Skip to comments.
Iranian Alert -- November 6, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST
The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^
Posted on 11/06/2003 12:19:51 AM PST by DoctorZIn
The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year. But most Americans are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.
There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. Starting June 10th of this year, Iranians have begun taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy. Many even want the US to over throw their government.
The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.
In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.
This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.
I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.
If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.
If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.
PS I have a daily ping list and a breaking news ping list. If you would like to receive alerts to these stories please let me know which list you would like to join.
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iaea; iran; iranianalert; protests; southasia; studentmovement; studentprotest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
posted on 11/06/2003 12:19:52 AM PST
To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
posted on 11/06/2003 12:23:19 AM PST
Amir Taheri: Thanks to EU, Iran is clawing its way into the nuclear club
Gulf News | 06-11-2003
Remember you first read it here. Iran is now on course to force its way into the nuclear club within the next two to three years. When it does, it will owe part of its success to a European Union diplomatic manoeuvre that has spared Iran the prospect of direct confrontation over its illicit nuclear programme, with the international community.
The manoeuvre, which led to the signature of a memorandum between the Islamic Republic and three European Union members in October, appears to have defused the latest crisis. As things stand it is almost certain that the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, will soft pedal the procedure that could have led to a confrontation between Tehran and the United Nations over Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The European Union initiative has exacted no more than a vague promise from the leadership in Tehran to temporarily halt a secret project to enrich uranium and produce plutonium.
The temporary halt, if it does materialise, may be partly linked to Iranian domestic politics than a sudden desire on the part of the Khomeinist regime to honour the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, NPT.
Iran is already in a campaign mode in anticipation of the general election next March. A foreign policy crisis at this time could upset the plans of the establishment that appears determined to purge the so-called reformist faction and impose a "Chinese-style" system of political repression and economic opening.
The establishment feared that the nuclear issue might force the EU to line up behind the tougher Iran policy preached by certain elements in the Bush administration. Playing the European card against Washington is an old and tested tactic of the Khomeinist regime.
Tehran used it in the 1980s by seizing and then liberating European hostages in exchange for pledges by the European powers not to join US-imposed sanctions against Iran. In the 1990s Tehran used the same tactic by tempting European oil companies with mouth-watering oil and gas contracts.
One other factor may have contributed to Tehran's decision to play the European card again. The choice of Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights lawyer as this year's Nobel Peace laureate, is seen in Tehran as a signal that Europe's "soft powers" may have signalled their readiness to help provide a "soft" face for the opposition against the Khomeinist regime.
Such an opposition could make it easier for the European powers to win the support of their own public opinion for a policy of regime change in Tehran. Thus the piece of paper that Tehran has just signed with three European foreign ministers is unlikely to affect the Khomeinist regime's strategy of building a capacity to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons within the next two to three years.
There is little doubt that the Europeans know this. (They cannot be as naive as not to know after a quarter of a century of dealing with an unusually duplicitous regime.) So why did the three European wise men, travelling west to east, agree to take part in a manoeuvre to get the Khomeinist regime off the hook? Each of the three had his reason.
France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is desperately looking for any opportunity to show that Paris still has a say in the Middle East's complex politics. He would love to be able to claim that his "soft power" diplomacy did in Iran what the American "hard power" tried to do against Saddam Hussain in Iraq and, according to de Villepin, failed.
German Foreign Minister Joshcka Fischer, the second member of the wise trio, had a slightly different motive. Wile continuing his country's close alliance with France, Fischer is also anxious to avoid a situation in which Berlin finds itself alone with Paris.
The presence of the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in the trio helps Fischer avoid such a situation. At the same time Fischer would be able to tell the German public that the Schroeder government is still capable of playing a role in diffusing regional crises.
Change of occupant
Fischer and de Villepin also harbour the hope of seeing a change of occupant at the White House in 2005. Straw's motives are equally complicated. In his heart of hearts he knows that the only language that the Khomienists understand and respect is that of force.
But he also knows that Tony Blair's government is passing through its worst crisis since it first came to power in 1997. At a moment of crisis over Iran, Blair might find himself facing a choice he wishes to avoid: parting ways with the Americans or risking a political revolt within his Cabinet.
All this means is that the Khomeinist regime may well get yet another chance to have its cake and eat it. As already indicated by Hassan Ruhani, a mullah who speaks for the High Council of National security in Tehran, Iran's determination to dot itself with "the entire range of nuclear science and technology at all levels".
Iran's nuclear programme started in 1956. The strategic decision to develop nuclear weapons was taken in 1989. The regime has spent an estimated $12 billion on all aspects of this ambitious programme so far. It is not something that Tehran will give up after a session of tea and sympathy with the EU trio.
Amir Taheri, Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe and can be contacted at his e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=102165
posted on 11/06/2003 12:24:44 AM PST
To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
posted on 11/06/2003 12:25:24 AM PST
Bush to urge democratic change in Middle East
Reuters - World News
Nov 5, 2003
WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush will call for democracy across the Middle East on Thursday and cite a failure of U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom, U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said.
The speech will mark Bush's latest attempt to offer a justification for the war in Iraq as necessary to jump-start democracy in the region at a time when he is under fire for mounting U.S. casualties there and as anti-Americanism spreads among many Muslims who feel Islam is under attack.
In remarks that could raise concerns among some nondemocratic leaders in the region, Bush will mark the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, a group founded in 1983 following an impassioned call by President Ronald Reagan for renewed efforts to promote global democracy.
Rice told a group of reporters on Wednesday that most of Bush's speech would be about "the new opportunity for a forward strategy for freedom in the Middle East."
Bush has often talked about his hopes that democracy in Iraq would foster a democratic movement in the Middle East, and his new speech appeared to amount to a final break with past U.S. policy of not pushing some governments to adopt democratic institutions.
"After 60 years of trying to find stability through regimes that were not devoted to political liberty for their people, what we found is that we did not buy security and stability, but rather frustration and pent-up emotions in a region that has fallen behind in terms of prosperity and in fact continues to produce ideologies of hatred," Rice said.
Bush will not call for Western-style democracies to take root in the area, pointing out that modernization in the sense of political and economic freedom is not synonymous with westernization, in answer to the mullahs who denounce western influences.
"This is not the United States doing something to this region. This is a region in which the stirrings are really quite clear .... You could never, as the United States, decide, 'all right, this region now needs to pursue freedom.' But the people of the region are clamoring for it," Rice said.
She would not say which countries in the region Bush would single out as needing democracy, but the United States has often expressed concern about Syria and Iran.
Syria on Wednesday said its relations with the United States were at their most negative point in years and blamed U.S. policy in the Middle East for the deterioration in ties.
Washington has been at odds with Iran over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration also wants Iran to turn over to Washington a number of al Qaeda members Iran says it is holding.
Rice said Bush would praise those Middle Eastern states whose democratic evolution is in development, such as three ruled by royal families, Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
A difficult case is U.S. ally Egypt, recipient of $2 billion in U.S. assistance each year. Egypt's government lacks democratic credentials, but there have been efforts to reform the political system and take steps toward democratization. http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_3399.shtml
posted on 11/06/2003 12:46:42 AM PST
World court to rule on US-Iran row over war-hit oil rigs
Thursday, November 06, 2003
THE HAGUE, Nov 5 (AFP) - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to rule Thursday on a long-running row between Tehran and its arch-foe Washington over the US destruction of oil platforms during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
The case, in which Iran is demanding unspecified damages, is a potential source of embarrassment for the United States as it recalls the close ties ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime once enjoyed with Washington.
Iran filed a complaint in 1992 with the ICJ, the United Nation's highest judicial body, arguing that the destruction of three oil rigs violated a 1955 friendship treaty between the two countries -- even though diplomatic ties were severed after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.
Tehran, one of the world's top oil producers, argues that the attack on the rigs in 1987 and 1988 hurt its oil exports.
It wants the court to order the United states to "make full reparation to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations and the injury thus caused in a form and amount to be determined by the court".
The United States has filed a countersuit also seeking unspecified damages, claiming that Iran had violated the same treaty by attacking vessels and laying mines in the Gulf.
Both sides presented their arguments in February, with cases before the court frequently taking years to be determined.
Iran said the United States, which led the war that ousted Saddam's regime in April this year, had not been neutral during the Iran-Iraq conflict and had even supplied Baghdad with chemical and biological weapons.
Lawyers for Washington argued that the United States remained neutral during the eight-year war, which cost at least one million lives, because defending its own security interests did not affect its neutrality. http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=19424&NewsKind=Business%20%26%20Economy
posted on 11/06/2003 1:15:24 AM PST
by F14 Pilot
"No political cooperation between Moqdata Sadr, Iran"
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
BEIRUT, Nov 5 (AFP) - Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr said there is no political coordination between him and Iran, while also indirectly criticizing anti-US attacks, in a interview published Wednesday.
"There is no political coordination with Iran's leaders whatsoever," Sadr told the Lebanese daily As-Safir.
"Rumors on the existence of such relation only aim to equate us with Lebanon's Hezbollah (Shiite fundamentalist group), and then point a finger at us so that local and foreign forces turn against us," he added.
Iran is a predominantly Shiite country and, along with Syria, is a backer of Hezbollah.
Since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in April, US and British officials have fired off a string of allegations against Iran for allegedly undermining post-war reconstruction efforts.
In particular, coalition forces point to what they say is Iran's support for Shiite militia groups as particular cause for concern.
On Sunday, Iran's foreign ministry repeated denials that Tehran was allowing anti-US and British fighters to cross from its soil into Iraq.
Sadr also criticized anti-American attacks, saying "the end result in the last six months is not worth the damage caused to people."
"Besides, the fact that the resistance's goals and those of its supporters are unclear gives rise to suspicions," he told the paper.
"The resistance's weakness and the fact that it is limited to certain geographical areas have given it a particular political hue that does not represent all Iraqis," said the firebrand cleric.
The majority of attacks carried out against the US-led coalition, which has been administering Iraq since last April, have been concentrated in and around Baghdad as well as in Sunni areas in the north-central part of the country.
"Our choice is to struggle pacifically and legally so as to obtain a withdrawal timetable and be able to choose a national government that represents our people," he said.
Asked about squirmishes between his followers and US troops, he said "the occupation forces have attacked some of our offices and forcefully dispersed peaceful demonstrations."
Sadr issued a statement Monday calling for US troops in Iraq to unite with the Iraqi people to avoid "spilling blood."
"It is important to avoid spilling blood, aggression, wars and terrorism to sanctify the fraternity between the two peoples," read the statement obtained by AFP. http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=19421&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
posted on 11/06/2003 1:17:25 AM PST
by F14 Pilot
To: F14 Pilot
So, there are no political coordination between Moqdata "the thug" Sadr and Iran?
Iran greets Iraqi Shia militant
By Sadeq Saba
BBC Iranian analyst
The Iranian Government has invited a militant Iraqi Shia leader, Moqtada Sadr, to the country despite warnings from the US that Iran should stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.
The US is concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq
The official Iranian news agency said Mr Sadr was visiting Iran to take part in a ceremony to mark the anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic regime.
But there are far wider political implications.
Mr Sadr is one of the most radical Shia clerics in Iraq.
Unlike most other Islamic leaders, he has defended the idea of an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq.
In his Friday sermons at the Kufa mosque near Najaf, he has repeatedly called for a ban on alcohol and for the veiling of women.
Such statements are music to the ears of Iran's ruling clerics.
[Mr Sadr's] visit to Iran could also mean that the Iranian Government is trying to unite Iraq's rival Shia groups to enable them to have more influence in their country
Iraqis fear rise of clerics
His armed group, known as Jamaat al-Sadr al-Thani, is believed to have been behind several anti-American demonstrations in Baghdad.
Moqtada Sadr's followers were blamed for the killing in April of a leading Shia cleric, Abdul Majid al-Khoei - a charge he strongly denies.
His group again angered the Shia community by surrounding the house of Iraq's most senior Shia cleric, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, ordering him either to pledge allegiance to their leader or leave the country.
Mr Sadr, who is only about 30 years old, is influenced by Ayatollah Kazem Haeri, a conservative cleric based in the Iranian Shia centre of Qom.
Mr Sadr's visit to Iran could provide further reason for Washington to suspect that Iran is seeking to undermine its military presence in Iraq by supporting militant anti-American clerics.
Mr Sadr has already met Iran's powerful former President, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and the official Iranian news agency has praised him as one of the most influential Iraqi clerics.
The Sadr group has been at odds with another Iraqi Shia organisation, the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
So his visit to Iran could also mean that the Iranian Government is trying to unite Iraq's rival Shia groups to enable them to have more influence in their country.
posted on 11/06/2003 2:03:31 AM PST
To: AdmSmith; nuconvert; DoctorZIn
I think, we should pay attention to Michael Ledeen more.
He is right and I have no doubt that Iranian Mullahs are the major supporters of attacks and explosions in Iraq.
They are afraid of the stability in Iraq and once stability gets back to Iraq, their turn will come.
posted on 11/06/2003 2:51:01 AM PST
by F14 Pilot
(A whole lot...and More)
To: F14 Pilot
Iran's Paradoxical Statements: A Bargaining Chip
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Nov. 2 that Tehran might renege on its agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency if the country faces excessive external pressure over its nuclear program. The statement comes less than two weeks after a high-powered European delegation secured Tehran's compliance with IAEA demands. The announcement reflects government efforts to deal with domestic challenges and maximize external opportunities, especially vis-a-vis Iraq. With the United States increasingly looking to stabilize the situation in Iraq, and given continued debate inside Iran on how best to proceed on the IAEA deal, many more paradoxical statements will come out of Tehran in the days ahead.
Supreme Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Nov. 2 that undue external pressure could force Tehran to renege on its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The comments were part of a speech Khamenei delivered to a large gathering of civil and military officials of the Islamist regime at an iftaar (fast-breaking) function broadcast on state television.
Khamenei is not announcing a volte-face on Iran's decision to cooperate with the IAEA. Rather, he is seeking to create a domestic consensus on the issue and to capitalize to the fullest possible extent on Iran's negotiations with the United States over Iraq. The statement has two specific aims within the domestic sphere: It seeks to alleviate the concerns of Khamenei's traditionalist allies who have not taken kindly to the IAEA deal, and it is indicative of a debate among parties in Iran who have agreed to the deal but disagree on its modalities. The statement also serves as an indicator of the progress of U.S.-Iranian negotiations over Iraq.
Khamenei's statements were an effort to put down the concerns of his unhappy allies in the government and with their civilian supporters. This does not appear to be the only concern, however. Given that Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the Guardians council -- Iran's constitutional oversight body, which traditionalists dominate -- blessed the deal, saying that Tehran had acted with wisdom. Since Hujjat al-Islam Hassan Rowhani -- cleric and secretary of the Supreme Council on National Security -- was instrumental in getting Tehran to ink the deal, the opposition to the agreement might not be as substantial as it appears. The more pressing issue on the domestic front is the debate over how the regime will proceed with its stated intention of cooperating with the IAEA -- and what it will receive in return for doing so.
The two rival factions in Tehran have been popularly dubbed reformists and hard-liners. These names are misleading, however, because they give the impression that the "reformists" are more Western-minded and secular while the latter are more religious. In reality, both camps are essentially Islamist in orientation; the only difference is in each side's understanding of Islam.
Khamenei leads the traditionalist camp; President Mohammad Khatami leads the other, which is modernist in its understanding of Islam. A significant number of traditionalists have advocated adopting the North Korean approach to the nuclear issue, and many of them say they feel that agreeing to IAEA demands after months of tough talk is as good as caving to the pressure. Moreover, from the hardliners' perspective, the deal represents a victory for the rival modernists because the regime adopted their point of view on the issue.
When Khamenei said, "So far, nothing has been done against our principles. Wherever I feel that a step has been taken against the directions and goals of the establishment, I will stop it," he was trying to drive home to his allies that his government had not buckled under external pressure and to reiterate that this did not translate into a victory for the reformists. More important, the leader was setting the parameters of the coming intergovernmental debate over the regime's future course regarding the nuclear issue. Khamenei is trying to make clear that the government has agreed to accept IAEA demands -- for now. He is also trying to clarify that once Iraq is stabilized to the regime's liking, Tehran will not necessarily have to continue cooperation.
Apart from generating a national consensus on the issue, Khamenei's comments were meant to signal Washington that it must release some pressure on Iran if it wants the regime's continued support in Iraq. He said, "If parties to the talks with us, or centers of global power, come up with excessive demands and we feel that our interests and values are harmed, we won't hesitate to end this trend (of cooperation)."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi complimented this statement when he said Nov. 2 that Iran would not completely stop enriching uranium but would suspend the practice temporarily. He also said Tehran is willing to answer all IAEA queries regarding its nuclear activities. On the same day, Tehran summoned British envoy Richard Dalton to the Foreign Ministry and admonished him for remarks made by British Prime Minster Tony Blair, who said that Saddam Hussein's ouster led to the Iranian compliance with Western demands on the nuclear issue.
The statements from Khamenei and Asefi give the impression that Iran is backing away from pledges it made to the IAEA. They also lend credence to statements issued by U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who recently advised that the IAEA and others keep an eye on Iran to ensure it follows through on its commitments.
In reality, these statements are bargaining counters that Tehran is using to deal with the United States on Iraq. Iran wants to maximize its gains in return for cooperating with Washington to stabilize Iraq. Tehran hopes Washington will lift sanctions and restore some semblance of normal relations with the regime.
Khamenei's statements should be viewed in the context of other initiatives. Iran recently extradited 147 al Qaeda suspects to their home countries, meaning the United States has gained access to these individuals despite Iranian claims that it would not give the suspects up to the United States. In essence, Iran is offering something to the United States and realizes that Washington needs more cooperation, which will allow Tehran to withhold this cooperation in hopes of gaining further concessions.
The rebuke of the British ambassador to Tehran also is part of this process of negotiations. All of this is happening because Tehran has not yet sent its formal letter of agreement to the IAEA, which means that the window of opportunity for Tehran to maximize its gains is still open. This is allowing the Islamist state to continue to engage in this type of give-and-take posturing.
Iran's contradictory statements and posturing should not be taken as a signal that it intends to take back off its promised cooperation. Instead, by doing so, it hopes to extract geopolitical dividends and create a consensus at home about the nuclear issue and overall negotiations with the United States.
The government understands that while it is under pressure, it also can exert a certain amount of its own. Such a display of bargaining tactics by Iran also serves as an indicator that the Iraq deal with the United States is still in progress. We can expect to see much more back and forth in the days ahead.
posted on 11/06/2003 4:07:00 AM PST
To: DoctorZIn; AdmSmith; seamole; nuconvert; onyx; Pro-Bush; faludeh_shirazi; Persia; freedom44; ...
UN rapporteur met Tehran prosecutor
IRIB English News
6th of November 2003
Tehran, Nov 6 - Tehran Prosecuter of the public and revolutionary courts Saeed Mortazavi and UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Ambeyi Ligabo here Wednesday discussed the legal proceedings in the Islamic Republic.
During the two-hour meeting, Mortazavi commented on the functions and performance of Iran's judicial apparatus and the proceedings of the press offenses.
According to Iran's press law, the primary investigations are often conducted by the magistrates and the prosecutors deal with the file cases independently. In the press courts, every file case is viewed and examined by at least two judges. The press offenses are being handed in the penal courts and the court sessions are normally attended by a jury of three judges.
The trial of the managing directors and license holders of periodicals and newspapers is conducted very carefully as the laws on the press offenses have been reformed by the judiciary.
Court procedures held for the press circles are like those for the suspected high-level officials including ministers, presidential advisors and governors. http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=191832&n=15
(( Hey UN... Leave Iran alone ))~!
posted on 11/06/2003 4:24:39 AM PST
by F14 Pilot
(A whole lot...and More)
"She would not say which countries in the region Bush would single out as needing democracy, but the United States has often expressed concern about Syria and Iran."
I used to like Condoleezza Rice, but she becomes more disappointing by the week. Her refusal here to mention Iran, and a statement a couple weeks ago saying Iran has a democratic gov't, shows she's not with the agenda. Afraid it's time for Ms. Rice to GO.
To: F14 Pilot
"Mortazavi and UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Ambeyi Ligabo here Wednesday discussed the legal proceedings in the Islamic Republic. "The trial of the managing directors and license holders of periodicals and newspapers is conducted very carefully as the laws on the press offenses have been reformed by the judiciary.
Court procedures held for the press circles are like those for the suspected high-level officials including ministers, presidential advisors and governors."
What a joke!
"the trial" "is conducted very carfeully" HA!
"freedom of opinion and expression" - Mortazavi can't stand the mention of this phrase, I'm sure. The entire meeting is a sick joke. Hopefully Ligabo has been around the block enough times to know that Iran and Mortazavi have no use for any of it. And goes back to the UN with THAT message.
Seeking a New Day in Iran
November 02, 2003
Voice of America
The Iranian government uses torture, arbitrary detention, and excessive force to repress the freedom of speech, association, and religion of citizens.
Iran's pursuit and development of weapons of mass destruction have aroused international concern. Iran continues to be the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism through its support of organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Elements of the Iranian government have helped members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam travel through and find safe haven in Iran.
As U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage points out, the people of Iran long for an end to repressive government. The Iranian people, he said, are engaged in a rich and lively debate about the kind of society they want for themselves and for their children, including their desire for substantial economic and democratic reforms. As Mr. Armitage said, Iran "is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation. The United States, he said, is working to encourage that desire for freedom, while at the same time working to counter the destructive policies of the Iranian government:
Our policy is to try to eliminate the ability of Iran to carry forward with disruptive policies such as the development of W-M-D [weapons of mass destruction], such as the abandonment of human rights, such as repression against minorities, such as religious oppression against the Bahais, and to try to get them to eschew [abandon] their state sponsorship of terrorism. And in this regard, our policy is to continue to support, openly and publicly, the aspirations of the people of Iran for transparency, anti-corruption, and democracy.
The struggle continues between elements of Iran's society and leadership who want to keep the country mired in violence and corruption, and a popular movement that wants a more engaged and modern Iran to emerge. But the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was just awarded to an Iranian citizen, Shirin Ebadi, is a sign of the sweeping desire for change across Iranian society.
As Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said, "The Iranian people should know of our support for their aspirations, but also that the full rewards of that support will only be realized once their government ends its destructive. . .policies. We look forward to the day when the will of the people of Iran prevails.
Editorial # 0-10959 http://www.voanews.com/Editorials/article.cfm?objectID=D97A5198-3940-4DB5-BC07594EB6CA9FAC&title=11%2F2%2F03%20%2D%20SEEKING%20A%20NEW%20DAY%20IN%20IRAN
Iranian-Canadian Woman to Contest in Ms World
November 06, 2003
With her long silky hair and deep brown eyes, Nazanin Afshin-Jam will officially carry the Canadian maple leaf in the Miss World contest in December, but also will become the first -- unofficial -- representative of her homeland, Iran.
"There had been beauty contests before the arrival of Islamic fundamentalists to power in Iran, but there has never been a candidate for the Miss World pageant. I'm the first," the 24-year-old beauty said.
"I'm very honoured, but it really doesn't have a symbolic value for me," said. "I'm a woman, I'm Iranian, I'm Canadian and as Canada is a very multi-cultural country, so if I won the title, it's like I'd represent everyone around the world."
Her parents fled Iran with the overthrow of the Shah. She was only one year old at the time and has never returned.
At five feet eight inches tall, her measurements, which budge little despite her penchant for chocolate, have already earned her the title of Miss Swimsuit Canada 2003. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_448179,00050001.htm
Iran Security Chief to Meet ElBaradei in Vienna
November 06, 2003
VIENNA -- The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rohani, will meet the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog chief in Vienna Saturday, a U.N. official said, as Tehran moves to dispel concern over its nuclear plans.
Diplomats told Reuters Thursday the visit probably had to do with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei's report on IAEA nuclear inspections in Iran, expected to be circulated among diplomats in Vienna next week.
They said there was also a chance Rohani would give ElBaradei a letter formally expressing Tehran's intention to join a tough regime of short-notice U.N. nuclear inspections.
An IAEA press official confirmed the visit, though he was unable to give details about the purpose of the visit.
Rohani canceled a planned trip to Moscow earlier this week, which analysts said was because Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was there at the time.
Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Iran would soon give the IAEA the letter stating its desire to sign the Additional Protocol to the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Tehran signed in 1970.
"The letter has been prepared and we are going to hand it over to the IAEA Secretariat," Salehi told Reuters. "I would say it's in days."
Speaking on condition on anonymity, diplomats said it was possible Rohani would deliver the letter Saturday, but added that Iran would more likely hand it over immediately before the November 20 IAEA board meeting.
The Additional Protocol would give the IAEA access to, and the right to conduct snap inspections of both declared and undeclared sites in Iran.
Iran must give the IAEA the letter before the IAEA board meeting in order for the board to approve Iran's intention to sign the protocol. Once the board approves, Iran can sign the protocol.
Although it will take some time for Iran's parliament to ratify the protocol, Tehran has said it would allow the tougher inspections before ratification.
The United States accuses Iran of secretly working on an atomic bomb. Tehran rejects the charge and says its program is solely for peaceful generation of electricity. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3767351
Islamic Republic of Iran "Up to Eyeballs" in Terror
November 06, 2003
BERLIN -- Influential Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said on Thursday that Iran was "up to its eyeballs in terrorism" and the United States should quietly be encouraging a democratic revolution from within.
"Is there any doubt about Iran's support for terrorism, about their payments to Hamas and Hizbollah?" Perle said in a speech in Berlin, referring to Islamic radical groups.
Speaking later to Reuters, he said there was "massive discontent" among Iranians with their ruling Islamic clerics.
"I think we may well see a regime change in Iran brought about by Iranians, but they need some help. They need more broadcasting so that communications are improved. We should be prepared to help them get newspapers published in their own country," Perle said.
"I think the potential is there for regime change, but we should encourage it."
Iran was named by President Bush in January 2002 alongside Iraq and North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" threatening the world by developing weapons of mass destruction.
It denies charges from Washington that it may be trying to develop an atomic bomb under cover of a civilian nuclear program.
Perle, a member and former head of the Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory panel to the Pentagon, was among the architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
He said it was no surprise now that what he called foreign terrorists were crossing into Iraq to launch attacks against the United States and other foreign targets.
"Success in Iraq is a threat to every tyrannical regime in the region, and they understand that," he said.
Perle expressed concern about developments in Russia, which he said was putting brutal pressure on its ex-Soviet neighbors and where "half the administration is ex-KGB," including President Vladimir Putin.
He said the arrest on fraud charges of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of oil giant Yukos and the country's richest businessman, was a worrying and politically motivated move.
"I think we should suspend Russian membership of the G8 (Group of Eight). The way in which they've treated Khodorkovsky is entirely inconsistent with the principles and values of all the other seven, and there should be some standards for membership," he told Reuters.
"We mustn't just ignore this. If we ignore it, there'll be more of it." http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3769853
Bush Says Iran Must Embrace Democracy
November 06, 2003
WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Thursday challenged Iran and Syria and even key U.S. ally Egypt to adopt democracy and broke with past U.S. policy by vowing Washington will not support Arab states that reject liberty.
"The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy," Bush said in a sweeping foreign policy speech. He said Syrian leaders as well as those ousted in Iraq had promised a restoration of ancient glories but instead left "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin."
Of Egypt, whose president, Hosni Mubarak, has been a vital Middle East interlocutor for successive U.S. presidents, Bush said: "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."
The speech was Bush's latest attempt to justify the war in Iraq as necessary to foster democracy in the region at a time when he is under fire for mounting U.S. troop casualties and as anti-Americanism spreads among many Muslims who feel Islam is under attack.
Bush declared a failure of past U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom.
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.
He called for democracy throughout the Middle East, praising the tentative steps that are taking places in such nations as Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia, whose royal family is firmly in command.
"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it," Bush said. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3770966
To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
How To Combat Islamist Terrorism Without Combating Islam?
November 06, 2003
Iran va Jahan
The laconic answer to this question would be: 'that it is not an easy task but a highly compelling one'. The issue is far too complicated to be answered laconically. Let me begin with a reformulation of the above question.
Why It Is Necessary To Combat Islamist Terrorism Without Combating Islam? Or
Why Not Combat Both At The Same Time?
Three reasons explain the impossibility of such an enterprise:
First, it does not represent the issue,
Second, it is not feasible, and
Third, it is not a wise approach.
We are not facing a religious war. The issue is not war between Islam on the one side and the rest of the world on the other. Neither is it a war that Islam has launched against Christianity or the Western hemisphere. If we take the Clash of Civilization's thesis, it is a fact that Islam as such does not represent a civilization any more. Islamic civilization extinguished many centuries ago; the remainders of which is merely a religion.
Even if we wished to combat Islam as a religion, it is simply not feasible. As a religion, Islam like many other religions is elusive in its nature, has different interpretations and multiple faces. Where can we find Islam? In the Koran, of course. Should we burn the Koran? Should we abolish Islam? Who can abolish a religion and how? Some regimes, for example the USSR and Mao's China tried to restrict Islamic as well as other religious practices. Not only did this policy fail dramatically, it also produced a boomerang effect. As a formidable reaction, the faith in religion rose enormously.
It is not wise to combat Islam as a religion either. It is not a fertile policy. We must leave this battle to theologians from different religions. Politics is not theology. Confusing politics with theology is precisely what Islamists are doing, hoping that we will follow the same path. This is a trap we must absolutely avoid, if we wish to combat Islamists successfully.
After this refutation, I would like to open a short discussion on major and substantial conceptual differences between Islam and Islamism.
Islam is a religion with a long history and with different theological and juridical schools. The Koran is not really a coherent book able to provide Muslims with clear and unambiguous guidelines. Roughly speaking, it is divided into two very different and somewhat contradictory set of statements, principles and commandments. You have the Mekka period of 12 years length (from 610 to 622), and the Medina Period of 10 years length (from 622 to 632). The first and inaugurative period is characterized by relative moderation, toleration and pluralism. You find this aspect of Islam in some verses in The Koran. For example the Koran states:
"You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion" - (109.6).
We may call the Mekka period the software of Islam. In contrast, the Medina period is essentially characterized by politics, power and war. The moderate and open-minded language and behaviour gives place to a power language. The following verse shows the change in the Koran's language when it states:
"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers" - ( 2.191).
The Medina period represents in reality the hardware of Islam. The Koran also reflects this part of Islam. This example is an illustration of the Koran's ambiguous discourse and its ambivalence in recommended behaviour. The fact is that some Muslims are referring to the Mekka period alone, and others to the Medina period alone. Then there is a third group which refers to both periods. This consideration among many others demonstrates that it is practically impossible to identify the real message of Islam. Therefore, the world is facing various aspects of Islam without reaching a consensus among Muslims. Except for two cardinal, thus very general points; the acceptance of the unity of God (Allah), and the rightness of the prophecy of Muhammad as the last Prophet.
This means that if we take only the Koran, which is the main source of Islam and which should be the point of convergence between Muslims, it leads us to further confusion about Islam. If we add to the Koran, other sources of Islamic creed as for example Sunna, Hadith, Rivaya, Fatwas and so on, we get more than one billion disoriented and confused peoples! All Muslims, thus from different obedience. All and each of them are convinced that their own version and their own understanding of Islam represent the only truth.
While Islam is too general, too elusive and too ambiguous, Islamism represents a coherent, specific and identifiable construction. Islamism is 'an ideology bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the conquest of the world with all means'. Its vision is holistic and based on the absolute indivisibility of the trinity (Dîn, Dunya and Dwala), which means Religion, Way of life, and State. This indivisibility is permanent and eternal. Its ultimate goal boils down to the fulfilment of this said trinity on a global scale. Furthermore, Islamists define themselves often as 'Islamiyyoun/Islamists' precisely to differentiate themselves from 'Muslimun/Muslims'. In short, Islamism is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Communism, Nazism and Fascism. Some scholars are debating on weather it will be adequate to call Communism a 'political religion' in contrast to Democracy which in J.J. Rousseau's terminology represents being a 'civil religion'. The point is that Islamism represents a perfect model of a 'political religion' or even more correctly, Islamism is a 'religious ideology'.
Furthermore, Islamism's ideal reference model is exclusively the Medina model, leaving aside the Mekka model.
Without going through an elaborate comparative analysis between western totalitarianism (Communism, Nazism and Fascism) and, let us say, oriental totalitarianism (Islamism), let me just mention some of the main similarities between them.
They are all violent. They all believe in the Führerprinzip; the cult of a mythical leader with superman capacities. They are all anti-democratic. They are all 'world Conquerors'. Historically, they are all in different ways one of the major consequences of the First World War.
There is an ongoing debate about the solidity of Islamists. Are they all totalitarian, violent and pursuing the same goal: conquest of the world? Some experts think that there are moderate Islamists and there are radical Islamists. Consequently, there must be two different policies or strategies depending on the character of each of these two groups. To answer this question, we have to make a double distinction:
A distinction in the scope of the goal, and a distinction in terms of the use of violence.
The first distinction leads to identify two categories of Islamists: The 'National Islamists' and the 'Global Islamists'. Both groups are sharing the same ideology; but the scope of the goal is not the same. The scope of the goal of groups such as Hamas, Palestinian Jihad, Lebanese Hizbullah as well as Islamists in Chechnya, in the Philippines and in Kashmir is geographically limited. These groups are struggling for a limited political goal, namely autonomy or independence. Conquest of the world or establishment of a global Caliphate does not really figure on their agenda. In general, terrorist actions undertaken from such groups are also limited to their own territories and their neighbouring states.
In contrast to these groups, there are the 'Global Islamists'; those who firmly believe in a world revolution and the instauration of a global Islamic government. Groups such as Al-Qaeda (of course), Jama' al-Islamiyya and the Jihad organisations in Egypt, Al-Muhajiroun, Hiz ul-Tahrir and so on belong to this category. At the same time, states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and in some degree Saudi Arabia are ideologically global Islamists. The difference between these two states lies in their official political attitude towards the West in general and vis-à-vis the USA in particular. If you want to find out who is the current 'Leader of the World', you may simply click on to: www.khomeini.com which is one of the official sites of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Here, Ayatollah Khamenei (not to be confused with Khomeini) is represented as the Leader of the World.
The second distinction is about the use or non-use of violence. For practical reasons, we can divide these groups into two categories: The Maximalists and the Gradualists.
The former are actively and violently working for their final objective. The latter are active too; thus not violently. Groups such as Ikhwan al-Muslimin which represents an archetype model for an Islamist ideology or Hizbul Tahrir have chosen a progressive strategy. They did not eliminate the use of force from their working plan; they only postponed it to a more opportune future. This category of Islamists is providing volunteers to the Maximalists.
I would now like shortly to go through the evolution of Islamist terrorism. In this respect, three different and successive phases are identified and labelled as follows:
1. The era of Hassan al-Banna (1928-1978)
2. The era of Khomeini (1978-1991)
3. The era of Bin Laden (from 1991).
The major characteristics of the first period are the following:
Terrorist acts were directed right at their beginning, exclusively against Muslims. In other words, during this particular period, Islamist terrorism was an internal terrorism. According to our investigations, no assassination attempts were committed by Islamists in Western countries. Not even against Muslims living in these countries. In addition, Islamist terrorism was not destined to spread terror but rather to eliminate political adversaries. Political assassination was used in order to destabilize regimes in power judged by Islamists as being corrupt and accused of being puppet governments. In some cases 'heretical' Muslims were eliminated by Islamists.
The second phase of Islamist terrorism starts off with the Islamist revolution in Iran. It was the first time Islamists were acceding to power. Let us now examine the major aspects of this phase.
First of all Islamist terrorism altered. Up to this period, the terrorist acts of the Islamists were carefully selected and personalized avoiding any repercussions on civilians. This line of conduct was interrupted in 1978 in the process of the Islamist revolution. In order to bring about chaos in Iran and in order to destabilize the regime of the Shah, Islamists put a movie theatre on fire (August 18th 1978) in the Rex cinema of Abadan (oil-producing city). About 400 people were killed. This tragic event was in fact the starting point of a new tactic: to attack and assassinate civilian as well as military persons. From then on Islamist terrorism turns into a blind, generalized and non-discriminatory terrorism. The consequences of which have been boundless and tragic on a regional and world-scale: in Lebanon as well as in New York and Washington D.C.
The third age of Islamist terrorism is the most critical and spectacular of all. In this phase, terrorist acts remain indiscriminate, non-selective and suicidal. Bin Laden's terrorism is not that much different from the one used in the second phase although it appears to be. What differentiates it is its highly spectacular aspect and that the field of action takes place on American soil. Those acts were spectacular in terms of the implacable organizational capability and coordination they revealed, as well as the extension of their networks. It was also spectacular in terms of human casualties and material damages. Finally, it was particularly spectacular in its symbolic aspect through the choice of the targets: the USA as the most powerful country in the world and human history, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the missed target: probably the White House.
Until now, I have explained why it is unwise and almost impossible to combat Islam. Now, I turn to the heart of the question: How to combat Islamism without combating Islam.
First, we need a cognitive approach to Islamism by conceiving it as a totalitarian ideology. A clear and full internalization of the fact that Islamism is an ideology and not a religion will purify the whole question from a variety of difficulties. In many ways, Islamism is like an octopus. We have to aim directly at the head in stead of wasting our time and energy to deal with the complicated body. By evacuating religious contents from Islamism, we change our direction from theology to ideology, from religion to politics. In this way, we put forward the real face and real nature of Islamism. The Muslims, especially among the young people, who are potentially ready to give their lives for the sake of Islamist ideals, will find out that their struggle is not a part of a religious duty but purely an ideological and political one emanating from a dangerous utopia.
Second, we need an international tactical or ethical consensus. This is especially needed in the Western hemisphere. The reason for such a consensus is motivated by the fact that often some western political parties and leaders use anti-Islamic rhetoric for political purposes. This policy is not productive, and it can be dangerous. Attacking Islam is precisely what Islamists are waiting for. They are insatiably trying to convince Muslims of two things: 1) Islamism is the true face of Islam, and 2) the west is an enemy of Islam. Therefore, politicians must choose their vocabulary more carefully by avoiding attacks on Islam as a religion and by avoiding hostile remarks about Muslims in general. Americans became aware of this necessity and consequently transformed their language in this field. They talk about "terrorists who hijacked a religion" and rarely on Islam or Muslims in a negative way. We have to remember that Islamists are still today using President Bush's famous "crusade" pronounced in September 2001 as an evidence for American hostility against Islam. It seems that to avoid attacking Islam and Muslims, indiscriminately, has become general US policy. In this respect, the most recent evidence are the apologies which a top Pentagon intelligence official, Lt. General William Boykin, offers (October 17, 2003) to Muslims because of his negative comments on Islam. The Americans' prudence is re-affirmed in President Bush's speech in Indonesia (October 22, 2003). In an elaborated and well-balanced speech, the President repeated that "Americans hold a deep respect for the Islamic faith. We know that Islam is fully compatible with liberty and tolerance and progress because we see the proof in your country [Inodonesia]". Then, he states "Terrorists who claim Islam as their inspiration defile one of the great faiths. Murder has no place in any religious tradition". In this way, President Bush tried to reach two important goals: To make a clear distinction between 'Islam' and 'Islamism' and to demonstrate that Islamists have hijacked Islam itself.
Third, during the past decades, repetitive experiences have showed that dialogue with Islamists leads nowhere. While in a democratic culture, dialogue is a MUST and a natural process. In contrast, Islamists consider dialogue a clear sign of weakness; their own weakness if they accept a dialogue, and especially weakness in their opponents. Dialogue is an unknown word for Islamists. Nothing positive has come out of different dialogues of diplomacy with totalitarian regimes and groups in general, and nothing positive with Islamists either. The Chamberlain and Hitler agreement, the Roosevelt and Stalin dialogue, the European Union's "critical dialogue", the "constructive dialogue", the "Iran gate", the "dialogue" with Taliban and so on and so forth. None of these attempts at dialogue have been successful for the Western diplomacy.
Fourth, if the dialogue or compromise is impossible and ineffective, what to do then? The answer is short and brutal: pressure! Pressure can be gradual or accumulated; but it must be real and sufficiently strong and consistent for Islamists to feel it as such. If the pressure has no positive effect- as it was the case with Taliban - war should not be excluded as a last resort.
Therefore, we must constantly remember and learn from previous, related experiences to deal with other totalitarian regimes, groups and ideologies. They were defeated either by war or by heavy pressure. This goes for Nazism and Fascism. It also goes for the breakdown of the USSR. Based on criteria of success, it will be wise to forget any possible arrangement with Islamists and start using systematical force and pressure.
Finally, it is necessary and urgent that the whole problematic around Islam changes its current orientation. After the end of the Cold War and especially in the post - 9/11 era, what is predominately important is democratization of the world. If there is a clash, the clash is not between civilizations or between religions. The real clash occurs between democracy and despotism.
It means that democratization of the Muslim world stands as the key word to combat Islamism and with it to combat current global terrorism. It represents a huge and vast task. Let me emphasize only one aspect of this problematic, which I think is the most important. The Islamic world is producing three main things: Oil, Terrorism and Emigration. Thus, we have an Islamic Bermuda Triangle which is threatening peace and security in the world. The best way to break down this Bermuda Triangle is of course to do it within the Muslim world and by Muslims themselves. Unfortunately, democratic forces inside the Muslim world have not been able to break this Triangle. Therefore, external support is essential. To support democratic forces inside the Muslim world is an inherent and necessary part of the anti-terrorism war. External support can take different forms: conditioning economic aids to improving human rights and democracy is the first step. Awarding the Nobel Peace Price to a Muslim and Iranian woman (Shirin Ebadi) is an elegant and hopefully efficient stimulus. In extreme case, military intervention cannot be avoided. The ongoing war in Iraq - despite its doubtful legal foundations - represents a method to break down the Islamic Bermuda Triangle. In this sense, the war in Iraq is a 'strategic war' against the roots of terrorism, while the war in Afghanistan stands mostly as an 'operational war' or simply a 'theâtre d'opérations'.
When combating Islamism, one of the main problems and difficulties is how to deal with millions of Muslims who are living in Western countries. Starting from the facts, it is apparent that Muslims in western countries are far too dispersed to constitute a compact bloc. In terms of social, cultural, political and religious orientations, the division among them is deep and real. Roughly, Muslims are divided into two large categories: Muslim Believers and Cultural Muslims. Islamists are predominantly issued from the first category. Cultural Muslims represent an agglomerate of peoples embracing agnostics, liberals, socialists and so on. In general, Cultural Muslims do not represent any tangible threat. The attention therefore must be oriented to the Muslim Believers who roughly are divided into Moderates and Radicals. Both are potential sources for Islamism; the former lesser than the latter. Now, how to identify a Radical Muslim today in the Western countries? In this regard, there are a number of helpful indices. First, a Radical Muslim is of course a believer, who practices the rituals of Islam. But, this alone is not enough. A Radical Muslim is a Man (rarely a woman. Perhaps because Prophet Muhammad expressed his skepticism over women's capacity to hold a secret!). A Radical Muslim is constantly in communication with others. He can be a lonely man in the city and locality where he lives, but with permanent communication with the outside world. Communication goes through mail, e-mail, fax, telephone (mobile and public) and so on. He is also a man who reads much and is generally a quiet person carefully avoiding clashes with the police and other public authorities. He is also traveler, a globetrotter! He is a young man with an average age of 25-27 years. In Southern Europe, Radical Muslims are issued from North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia). In the U.K. essentially from Pakistan. In Scandinavia, from Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt and Pakistan. Iranian Islamists are working under the auspices of Iranian authorities, generally as diplomatic personnel or as business persons.
Today, the world is facing a single global terrorism, which is Islamist. In my analysis, I did not approach the force of the global terrorism. I took it as a given fact. Islamist terrorism is perhaps not as powerful as some people would imagine. However, according to Institute for Strategic Studies (in London), Islamist terrorism has been reinforced following the war on Iraq (October Report 2003). We may say that global terrorism at least appears as a huge troublemaker. In this study, I tried to demonstrate that the real danger lies somewhere else. Islamist terrorism is the expression of a totalitarian ideology. Therefore, the world is facing a new totalitarianism, which has been neglected for decades. Consequently, combating Islamist terrorism cannot be reduced to a simple classic counter-terrorism. Classic Counter-terrorism's highly necessary efforts and investigations must be accompanied by coherent political, cultural and economic actions.
In short, my propositions to combating Islamist terrorism without combating Islam are resumed in the three following points:
- Continuous pressure on Islamists and, if necessary, conduct of war;
- Dialogue and cooperation with moderate Muslims, and
- Effective support to democratic forces inside the Muslim world.
Terrorism - Challenges and Possible Consequences
Copenhagen, 3-4 November 2003
Department of Political Science
University of Aarhus
Denmark email@example.com http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=11&d=06&a=5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson