Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf urged global audiences to read three UN reports on Zionist war crimes, stating that awareness is a vital part of resistance and key to understanding why Iran fights for humanity.
Proletariat Blogging in the Heart of (UK) Predatory Capitalism! Exploring the Interface between Matter and Perception, Chinese Buddhism, Daoism, Hakka Ethnography, and All Aspects of Radical Politics, History, Psychology and Philosophy – 全世界无产者联合起来!
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf urged global audiences to read three UN reports on Zionist war crimes, stating that awareness is a vital part of resistance and key to understanding why Iran fights for humanity.
The US representative, Dan Negrea, claimed that the resolution was “highly problematic in countless respects”, the UN News agency reported.
The US government stressed that it “does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred”.
The representative of the European Union made the same argument on the floor of the UN.
The EU criticized the resolution for implying “suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law”.
“References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis”, the EU argued, stressing that the “principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld”.
The UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office said the same, in a statement explaining its decision to abstain.
The British representative argued that there is “no duty to provide reparation for historical acts that were not, at the time those acts were committed, violations of international law”.
The UK insisted “that the prohibitions on slavery, the slave trade, and what are now considered crimes against humanity had not yet been established in international law at the time of the transatlantic slave trade”.
Quite often a religion takes on the prevailing manifestation of the society it inhabits – this explains the totalitarian nature of the Christian Church (and the monastery) which is premised upon a hierarchical feudal society administered by an absolute monarch. Zulu religion reflected the warrior culture that Shaka Zulu created (premised upon past tribal conventions with new innovations). Tribes in the Amazon possess religious beliefs that reflect the forest, etc. Religion is reactionary and can only orientate itself existentially – promising the adherent that some type of ethereal “escape” is possible (a claim that is never proven). It is fascinating that the religionists compound their illogicality by assuming that monotheism is an improvement upon polytheism. Really? At least if a tree is worshipped – the tree actually exists and is a material object existing in the physical world. Of course, religions can be studied and understood (as a type of history) – but such a researcher must not fall into the mire of religiosity. Such a researcher must not get high on his own supply – or get caught sipping his own bar supplies. What I find interesting about Iranian ideology is that it talks about opposing capitalism – whilst practicing capitalism within its society. Capitalism has not be over-thrown in Iran – only moulded to fit an Islamicist theism. Where, then, is the “Revolution”? It would seem that this refers to rejecting the Western imperialism projected into Iran (by the West) – and replacing it (or re-establishing) Islam (which is the right of the Iranian people). But consider this, Iran has a pre-history of thousands of years that was not Islamic – but polytheistic. Indeed, it was this astonishing culture that ruled a huge empire – the soldiers of which fought the Spartans at Thermopylae. Iran possessed a great culture prior to the rise of Islam – but this is denied or portrayed as an “error” by the theology extracted from the Holy Qur’an. How can this attitude be logical or true?
I have written about Aaron Bushnell – indeed, I have seen the full video. He showed remarkable courage as the flames rip through his body – and despite screaming from the immense pain, he still possessed the strength of character to shout “Free Palestine!” once or twice more before the flames burnt through his mouth and nose-area. Even before that, I suspect he was breathing fire down into his lungs as the air disappeared in the combustion. When I was on Facebook many moons ago – I remember joining the Rachel Corrie page administered by her family. I read about how the Israelis deliberated ran her-over using a bulldozer or tractor – crushing her to death. Rachel was trying to defend the homes of Palestinians being destroyed by the Settler-State.
And why exactly are NATO countries up here giving us sanctimonious speeches about human rights while turning a blind eye to the Zionist genocide in Gaza? Who do they think they are to stand here and talk about justice?
We will not allow nations to silence us when, for them, human rights are nothing but a bargaining chip and a foreign policy weapon. We have no intention of listening to people who use human rights as a tool of war — while their own hands are stained with the blood of Palestinians and Iranians, something they somehow keep conveniently forgetting.
And we will not rest until every country here is treated by the same standard. Until hypocrisy is dragged into the light and disgraced. Until genocide is confronted. And until peace reigns not just in words, but in reality.
Of course, this religious approach to science (origin from essence) assumes that the past does not really exist as developed science has proven theology not to be true. Religion responds by declaring science false and ignores its findings about how evolution has been driven by the agency of global warming-cooling and climate change. What humanity is today owes its existence to the most tumultuous episodes of climate change – which is healthy in a well-functioning biosphere. But hold on one moment, what am I missing? Yes – it is the “holier than thou” attitude that is emanating from these German articles – all neatly held together by the attractive wrapping-paper of hypocrisy. Whilst it is okay for pieces of projected, hot German metal to rip the bodies of Palestinians apart – it is not okay for the hot German sun to melt a mountainside full of snow – because such an event would inconvenience the holiday plans of the bourgeoisie. Why not let the Christians speak for themselves?