Iran auf der Generalversammlung der Uno

Anlaß, aufmerksam zu lesen,

was wird wirklich gesagt

Zur Erinnerung

2010 hielt der damalige Praesident des Iran in der UNO eine Rede, wurde jedoch verfaelscht zitiert

Deutsche Journalisten warfen ihm Rechtsextremismus vor, der in der Rede gar nicht vorkam

Das was wirklich gesagt wurde, kann man lesen unter folgender ulr

Bereits zwei Jahre zuvor wurden dem Iranischen Praesidenten Saetze angekreidet, die er nie gesagt hatte, wie die Süddeutsche Zeitung feststellte:

"Katajun Amirpur / SZ: Der iranische Schlüsselsatz · Kein Satz wird so häufig mit dem amtierenden Präsidenten Irans, Mahmud Ahmadinedschad, assoziiert wie dieser: Israel muss von der Landkarte radiert werden. Das Problem ist nur — er hat diesen Satz nie gesagt. · 26.3.2008″

Aus diesem Grund schrieb ich am Mo, 4.10.2010, 11:46 einen Artikel in Form eines Offenen Briefs, der nie veröffentlicht wurde

Die jetzige UNO—Rede ist Anlaß, den Artikel online zu stellen

auf das gelesen werde

Open Letter

For mutual understanding – Against

spin-doctors in East and West

H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Dear Sirs,

With amazement I took the opportunity to read

today your speech before the
65 th session of the UN General Assembly.

Since then I am wondering how to
explain the discrepency between the articles I

read commenting and
referring to your speech and the text itself;

given that it was the
original. The questions you are raising as far

as the approach to an
investigation of the terror attack on

September 11 th is concerned seem to
be more than sensible to me. So why should

anybody oppose this? Would you
know of malpractises within such conferences

such as biased parties
pretending to leak parts of a speech wheras

the actual information is
different? Taking into account that the

original speech might not be
available? But if so: I tried to obtain the

original English full length
version of your speech; it is not until now

that I received one
(unfortunately I am not able to speak Farsi)

wouldn´t you regard it as
wise to publish the full speech online on the

homepages of the Embassies
of your country so that interested people

receive the opportunity to read?
Or would you like to test how many are

actively asking for it? How many
citizens are already suspicious about

reportings about instead of checking
with facts.
The English translation resp. Version leads to

the question whether you
are citing US politicians who are expressing

the viewpoint that “some
segments within the U.S. government

orchestrated the attack” in order to
demonstrate that this viewpoint is even part

of the US culture of freedom
of speech and of commonly accepted points of

view? Did you want to cite
these point of views in order to express that

you are sharing the same
thoughts as (some) Americans do? Or the

contrary? Would you like to
express that you don´t share this point of

view at all? Would you like to
invite for a real independant fact-finding

mission in the original sense
of the wording?
Please allow to express that I disagree with

you as far as your praising
of nuclear energy is concerned – but even

then; maybe this was an ironic
remark from your part? As the environmental

damage by civil nuclear energy
is to be observed within the US as well.
I would like to close my remark by referring

to the sometimes unholy but
essential effect of semantics: First: people

react in a negative manner as
soon as the word zion is used as it reminds of

right-wing extremism. As I
found my guts feeling to be right as far as

the reporting about your
speech versus the real content is concerned, I

decided to look up whether
this connotation might be a distortion of the

original meaning and was
even more amazed to find the confirmation in

wikipedia. It is there that I
learned that in the literal sense it stands

for the capital Jerusalem and
for the country Israel itself. Is it this what

you wanted to express with
your speech? Did you referr to the word as a

synoynm for longing for
freedom? If so it would be cruel to find out

how the sense was dierected
into the opposite.
And maybe it would be a topic for the next

speech to cite from the modern
encyclopedia wikipedia: “The Jewish longing

for Zion, starting with the
deportation and enslavement of Jews during the

Babylonian captivity, was
adopted as a metaphor by Christian Black

slaves in the United States, and
after the Civil War by blacks who were still

oppressed. Thus, Zion
symbolizes a longing by wandering peoples for

a safe homeland.”
Such a speech could lead to true understanding

by amazement, could trigger
off a debate about effects of semantics and

maybe function as a lesson in
healthy mistrust as far as spin-doctors are

concerned and replace it by an
example of media competence.

What is more: You said: “And the people free

from selfishness will take up
the management of the world. Then, there will

be no trace of sorrow,
discrimination, poverty, insecurity and
aggression.” Attention! This might be as well

the sign for dictatorship.
If true freedom will be fulfilled on earth

there should be no suppression,
no sorrow, no poverty, discrimination, nor

aggression or insecurity. But
in a country where you can´t see any sign of

this: be beware! This might
be a dictatorship. Because when there is no

trace, no proof to be seen,
then oppression would be perfect. When

suppression of every trace of
suppression will have succeeded revolt against

it will be difficult. Then
it would be a regime of prozac, psyop and

spin-doctors´  speech.
Maybe it is this that you wanted to hint at?

Without stirring up further
uproar. In order to not violate the feelings

of the victims ot the terror
attack. But at the same time indicating that

there might have been
warnings beforehand? Such as concerning

attacks against oil platforms
(Ensco) in spring time 2001 are concerned? And

as not one single media did
report about the actual situation those

responsible for carrying out the
attacks decided to visualize the danger – for

which reasons and by whom is
stil and more than ever before to be find out.

Thank you very much indeed for taking your

time in order to read what I
wrote; a German citizen and freelance


Yours sincerely,
Susanne Härpfer


Dear sirs

Your exellency

On your homepage I read the following article

stating that

» An Iranian senior army commander said on Saturday that the country is ready to give a tooth-breaking response to any threat.
Remarks of the Commander of Iranian Army Ground Forces Brigadier-General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan came on the verge of April 18, when Iran is to mark Day of Army.
Pourdastan had already said, „Iran is to show some of its army’s newest equipment on April 18, to make Iranian nation sure that there is a mighty and prepared army in the country and send a message to foreigners to put aside vain thought of aggression against Iran.“
„Today, army of the Islamic Republic of Iran has created required potentials and capabilities through full understanding of threats,“ Pourdastan added.
„Today, use of domesticated modern weapons and equipments and advanced tactics and techniques has turned Islamic Republic of Iran’s army into a mighty army which is able to arrive everywhere in any weather condition to carry out missions,“ Pourdastan continued.
He also added, „a massive potential (army) stands by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to give a tooth-breaking response to any threat.“

Does this imply the use of tooth-breaking technology such as technology based on directed energy, ray gun, rail gun, electromagnetic pulse/wave and if so against whom where against which countries under which circumstances has it been used already? by whom financed by whom? How does it work? How does it function? Are visuals available of the technical functioning principle of the apparatus? Which further information would you regard as valuable?