Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search Malaysiawaves

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Revolusi Islam Iran Adalah Tajaan Yahudi Utk Gagalkan Program Nuklear Iran

Revolusi Islam Iran adalah revolusi tajaan Yahudi utk mengagalkan program nuklear Iran di bawah Syah Iran.

Presiden Gerald Ford mengeluarkan arahan supaya syarikat2 Nuklear Amerika memberi sepenuh bantuan kepada program nuklear Syah Iran pada tahun 1976.

Ini kerana Gerald Ford juga anti Yahudi dan Anti Israel.

Hasilnya Gerald Ford kalah pilihanraya Presiden tahun 1977 kerana lobi Israel berkempen kuat utk Jimmy Carter.

Inii lah sebabnya Yahudi Iran menaja dan menjayakan Revolusi Islam Iran.

Lagipun, ulama2 Syiah di Qom itu semua geng mereka pun Alasan Syah adalah sekularis tak masuk akal sbb ulama2 Syiah Iran semua mengamalkan mutaah.

Hari2 diorang tukar bini. Lagi handal dari sekularis.

Kalau tiada Revolusi Iran, hari ni barang2 yg kita pakai majoriti akan tulis "Made in Iran" dan bukannya "Made in China"


Presiden Gerald Ford telah mengarahkan syarikat2 nuklear Amerika membantu program nuklear Iran pada tahun 1976.

Gerald Ford dianggap Presiden yg anti Yahudi dan anti Israel.

Maka, utk menghalang program nuklear Iran dari terus dibantu oleh Amerika, maka Yahudi2 Iran telah mencetus Revolusi Islam Iran pada tahun 1979.

Kalau tidak ada revolusi, skrg ini Iran telah menjadi negara maju dan barang2 yg kita guna skrg ni majoriti "Made In Iran" dan bukan "Made in China".


Revolusi Islam Iran adalah tajaan Yahudi Iran utk menghalang Iran dari menjadi negara nuklear.

Mengikut laporan Washington Post, pada tahun 1976 Presiden Gerald Ford telah meluluskan permohonan Iran untuk membina loji nuklear sekaligus memiliki sepenuhnya teknoloji membuat bom.

Gerald Ford sememangnya Presiden yg dikenali membenci Israel. Malahan, beliau kalah dlm pilihanraya Presiden kerana sikap anti Israel beliau.

Maka, tahun 1979 Revolusi Islam Iran diadakan oleh Yahudi Iran utk mengagalkan program nuklear tersebut.

TULANG BESI tidak bertanggungjawab di atas setiap pandangan dan pendapat yang diutarakan melalui laman sosial dan halaman komen blog ini. Ia adalah pandangan peribadi pemilik akaun dan tidak semestinya menggambarkan pandangan dan pendirian blog ini                 

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15
Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. companies, including Westinghouse and General Electric, scrambled to do business there.

"I don't think the issue of proliferation came up," Henry A. Kissinger, who was Ford's secretary of state, said in an interview for this article.

The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb.

After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.

That is precisely the ability the current administration is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring today.

"If we were facing an Iran with a reprocessing capability today, we would be even more concerned about their ability to use plutonium in a nuclear weapon," said Corey Hinderstein, a nuclear specialist with the Institute for Science and International Security. "These facilities are well understood and can be safeguarded, but it would provide another nuclear option for Iran."

Nuclear experts believe the Ford strategy was a mistake. As Iran went from friend to foe, it became clear to subsequent administrations that Tehran should be prevented from obtaining the technologies for building weapons. But that is not the argument the Bush administration is making. Such an argument would be unpopular among parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which guarantees members access to nuclear power regardless of their political systems.

The U.S.-Iran deal was shelved when the shah was toppled in the 1979 revolution that led to the taking of American hostages and severing of diplomatic relations.

Despite the changes in Iran, now run by a clerical government, the country's public commitment to nuclear power and its insistence on the legal right to develop it have remained the same. Iranian officials reiterated the position last week at a conference on nuclear energy in Paris.

Mohammad Saeidi, a vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told the conference that Iran was determined to develop nuclear power since oil and natural gas supplies were limited.

U.S. involvement with Iran's nuclear program until 1979, which accompanied large-scale intelligence-sharing and conventional weapons sales, highlights the boomerang in U.S. foreign policy. Even with many key players in common, the U.S. government has taken opposite positions on questions of fact as its perception of U.S. interests has changed.

Using arguments identical to those made by the shah 30 years ago, Iran says its nuclear program is essential to meet growing energy requirements, and is not intended for bombs. Tehran revived the program in secret, its officials say, to prevent the United States from trying to stop it. Iran's account is under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is trying to determine whether Iran also has a parallel nuclear weapons program.

Since the energy program was exposed, in 2002, the Bush administration has alternately said that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program or wants one. Without being able to prove those claims, the White House has made its case by implication, beginning with the point that Iran has ample oil reserves for its energy needs.

Ford's team commended Iran's decision to build a massive nuclear energy industry, noting in a declassified 1975 strategy paper that Tehran needed to "prepare against the time -- about 15 years in the future -- when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."

Estimates of Iran's oil reserves were smaller then than they are now, but energy experts and U.S. intelligence estimates continue to project that Iran will need an alternative energy source in the coming decades. Iran's population has more than doubled since the 1970s, and its energy demands have increased even more.

The Ford administration -- in which Cheney succeeded Rumsfeld as chief of staff and Wolfowitz was responsible for nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency -- continued intense efforts to supply Iran with U.S. nuclear technology until President Jimmy Carter succeeded Ford in 1977.

That history is absent from major Bush administration speeches, public statements and news conferences on Iran.

In an opinion piece on Iran in The Post on March 9, Kissinger wrote that "for a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources." White House spokesman Scott McClellan cited the article during a news briefing, saying that it reflected the administration's current thinking on Iran.

In 1975, as secretary of state, Kissinger signed and circulated National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the administration's negotiating strategy for the sale of nuclear energy equipment projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels of oil a day, compared with an average of about 4 million barrels daily today.

The shah, who referred to oil as "noble fuel," said it was too valuable to waste on daily energy needs. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Asked why he reversed his opinion, Kissinger responded with some surprise during a brief telephone interview. After a lengthy pause, he said: "They were an allied country, and this was a commercial transaction. We didn't address the question of them one day moving toward nuclear weapons."

Charles Naas, who was deputy U.S. ambassador to Iran in the 1970s, said proliferation was high in the minds of technical experts, "but the nuclear deal was attractive in terms of commerce, and the relationship as a whole was very important."

Documents show that U.S. companies, led by Westinghouse, stood to gain $6.4 billion from the sale of six to eight nuclear reactors and parts. Iran was also willing to pay an additional $1 billion for a 20 percent stake in a private uranium enrichment facility in the United States that would supply much of the uranium to fuel the reactors.

Naas said Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all were in positions to play significant roles in Iran policy then, "but in those days, you have to view Kissinger as the main figure." Requests for comment from the offices of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld went unanswered.

"It is absolutely incredible that the very same players who made those statements then are making completely the opposite ones now," said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Do they remember that they said this? Because the Iranians sure remember that they said it," said Cirincione, who just returned from a nuclear conference in Tehran -- a rare trip for U.S. citizens now.

In what Cirincione described as "the worst idea imaginable," the Ford administration at one point suggested joint Pakistani-Iranian reprocessing as a way of promoting "nonproliferation in the region," because it would cut down on the need for additional reprocessing facilities.

Gary Sick, who handled nonproliferation issues under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, said the entire deal was based on trust. "That's the bottom line."

"The shah made a big convincing case that Iran was going to run out of gas and oil and they had a growing population and a rapidly increasing demand for energy," Sick said. "The mullahs make the same argument today, but we don't trust them."

Researcher Robert E. Thomason and staff writer Justin Blum contributed to this report.
Read more!(Selanjutnya)
Share on whatsapp

Thursday, December 8, 2016


Tulang Besi merujuk kepada Dokumen Hijau PAS yg dikatakan memberi penyelesaian kepada masalah ekonomi Malaysia.

Ia diterbitkan sebagai membuktikan bahwa PAS sekarang ini mengambil gagasan matang dan sejahtera dan tidak membangkang semata-mata.

Kononnya PAS mampu memberi cadangan dan unjuran yang membantu menyelesaikan masalah Malaysia.

Namun, bila dirujuk Dokumen Hijau dibawah, PAS mencadangkan supaya dikenakan "Tax on Share Trading Gain" utk mengganti GST, maka terserlah ketidak mampuan PAS menjadi pencadang yang berjaya.

Pertamanya, terma "Tax on Share Trading Gain" tak wujud. Yang wujud adalah "Capital Gain Tax"

Keduanya, cadangan ini tidak boleh dilaksana di MAlaysia kerana negara jiran kita Singapore juga tidak mengenakan cukai ke atas keuntungan yg diperolehi dari pasaran saham.

Sekiranya dilakasa CGT ini pasaran saham Malaysia akan merudum. Pelabur2 asing akan cepat2 keluar dari Malaysia dan pindah ke Singapura.

Ketiganya, penurunan index pasaran saham Malaysia akan berlaku secara drastik sekiranya cukai ini dilaksanakan dan ia akan menyebabkan "snowball effect" yang bakal memberi kesan negatif kepada sektor2 ekonomi yang lain.

Hasilnya, Malaysia akan menghadapi kegawatan ekonomi yang agak serius dan boleh membawa kepada "recession" dan "depression"

Ini kerana index pasaran saham adalah antara tandaaras utama bagi semua pelabur seluruh dunia. Kejatuhan index yang serius akan menyebabkan pelabur2 keluar dari Malaysia secara drastik.

Keempatnya, pelabur2 tempatan juga akan menarik pelaburan dari pasaran saham kerana bagi mereka tidak lagi berbaloi mengambil risiko bergelut dalam pasaran saham.

Lebih baik mereka letak wang mereka dalam FD atau Simpanan sahaja yang berisiko rendah.

Perlu diingat melabur dalam pasaran saham adalah tindakan yang berisiko tinggi maka mereka memerlukan pulangan yang tinggi.

Kelimanya, syarikat2 pelaburan yang selama ini berpengkalan di Malaysia akan lari ke Singapura dan meninggalkan ramai pekerja2 kita di Malaysia menganggur.

Maka, bertambahlah lagi orang miskin di Malaysia.

Keenamnya, tujuan cukai ini dicadangkan oleh parti lebai adalah untuk mengambil kekayaan orang kaya sedikit dan diberikan kepada yang miskin.

Ini selaras dengan kefahaman mereka terhadap ayat Quran Al Harsy:7 yg berbunyi, antara lainnya:

مَّآ أَفَآءَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِۦ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْقُرَىٰ فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِى ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ وَٱلْيَتَمَىٰ وَٱلْمَسَكِينِ وَٱبْنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ كَىْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةًۢ بَيْنَ ٱلْأَغْنِيَآءِ مِنكُمْ ۚ وَمَآ ءَاتَىٰكُمُ ٱلرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَىٰكُمْ عَنْهُ فَٱنتَهُوا۟ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ 
"...(ketetapan yang demikian) supaya harta2 itu tidak berlegar di kalangan orang2 kaya di kalangan kamu......"

Mereka menggunakan ayat2 Quran untuk menutup kepincangan rancangan ekonomi mereka.

Pengikut2 PAS sudah tidak mempersoalkan lagi kandungan dokumen tersebut apabila dokumen tersebut dibuka dengan ayat Quran.

Padahalnya cadangan dalam Dokumen tersebut boleh membawa bencana yang amat besar kepada Malaysia.

Cadangan mereka hanya akan menambah bilangan orang2 miskin dan bukannya membantu berkongsi kekayaan antara miskin dan kaya.

Kesimpulannya, parti lebai tak faham bagaimana hendak mentadbir negara.

Kalau pentadbiran diberi pada parti lebai, hancur lebur Malaysia ni dan lagi ramai orang Melayu Islam merempat hidup di tepi jalan.

TULANG BESI tidak bertanggungjawab di atas setiap pandangan dan pendapat yang diutarakan melalui laman sosial dan halaman komen blog ini. Ia adalah pandangan peribadi pemilik akaun dan tidak semestinya menggambarkan pandangan dan pendirian blog iniAnd here is the rest of it.
Read more!(Selanjutnya)
Share on whatsapp

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Skandal Seks Pemimpin2 Ulama PAS - WAJIB SUMPAH!!!!

Tampaknya bertali arus khabar berkenaan skandal2 seks pemimpin2 PAS.

Mula2 ada video seks yg jelas, terang, berwarna warni, ada suara dan sebagainya.

Walaupun telah dinafi tapi masih tidak boleh hilang stigma nya

Skrg ada screenshot chatting sex melalui aplikasi messenger oleh seorang Ketua Dewan Ulama Ngeri merangkap AJK Ulama Pusat dan AJK PAS Pusat.

Semuanya ada bukti jelas dan terang nyata.

Maka, kalau mereka2 ini mahu menafikannya eloklah mereka bersumpah laknat supaya isu2 ini dapat diberhentikan sama sekali.

Tampaknya ketua ulama Pahang tu cuma kata dia difitnah.

Tapi agak sukar utk membuat dakwaan tersebut kerana akaun FB tidak mudah di"hijack" atau di "hack" sekarang ini.

Kalau tiada sumpah bermaksud ulama2 PAS ni mcm orang biasa juga.

Terdedah dgn godaan iblis dan syaitan.

Maka, pendapat dan kenyataan mereka tidak jauh beza dengan pendapat2 orang biasa.

Maka, tak perlulah dijulang mereka ini sebagai waris kepada para anbiya.

Ulama2 PAS bukan waris para anbiyya.

Mereka cuma ada ilmu agama lebih sedikit dari kita semua.

Atas sebab itu, Imam Ghazali dalam Al Ihya membahagi ulama kepada dua:

a. Ulama jahat
b. Ulama Akhirat

Yg menjadi pimpinan kita adalah ulama Akhirat.

Ulama Jahat pula taraf mereka lebih rendah dari haiwan.

TULANG BESI tidak bertanggungjawab di atas setiap pandangan dan pendapat yang diutarakan melalui laman sosial dan halaman komen blog ini. Ia adalah pandangan peribadi pemilik akaun dan tidak semestinya menggambarkan pandangan dan pendirian blog iniAnd here is the rest of it.
Read more!(Selanjutnya)
Share on whatsapp

ARiF merupakan jentera utama Harapan Baru di dalam membantu kelancaran gerakerja semua peringkat.

Kami ARiF Melaka memerlukan sumbangan dan bantuan kewangan daripada tuanpuan untuk kami melakukan gerakerja berkenaan. Oleh kerana kami masih baru, sumbangan diperlukan untuk menampung kos pakaian, membeli peralatan komunikasi, peralatan lalulintas dan sebagainya.

Kami amat berbebsar hati jika tuan/puan dapat menghulurkan sumangan kepada kami. Segala sumbangan diserahkan kepada pemegang amanah ARiF Melaka.

a/k Maybank : 104013154427

Hantarkan makluman bank-in melalui SMS/WA ke 016-981 1315 (H.ANUAR)

Semuga Allah membalas segala jasa baik tuan/puan semua.