcook.net/Clash-Extract.pdfhttp://www.jkcook.net/Clash-Preface-Extract.pdf