Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Isn't the Armenian Church against freemasonry? Also, I think it's a big conflict of interest for any church figure to be a mason, not to mention the role played by masonic factions in the Armenian Genocide.

Are you referring to any Church canons? There are no laws in the Armenian Church addressing Masonry. In theory, the Church 'should' be against it. In practice, however, it a different story. Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with having prominant Armenians in all kinds of organizations, including those that we don't see in a good light. Although I have to admit it would be a double edged blade.

Free Masonry is, in essence, an exclusive club for the financial/political elite in the West. Within the exclusive confines of top level Masonry (not the low level wannabees in the lodges) leaders (financial, religious or political) of various lesser nations (third world/developing nations) are wined and dined towards socioeconomic/geopolitical intentions.

Hey armenian,
whats the role of the Masons in Armenia?

I am not too familiar with this topic to give you a comprehensive/accurate answer. Last few years, however, there have been accusations made that many prominant Armenians in Armenia, including the former president Levon Petrosian were Masons... Personally, I don't think Masonic influence in Armenia can be too strong primarily due to two reasons: Armenia's insular national development during the Soviet years and the strong influence of the Russian FSB in Armenia.

[Armanen]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

because he seems to be a high ranking Mason (32 degree?).

Isn't the Armenian Church against freemasonry? Also, I think it's a big conflict of interest for any church figure to be a mason, not to mention the role played by masonic factions in the Armenian Genocide.

[truAnatolian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Hey armenian,
whats the role of the Masons in Armenia?

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

You've been correct, all your life.

Thank you, jan

What gave you that impression?? "Belittle" is a pretty strong word.

Perhaps the word "belittle" was a bit too strong, but I was merely basing my perception of your intentions on your words (see below).

It's interesting that Aram I is a very politically active religious leader, he travels everywhere, meets with world leaders, makes various comments in condemnation or support of different issues but I have not seen Catholics Garegin II of Edjmiadzin as active and influential on different levels.

So, based on your words above, you seem to be comparing the two and making the unfair assumption that Garegin II lags behind Aram I. Thus, belittling??? Anyway, no big deal.

As you reminded, his task is more concentrated on different issues in Armenia. I was just stating how influential one is on the international level compared to the other.

You are right. Aram is more "international," so-to-speak. This has to do with his training, which was outside of the Soviet Union; his strong ARF associations worldwide; and because he seems to be a high ranking Mason (32 degree?). Anyway, they both play two different yet essentially vital roles in our nation.

But for instance, do you think Aram I would have gone at the door of an individual like Levon, and then to be refused?

You are right. If Aram I had to lower himself to the point of going to Levon's door and then refused entry, he would have kicked down the door and smashed Levon's head with his gem studded patriarchal staff...

[Lucin]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

All my life I have been under the impression that the Iranian-Armenian community was under Clician authority. I could be wrong.

You've been correct, all your life.

Nonetheless, I only took issue with Lucin because of her attempt to belittle Garegin II.

What gave you that impression?? "Belittle" is a pretty strong word. As you reminded, his task is more concentrated on different issues in Armenia. I was just stating how influential one is on the international level compared to the other. As an orthodox Christian, I have great respect for both of them.

But for instance, do you think Aram I would have gone at the door of an individual like Levon, and then to be refused?

[Armanen]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I am not 100% sure either. To me it would make sense in geographical terms to have Etchmiadzin lead the flock in Iran. If anyone knows for sure please post.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I'm pretty sure that Iran falls under the jurisdiction of Ecthmiadzin, not Cilicia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia...ly_Etchmiadzin

All my life I have been under the impression that the Iranian-Armenian community was under Clician authority. I could be wrong. It's one of those things you think you know but you never had the opportunity/urge to verify. Perhaps you should ask someone in the Prelacy. I would not go with Wikipedia information. However, the most influential Armenian political/cultural organization in Iran is the ARF. As a result of the influential role the ARF plays in Iranian-Armenian society, the Clician Katolikosate will by default play a influential role as well. Maybe Lucin can confirm or refute my claims. Nonetheless, I only took issue with Lucin because of her attempt to belittle Garegin II.

[Armanen]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I'm pretty sure that Iran falls under the jurisdiction of Ecthmiadzin, not Cilicia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church#Mother_See_of_Holy_Etchmiadzin

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

It's interesting that Aram I is a very politically active religious leader, he travels everywhere, meets with world leaders, makes various comments in condemnation or support of different issues but I have not seen Catholics Garegin II of Edjmiadzin as active and influential on different levels.

Lucin jan, I don't understand your intention here. You must know that according to our church's administrative laws and regulations, Garegin II has no jurisdictional right to visit any territory under the auspices of Aram I, let alone take political/social/religious initiatives there... Similarly, I don't see Aram I visiting the Armenian community of Ukraine, or Belarus, or Belgium, or Russia, or Germany... What's more, Aram I is an ARF operative (and I am not saying this in a bad way). Thus, Aram I is asked/told to do certain things that the party needs said/done in their zones of influence. Furthermore, realizing the enormous task of rebuilding the Armenian Apostolic Church in Armenia, Garegin II does not even have the right, let alone the time, to step outside of the country. Having said that, Garegin II has been tireless in his efforts to revitalize the church in Armenia/Artsakh. He is a great administrator and an excellent organizer. And he does meet with world leaders on a regular basis, although primarily in the former Soviet states. And he does make comments in condemnation or support of various important issues, although with issues that have to do with former Soviet territory. You are not aware of Garegin's efforts because you live in a Clician jurisdiction. In short, the two Katolicoi have two different roles to play and they are both playing it very well. Incidentally, my family and Aram I's family were very close neighbors in Lebanon. My brothers were very close friends of his four (maybe five???) brothers.

[Lucin]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I guess Obama just sounds to be a more sophisticated version of Bush when it comes to America's foreign policy...


Obama--fresh face for war on Iran
Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:21:43 GMT


Barack Obama's top advisers are setting the stage for a military action against Iran over its nuclear program, new reports have revealed.

The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and John McCain were purely tactical, according to the World Socialist Website.

While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia-including the use of military force against Iran.

The report points to Obama's top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, as one of the key figures promoting a military action against Iran.

Ross is a key member of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, which declared in a report in September that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.

The report said that the US needs to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf.

“This should commence the first day the new president enters office, especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, [and] emplacing other war materiel in the region,” it stated

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510203

*****************

Obama, Emanuel and Israel
Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:17:59 GMT
By John V. Whitbeck

In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel is an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" - i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

In rapid response to this news, the editorial in the next day's Arab News (Jeddah) was entitled "Don't pin much hope on Obama - Emanuel is his chief of staff and that sends a message". This editorial referred to the Irgun as a "terror organization" and concluded: "Far from challenging Israel, the new team may turn out to be as pro-Israel as the one it is replacing."

That was always likely. Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning", and America's electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president's declaring his country's independence from Israeli domination.

Still, one of the greatest advantages for the United States in electing Barack Hussein Obama was the prospect that the world's billion-plus Muslims, who now view the United States with almost universal loathing and hatred, would be dazzled by the new president's eloquence, life story, skin color and middle name, would think again with open minds and would give America a chance to redeem itself in their eyes and hearts - not incidentally, drastically shortening the long lines of aspiring jihadis eager to sacrifice their lives while striking a blow against the evil empire.

The profound loathing and hatred of the Muslim world toward the United States, which has always had its roots for America's unconditional support for the injustices inflicted and still being inflicted on the Palestinians, can fairly be considered the core of the primary foreign policy and "national security" problems confronting the United States in recent years. Why would Obama, a man of unquested brilliance, have chosen to send such a contemptuous message to the Muslim world with his first major appointment? Why would he wish to disabuse the Muslim world of its hopes (however modest) and slap it across the face at the ealiest opportunity?

A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming -- the naming as "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace" of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off "think tank", the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Neverthess, since it is almost always constructive to seek a silver lining in the darkest clouds, a silver lining can be found and cited. For decades, the Palestinian leadership has been "waiting for Godot" - waiting for the US Government to finally do the right thing (if only in its own obvious self-interest) and to force Israel to comply with international law and UN Resolutions and permit them to have a decent mini-state on a tiny portion of the land that once was theirs.

This was never a realistic hope. It has not happened, and it will never happen. So it may well be salutary not to waste eight more days (let alone eight more years) playing along and playing the fool while more Palestinian lands are confiscated and more xxxish colonies and xxxs-only bypass roads are built on them, clinging to the delusion that the charming Mr. Obama, admirable though he may be in so many other respects, will eventually (if only in a second term, when he no longer has to worry about reelection) see the light and do the right thing. It is long overdue for the Palestinians themselves to seize the initiative, to reset the agenda and to declare a new "only game in town".

Furthermore, in February, Israel will elect a new Knesset. Bibi Netanyahu, who, most polls and coalition-building calculations suggest, is most likely to emerge as the next prime minister, has one (if only one) great virtue. He is absolutely honest in not professing any desire (however insincere) to see the creation of any Palestinian "state" (whether decent or less-than-a-Bantustan in nature) or to engage in any talks (even never-ending and fraudulent ones) ostensibly about that possibility. His return to power would definitively slam the door on the illusion of a "two-state solution" somewhere over an ever-receding horizon.

This would constitute a blessing and a liberation for Palestinian minds and Palestinian aspirations. Their leadership(s) could then return, after a long, costly and painful diversion, to fundamental principles, to pursuing the goal of a democratic, nonracist and nonsectarian state in all of Israel/Palestine with equal rights for all who live there.

This just goal could and should be pursued by strictly nonviolent means. If the goal is to convince a determined and powerful settler-colonial movement which wishes to seize your land, settle it and keep it (eventually cleansing it of you and your fellow natives) that it should cease, desist and leave, nonviolent forms of resistance are suicidal. If, however, the goal were to be to obtain the full rights of citizenship in a democratic, nonracist state (as was the case in the American civil rights movement and the South African anti-apartheid movement), then nonviolence would be the only viable approach. Violence would be totally inappropriate and counterproductive. The morally impeccable approach would also be the tactically effective approach. The high road would be the only road.

No American president - least of all Barack Obama - could easily support racism and apartheid and oppose democracy and equal rights, particularly if democracy and equal rights were being pursued by nonviolent means. No one anywhere could easily do so. The writing would be on the wall, and the clock would be running out on the tired game of using a perpetual "peace process" as an excuse to delay decisions (while building more "facts on the ground") forever.

Democracy and equal rights would not come quickly or easily. Forty years passed between when, on the night before his assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King cried out that he had been to the mountaintop and had seen the promised land and when Barack Obama was elected as president of the United States. (The Bible suggests a similar waiting period in the wilderness for Moses.) Forty-six years passed between the installation of a formal apartheid regime in South Africa and the election of Nelson Mandela as president of a fully democratic and nonracist "rainbow nation".

While it may be hoped that the transformation would be significantly quicker in Israel/Palestine, it is clear that many who already qualify as "senior citizens" will not live to see the promised land. However, if the promised land of a democratic state with equal rights for all is correctly and clearly perceived and persistently and peacefully pursued, there is ample reason for confidence that Israel/Palestine will one day experience the tearful exaltation of a "Mandela Moment" or an "Obama Moment", restoring hope in the moral potential both of a nation and of mankind, and that the xxxs, Muslims and Christians who live there will finally reach their promised land.

John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, is author of "The World According to Whitbeck".

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510304