Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Connect your Digital Journal account with Facebook or Twitter to use this feature.

article imageOp-Ed: Bombing Iran — A British anti-war view

By Alexander Baron     Jan 8, 2012 in Politics
The movement against perpetual wars for perpetual peace has become a broader church of late; retired architect James Thring is one of the loudest voices in this ad hoc coalition.
James Thring is a retired architect and tireless anti-war activist; last year he and the Stop The War Coalition created a petition against attacking Iran. The British Government now also allows individuals to create such petitions, and many people have started their own. It is shameful how few have actually bothered to sign the anti-war petitions.
James Thring holds strong views; you might not agree with all of them, but rather listen to him than Mitt Romney.
AB: What is your view on the current warmongering against Iran in the United States?
JT: It is...astonishing what supposedly responsible leaders of the 'free' world will say to get votes. It demonstrates how corrupt US 'democracy' is when its contenders for power aspire to bomb another nation's nuclear facilities to attract money and votes from a non-American-centred lobby (friends of Israel) which itself has hundreds of illegal nuclear weapons.
AB: What do you say to the claim that Iran has not cooperated with the UN?
JT: It is a lie that Iran has not let in IAEA inspectors. It did this from the outset of its civil nuclear programme (encouraged and facilitated by America). If they kicked out the inspectors they would be no more of a threat than Israel which never let inspectors in and even fooled the US inspection team under Kennedy.
AB: New Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, be it noted, has suggested quite openly - and here is the video - that among other things, the United States could assassinate (murder) Iranian nuclear scientists. What do you say to that?
JT: It is a blatant felony or act of terrorism committed by Gingrich to call for the murder, in effect, of Iran's nuclear scientists (at least two have already been murdered) and to call for covert disruption of a sensitive process like nuclear enrichment which, as far as we know, is not up to weapons grade (20%), as confirmed by several watchful official agencies.
AB: What do you say to those who object to Iran going nuclear?
JT: It is axiomatic that any state subjected to embargo of its life-line oil sales, as is Iran, will need to develop alternative energy sources such as nuclear.
AB: What about those who saw Iran is arming itself for aggression?
JT: Any state threatened with nuclear attack as Iran has been since 2003 or earlier, would justifiably work to build detente defences.
It is ludicrous for US Representatives to point their contaminated fingers at Iran's civil nuclear programme as a threat to the US or Israel, when the US is the only country to have dropped nuclear bombs, and on a civilian population at that, and Israel is the only state to have destroyed two neighbouring countries' nuclear research facilities (Iraq's and Syria's). And as these attacks were without warnings or therefore concerns for people's lives and health they were Crimes Against Humanity yet to come to court. Similarly, bombing Iran's facilities will kill and maim innocent people; another Crime against Humanity. It will not allay anyone's fears but may enhance them. It will not solve the root cause of Islamic Iran's criticism of Israel - its crimes against the Palestinians and Israel's creeping threat to the Al Aqsa Mosque and other Holy sites. It will engender a wider determination amongst the Islamic world to restore justice and peace in the Holy Land.
Israel and its accomplice and protector are behaving like military dictators conspiring to commit serial mass murder to destroy the chances of any law-enforcer, like Iran or, formerly Iraq, from arresting them. A bundle of law-suits should be lodged at the ICC.
AB: Finally, can I ask you what you think of Obama's new defence cuts?
JT: I have not studied Obama's defence cuts but they could be predicated on three issues: First, the announcement may ameliorate some of the antagonism to his régime amongst the poor US taxpayers after they elected him on an anti-war promise which proved contrary to the outcome. Second, the US military-industrial complex has just benefited from a year of huge income from arms sales when the rest of the economy is suffering. This would mean that a cut in the 'Defence' budget (more honestly a 'war' budget) would not upset the major donors to his campaign in the arms industry as much as it would otherwise. But third, Obama knows there is a massive new war on the horizon which will be used to 'justify' another round of massive military expenditure pushed by the Israel lobby. So any cuts will soon be reversed. The big conglomerates will be laughing all the way to the bank if the taxpayers do not withhold their taxes.
AB: James Thring, thank you very much.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about james thring, ministry of peace, stop the war coalition, Zionism, Israel
More news from

Corporate

Help & Support

News Links

copyright © 2014 digitaljournal.com   |   powered by dell servers