Posted on 10/07/2004 9:10:00 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
The US media still largely 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.” As a result, most American’s 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. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).
There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.
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.
DoctorZin
BUMP
"How come there is no noise about the shedding of Palestinian blood but a retaliatory act is expected to be condemned so much?" Rafsanjani asked during the weekly Muslim prayers in Tehran.
"In Taba some angry people blew up a place they believed Israelis were staying. It is not known yet who has taken revenge ... and now all countries are lining up to condemn it in the media," he said.
Three suspected car bombs ripped through beach resorts packed with Israeli tourists on the Red Sea coast of Egypt's Sinai desert late Thursday.
A blast at the Hilton Hotel killed at least 24 people and caused a 10-storey wing of the building to collapse. Another two people were killed in attacks on another Red Sea resort south of Taba.
Rafsanjani hit out at the world's silence over the deadly Israeli attacks on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where more than 90 Palestinians have been killed in an army offensive since September 28.
"We oppose terrorism, we have suffered from that more than any other country but we do not accept that one side commit as much crime as it wishes and the other side be all submissive and have its hands tied," he said.
He referred to Tuesday's US veto of an Arab-sponsored draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council against Israel's military operation in Gaza as "the best evidence of how cruel the world justice system can be".
| The Iranian Connection by David Wilder Oct 08, '04 / 23 Tishrei 5765 |
||
 E-mail This Print  Homepage |
||
| We have all been asking ourselves the same question, over and over again. Why? What happened to Ariel Sharon? Why is he insisting that Israel abandon Gush Katif and evict people from their homes? The difficulty is compounded following the tragic events at the end of last week: Kassam missiles hitting S'derot, killing two children, aged two and four. And this on the heels of the terror mortars and missiles in N'vei Dekalim, which left a young woman dead, soldiers killed and a mother of two shot to death by terrorists. For the past few days, Israeli troops have, much to the chagrin of the Europeans, moved en masse into several key strategic points in Gaza, including the infamous Jabalya refugee camp. Dozens of terrorists have been wiped out, including major producers of Kassam missiles and those who operate them. This, in order to prevent further attacks on S'derot. In a radio interview, Ariel Sharon emphasized that all rocket attacks on S'derot and other Israeli communities must be stopped completely, "allowing the eviction to take place quietly;" i.e., not under fire. Of course, it must be asked why Sharon didn't take major offensive action many months ago, thereby preventing literally thousands of daily attacks on Gush Katif communities. It is quite clear that the State of Israel, according Sharon, is divided into different types of people: there are those who live in cities like S'derot, who have real red blood, and then there are others, like those living in Netzarim, Kfar Darom and N'vei Dekelim, whose blood isn't quite so red. Jewish sacrifices in S'derot are unacceptable; Jewish blood spilled in Gush Katif is another story. What is imponderable is what exactly Sharon expects will occur following (G-d forbid) the retreat from Gaza. Israeli forces will totally pull out, leaving the entire southern border open to attack. Hamas has promised, time after time, to hit Ashkelon. Does Sharon believe that Hamas terrorists are liars? Hamas doesn't lie, it tells the truth. They believe in the destruction of the State of Israel and they say it. They promise to kill Jews, and unfortunately, they do it. They guarantee that they will bomb Ashkelon, and I have no doubts that they will do their best to fulfill their pledge. And they have no plans to stop there. So what does Sharon think, that fleeing from Gaza will solve all our problems, that Hamas will turn into our best friends? Far from it. When you run away from terror, the terror just follows you, like a tail. You cannot escape it or avoid it. The only way to deal with terror is head on - to destroy it. Ariel Sharon is accomplishing exactly the opposite. And it is hard to believe that he doesn’t know it. So, what’s up? The following thesis is conjecture only. I have no proof of what I am about to say. I don’t have 'connections' with 'higher-ups' who have 'leaked' information to me. Truthfully, it is very difficult, if not down right impossible, to accurately analyze the current situation, because there is too much that is unknown. You can only analyze a situation based on the data available. When critical data is unavailable, the analysis can only be defined as unreliable. That having been said, I would like to offer a possible explanation of Ariel Sharon's escapades. The key is Iran and the magic word is "nuclear weapons". Only a few days ago, Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said, "Nobody has the right to deny Iran its right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." The previous week, Iran defied the International Atomic Energy Agency by saying it was resuming the enrichment of uranium. Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said the country had started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb. According to the internationally acclaimed security publication Janes, the Iranian reactor is an authentic nuclear threat: "A heavy water reactor is among the most dangerous in existence from a proliferation perspective.... According to David Albright, Director of the Institute for Science and International Security, the IR-40 will be able to produce 8-10kg of plutonium per year - approximately one to two bombs' worth of nuclear material. The IAEA holds that 8kg of plutonium constitutes a 'significant quantity' - enough to build a nuclear weapon. How is Israel reacting to the Iranian threat? Last week, Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz stated that Israel has to be prepared to deal with what he called the Iranian "threat". "All options have to be taken into account to prevent it," he was quoted as saying. Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel is "taking measures to defend itself." What's the connection between this and Gush Katif? My guess is this: Ariel Sharon knows that Israel will have to strike first against the Iranian nuclear reactor, regarding this presently as the gravest strategic threat to Israel's existence. He also knows that the mission may include preemptive strikes against Hizbullah, stationed in Lebanon, and possibly also against Syria. He also knows that the entire world will condemn these actions. In order to lessen the 'damage' as he sees it, before hitting Iran, he pulls Israel out of Gaza, in essence, saying to the world, 'Look, you see, I really want peace. I did what no other Israeli prime minister could do - now leave me alone and let me protect my country.' Then, Israeli warplanes bomb the Iranian reactor. In other words, in Sharon’s eyes, Gush Katif, and four Shomron communities, are a necessary sacrifice in order to remove Iran from the nuclear club. He expects that the rest of the world will leave him alone after pulling Israeli families out of their homes. He couldn’t be more wrong. Israel doesn't need any excuses to destroy the Iranian threat. An Iranian nuclear bomb threatens not only Israel, but all of world peace. Where would we all be today if Israel hadn't destroyed the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981? Iranian Islamic fundamentalist leadership would have no qualms using 'the bomb' against Israel, nor would they hesitate to use it against any Western nation, all of whom they view as infidels. Sharon's fleeing from Gaza in order to placate world opinion creates, in itself, an existential threat to our state. True, if your leg is infected and must be amputated to save your life, then there is no choice. But in this case, the infection is left festering and the healthy limb is to be removed. This also establishes a very dangerous precedent for the future. Israel will be told, in no uncertain terms, 'If you want to continue to protect yourself from outside threats, without international intervention, chop off another part of your body.' And perhaps most important, the world will never let us be. They assisted Hitler, actively or passively, sixty years ago. And they haven't changed. In other words, we must do whatever is necessary for self-preservation. And we must not play into the hands of our enemies, attempting to cosmetically 'look good', in their eyes. We must unconditionally guarantee destruction of the Iranian threat, we must stay put in all our land, and we must not allow the Iranian connection to disassemble our state. |
||
URGENT ACTION
PUBLIC
AI Index: MDE
13/040/2004
UA 281/04 Imminent execution
07 October 2004
IRAN Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh (f) aged 33
Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh has reportedly been sentenced to death for the murder
of her husband, who allegedly tried to rape her then 15 year old daughter from
a previous marriage. She is reportedly at risk of imminent execution.
According to a 6 October report in the Iranian newspaper E’temad, Fatemeh
Haghighat-Pajouh murdered her husband in 1997. At her trial she alleged that
her husband, identified as a 30 year old man named Bahman, was a drug addict,
who had been overtly interested in her 15-year-old daughter. She also told the
trial judge that Bahman had said he had lost the girl in a gambling match. When
she later discovered that he had tried to rape the girl, she killed him.
It is not known when Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh was arrested. According to the
report in E’temad, the sentence has been upheld by the Supreme Court, although
it is not known when. In Iran, all death sentences have to be approved by the
Supreme Court before they can be implemented. The E’temad report states that
her execution is expected to take place in the next few days.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty as the ultimate cruel, inhuman
and degrading punishment, in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to
which Iran is a state party. Article 6 of the ICCPR states: In countries which
have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for
the most serious crimes.
The Bush administration, as it tries to halt Iran's nuclear program, is looking like the only person in the fireworks factory warning against lighting a match. If the world doesn't stand up to the Iranian threat quickly, a bomb in the hands of the terrorist-friendly Iranian regime could be only a year or two away.
That, of course, is not the spin that comes out Tehran. There, the leadership contends that the nuclear program merely aims at satisfying domestic energy needs -- nevermind the fact that Iran has no need for nuclear power plants. The nation sits atop some 90 billion barrels of oil and untold hundreds of millions of cubic meters of natural gas, making it one of the most energy-sufficient nations on Earth.
Also, the known record of Iran's nuclear development, carried on in secret until two years ago, goes well beyond domestic power purposes. Just this week, Iran confirmed that it has converted several tons of raw uranium into a gas needed for enrichment, which is a key step toward building atomic weapons. Iranian nuclear authorities previously said they planned to process some 40 tons of uranium in that manner, a virtually unmistakable signal of bomb-making intent. At the same time, Iran revealed that it has expanded the reach of its missiles to 1,200 miles -- enough to reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.
October 07, 2004
National Post
Nooredin Abedian
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently told the International Herald Tribune that "Iran is providing support for the insurgency in Iraq." He added, however, that "the extent of its influence over insurgent forces is not clear."
But it is very clear to Iraqis themselves -- including Iraq's Defence Minister, Hazem Shaalan. Being on the terrorists' hit-list himself, having recently lost a cousin to terrorism and having had an uncle kidnapped during last month's unrest in the city of Najaf, Mr. Shaalan cannot be blamed for rejecting Mr. Powell's diplomatic formulations. He told The Washington Post in July that Iran remained "the first enemy of Iraq," charging it with sending spies and saboteurs into his country and infiltrating the new government, including his own ministry.
Theoretically, the Iranians should have little motive for supporting Iraq's guerrillas and terrorists. Iran is largely a nation of Shiite Muslims. The same religious group constitutes a majority of Iraq's citizens, and so Shiites will likely get their way when expected elections are held next year. Moreover, the most influential and organized Iraqi Shiite parties are deeply influenced by Iran, ideologically as well as politically. During Saddam Hussein's rule, many of Iraq's Shiite leaders lived in Iran. Some Iraqi groups were even founded in Iran under direct Iranian influence, with their leaders publicly calling Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei their marja (religious guide).
The wisest course for Tehran, one would think, would be to permit a smooth transition of power following elections, and then extend influence through friendly Shiite intermediaries in Baghdad's new government. Even if the United States military were still stationed in Iraq at that time, Washington would hardly be in a position to confront a nation designated an ally by a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government.
Yet an overwhelming array of facts show Iran has embraced the opposite strategy. In September, Mr. Shaalan displayed an array of weapons with Iranian markings that had been captured from insurgents in Najaf after they were forced out of that city's Shiite shrines following days of bloody fighting. Dozens of Iranians captured during the clashes were shown on Iraqi television.
According to Iran's official press, there are currently more than 1,200 Iranians in custody in Iraq. Iraqi media has recently reported that a truckload containing 1,800 82 mm-mortar rounds, three mortar launchers, 250 Katyusha rockets and large quantities of explosives was seized in transit from Iran to Iraq. Iranian independent opposition sources say 4,000 Shiite clerics from Iran have been sent to Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime. According to the same sources, thousands of Revolutionary Guards disguised as religious pilgrims have also been dispatched.
Why is Iran stirring up Iraq's guerrilla war when it might just as easily profit from a smooth transition to democracy?
The answer lies in Iran's domestic affairs: If Iran, a dictatorship, were to permit a truly democratic political structure to take root next door, it would only provide encouragement to the millions of young Iranians who have been militating for similar reforms back home.
Though Iran and Iraq fought a long and deadly war in the 1980s, the affairs of the two nations are heavily interrelated. Last year, more than five million people crossed the 750-mile-long unguarded Iran-Iraq border, many of them religious pilgrims (and this according to official figures, which are likely lower than the true numbers). Several hundred thousand Iraqis took refuge in Iran during Saddam's rule, married Iranians, and are now travelling back and forth. Two peoples with such a huge volume of religious, cultural, commercial and political ties cannot long be expected to live under totally political different regimes.
For the clerics ruling Iran, the solution is clear. Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, speaker of Iran's Assembly of Experts, an exclusive body of clerics that appoints the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, recently urged Iraqi leaders to "expel the occupiers and establish an Islamic government." And if that doesn't happen, Tehran would gladly accept ongoing bloodshed as a second choice.
Iran's rulers loathed Saddam's regime, but they at least took comfort in the fact that his Baathist political model did not pose much threat to Iran's domestic order. The same cannot be said of a democratic Iraq. Thus is Iran using its violent proxies to help tear the country apart.
In the long run, promoting stability in Iraq will require democratization in Iran -- for Tehran's theocrats will never accept a democracy on their western border. Until that day, the United States and other Western nations should hold Tehran to account for the violence and chaos it is deliberately fomenting. It is bad enough that 70 million Iranians must live under tyranny. Iraq's population must not be allowed to suffer the same fate.
nooredinabedian@mail.com; Nooredin Abedian is a writer living in France, and a former university professor in Iran.
Some of the Islamic regime's notorious apologists are intending to open their way of influence to the "US House's Select Committee on Intelligence". In this line a "fundraising" has been planned for the Honorable "Anna Eshoo" (D-14th/CA) who's a prominent US lawmaker and member of a very sensible legislative body.
The House Representative member seems to be totally unaware of her supporters background and their ultimate goals.
The main organizers and members of the Host Committee are "Susan Akbarpoor", founder of "Silicon Iran" and "Iran Today", and her husband, "Faraj-Alaei" head of the "Centillium Corp." and co-founder of the so-called "Iranian American Political Action Committee" (IAPAC). The couple and some of their related organizations are notorious for having tried, for several years, to legitimize the tyrannical and terrorist Islamic republic regime in the US.
The controversial fundraising is to take place in a Bay area home, located at 27011 DeZahara Way in Los Altos Hills - CA 94022, on October 10th from 05:00 PM. This home seems to be belonging to "Gita Kashani" who's a former head of the "Society of Iranian Professionals" (SIP) of N. California. Involved in the organization of some very controversial activities, Kashani was one of the main planners of "Technological trips to Iran", by non scrupulous US researchers, scholars and businessmen, and a well known organizer of official exchange seminars in cities, such as, Esfahan. It's to note that such actions are known to be needing the collaboration of the highest levels of the Islamic regime's Intelligence and Government in order to take place. She has since joined IAPAC and has increased her activities in a different way and which are more adapted to the current sensible circumstances.
Akbarpoor is a close friend to Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter and a firm advocator of Kamal Kharrazi the Islamic regime's FM. Her organizations are intending to bring US Technology firms to lobby the US Administration for a recognition of the Mullahcracy and the cancellation of sanctions. She seems to have been able to attract, so far, the support of some mercantilist individuals, such as the wife of one of AT & T's main heads, to her goals.
In addition, "Hassan Nemazee", IAPAC's main co-founder who has tried to silence the Movement by initiating a costly juridical litigation, is expected to be present during Ms. Eshoo's questionable fundraising along with his long date colleague, Akbar Ghahary, the current front man of the Kerry Campaign for Iranian-Americans.
It's to note that IAPAC's initial founders, Nemazee, Alaei and Ghahary, were also Board members of the infamous and self-called "American Iranian Council" (AIC). Nemazee used of his position, as AIC Board Member, for publicly calling for the recognition of the Islamic regime, on June 1, 2002, in presence of Senator J. Kerry.
AIC, which is headed by the infamous "Hooshang Amir-Ahmadi", is still publicly trying to lobby for the recognition of the Islamic regime. It has to its dark credit the formal apology offered to Iran (meaning the Mullahs) by "Madeleine Albright", the then Secretary of State; Joe Biden's fundraising at the IMAN Islamist Center of Los Angeles headed by Sadegh Nemazikhah who's a AIC Board member; And various meetings organized between members of the Mullahs' regime, such as Mehdi Karoubi, and several US lawmakers and members of Clinton Administration. Biden is well known for having tried to use of his influence within the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to push for resumption of ties with the illegitimate Mullahcracy.
The IAPAC's trio founders are also among John Kerry's main fundraisers. They're hoping that the election of the Democratic Candidate, as a future US President, will help to avoid Islamic regime's total collapse by boosting it via commercial and nuclear deals with Uncle Sam. Huge amounts of money are getting disbursed, at this time, by this group's members and their affiliated creations or partners, such as the self called "National Iranian American Council" (NIAC), in order to use some of non scrupulous Iranian Satellite TV and Radio networks, such as Tamasha, Channel One or 670 AM, in order to promote Candidate Kerry among the Iranian-American community.
NIAC's front man President is Titra Parsi. He was also a AIC Board member and a well known Khatami advocator. In addition to some questionable Iranian financial sources, the group is receiving financial contributions from groups affiliated to Theresa Heinz Kerry , such as Tides Foundation, and George Soros' Open Society Institute. Playing the nationalistic feelings of young Iranians, NIAC claims to be bi-partisan while in reality its heads are targeting a Democrat victory in the next US Presidential elections.
The Honorable Anna Eshoo's contact references are:
Phone: (202) 225-8104; (650) 323-2984; (408) 245-2339
Fax: (202) 225-8890 ; (650) 323-3498
E.mail: http://www-eshoo.house.gov/contact.aspx
"We do not have a concrete date for a visit by the president to Iran, but there is a firm agreement with the Iranian side that this visit will take place in the foreseeable future," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alekseyev said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will visit Tehran for two days starting Sunday for talks with Iranian officials that could finalize details for a trip there by Putin, Alekseyev told reporters at a briefing.
Iran is under mounting international pressure to suspend uranium enrichment activities until its nuclear program is investigated thoroughly by independent experts, and Russia is also being squeezed for assisting in its development.
Russia has called on Iran to comply with all demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but Alekseyev rejected suggestions that Moscow should suspend its work in Iran's civilian nuclear program. "We are working and will work with Iran in the area of nuclear development for civilian purposes," Alekseyev stated. "It has no importance whether there is pressure or not."
During his visit, Lavrov was due to discuss a series of economic projects with Iran as well as possible ways of cooperating to fight international terrorism.
"We could imagine a new document in which Russia and Iran could express their unacceptance of international terrorism and their decisive rejection of terrorist acts," Alekseyev said.
 |
||
|
||
|
October 08, 2004, 8:26 a.m.
In fact, our retreat achieved the opposite effect. Thus the withdrawal from Fallujah will be taught for decades as a textbook case of what not to do when suppressing insurgents. Nevertheless, we have reestablished the fact that we can crush all the opposition on the ground, our willingness to restart real hostilities dependent only on how much flak from our critics in the Middle East and Europe we are willing to take.
Let us hope that our planners have learned that whatever ephemeral public relations or humanitarianism they achieved by sparing the terrorists in Fallujah was vastly outweighed by the death and destruction they wrought and the greater number of lives that must now be sacrificed to defeat the emboldened killers for good. The foreign killers in Fallujah are just the sort of folk who trained in Afghanistan, would like to repeat 9/11, and are psychopathic killers of innocent reformers. Instead of worrying about how they got to Fallujah, we should see it as to our advantage that they are now conveniently collected in one central place and can be dealt with en masse. Because the 4th Infantry Division never came down from Turkey during the war into the Sunni Triangle, hundreds of Baathist killers who should have been crushed were not, and instead they melted away. It is now time to finish the job.
Second, are the terrorists — through their suicide bombing, car explosions, hostage-takings, and beheadings — winning widespread Iraqi support? Here I do not mean the anti-American braggadocio we see on spec when a CNN reporter sticks a microphone into the face of someone whose house has just been demolished. Rather, is there a large minority of Iraqis — perhaps four to five million — who are actively helping the terrorists and Islamicists? Again, so far the answer seems to be no; to the degree that civilians provide help and shelter to a Zarqawi and his thugs, it is predicated on self-interest: His men are ruthless and in the neighborhood, while the Americans are forgiving and distant. There is as yet no mass movement analogous to the Vietcong — one with a clear-cut and popular agenda to seize power and either restore Saddam or institute sharia. Indeed, the Iraqi democratic military has suffered as many battle casualties in its struggle against the terrorists as have the Americans.
Third, does fighting the terrorists lead to a political resolution that offers manifest advantages to the majority of Iraqis, and is it recognized as such? The answer is yes, with scheduled elections in January that could develop along the lines of those in Afghanistan. The increasing role of the Iraqi defense forces, the growing prominence of Mr. Allawi, and the preparations for voting in less than four months can all offer a political endgame that will soon lead to some sort of greater freedom and prosperity. That we have been inept in publicizing our achievements is regrettable; but still, most Iraqis grasp that American success leads to water, power, and jobs, and that Zarqawi's victory ensures heads rolling on the ground or spiked on fence posts.
Unlike the case of South Vietnam, the provisional democratic government is not flanked by a hostile nuclear China or Soviet Union, nor is it attacked by an organized conventional military fueled by the romance of a secular and global leftist utopianism. Not even French students march on behalf of Zarqawi's beheaders. So there is an opportunity for a political dynamic to emerge that terrifies al Qaeda: an oil-rich democratic Iraqi state, near a similarly consensual Turkey and Afghanistan, with nuclear India, Russia, and Pakistan — all hostile to Islamic fascists — nearby.
Indeed, the long-term strategic outlook for al Qaeda is far worse than its occasional macabre killings on the ground might suggest: Its victims are often Muslims, from all over the world, and are entirely innocent. So far the terrorists have not galvanized the Arab Street as much as dealt a crushing public-relations blow to Islam itself, succeeding in just a few years to make the young Arab Muslim male the most suspicious and scrutinized fellow on the planet. Indeed, in three years bin Laden and Zarqawi have done for the stereotyping of Arabs what Hitler did for Germans in 15 — and it will take decades to undo the damage to the reputations of millions in the Middle East not yet born.
Fourth, is there a mechanism for the United States to ease out of Iraq? More so than we think. In fact, the first step was eliminating Saddam Hussein. His departure meant that we did not need to keep tens of thousands of troops in the Gulf to box in a rogue Iraq. Thus, after the January elections, our goal should be redeployment rather than entirely new troop commitments: The 10,000 not needed in Saudi Arabia can be transferred to garrison duty to protect the Iraqi democracy, while we also draw down in the Gulf States and likewise shift those assets to bases in Iraq. In a larger sense, if 40,000 Americans who would be doing little in Germany are instead keeping the peace in Iraq, the overall cost to the American taxpayer is about the same.
And the next time the United States uses force in the Middle East, we shall not do nation-building but rather serious GPS-ing at 20,000 feet in punitive Roman fashion. Indeed, despite the glum punditry, the sacrifice of blood and treasure to bring freedom to the Iraqis has been a landmark event by virtue of the very attempt. For decades, a corrupt Arab League — now unconcerned that Arab Muslims have murdered 50,000 black Africans but never losing a chance to damn Israelis for killing 30 Palestinian militants — whined that neocolonialism, Cold War realpolitik, oil, and imperialism precluded Western support for democratic reform.
Well now, Arab League, here you have your long-sought-after dream: The United States spent its own blood to take out a fascist, committed billions in aid to jump start democracy, and lobbied the world to forgive Iraqi debt — only to find either silence from the region's dictators or their active help for the beheaders and car bombers seeking to inaugurate an 8th-century fascist caliphate. The point? The Iraqi people and the Arab Middle East will soon have to go on record either accepting or rejecting the chance for democracy. If they choose theocracy, anarchy, or autocracy, well, the United States can say at least it tried to offer them a way out of their self-induced misery — but the region turned out to prefer the Dark Ages after all and must be left alone to suffer the consequences of that decision.
If an aggregate $50 billion in aid to Egypt; billions more to the Palestinians and Jordanians; the removal of the bloodthirsty Saddam Hussein and the Taliban; $87 billion invested in Iraq and an attempt to relieve its international debt; saving the Kuwaitis; protecting the Saudis; stopping the genocide of Muslims in the Balkans; and keeping the Persian Gulf safe gets us sky-high cartel oil prices and poll data showing that 95 percent of the Middle East does not like America, it is time to try something else.
I could start with the modest suggestion of a gradual cutting off all aid to Egypt, halting most immigration to the United States from the Middle East (in the manner we once did with Communist Eastern Europe), and announcing a carrot-and-stick non-interventionist Bush Doctrine II. All future Middle East military and economic aid would be predicated on the recipient's having a democratic government, while evidence of either terrorist bases or weapons of mass destruction would earn sustained U.S. bombing. Finally, we need a serious energy policy beside the pie-in-the-sky "hydrogen car" or "wind and solar" panacea. If the windmills won't spin for the beach houses off the coast of Nantucket, then they won't spin for us in Fresno either.
We can start by a compromise to drill for oil in the United States while clamping down on gas-guzzling cars. Nuclear power, more hydroelectric damns, oil shale, and mass transit may require subsidies, but billions of U.S. petrodollars are already subsidizing a corrupt Middle East, transmogrifying the type of violence we see routinely in Africa or Asia into something that can literally end the world as we know it.
In fact, Kerry's only chance for honest intellectual criticism of the Bush administration might have come from the right: stern remonstrations over our tolerance of looting, inability to train Iraqis in real numbers, laxity in shutting off the borders, failure to control arms depots, tolerance for terrorist enclaves in Fallujah, and sloth in releasing aid money to grass-roots organizations. Yet by putting a tired Richard Holbrook or a whining Jamie Rubin on television, Kerry suggests that far from chastising Bush for doing too little, he believes that the president has already done too much.
The administration's gaffes all share a common theme of restraining our military power in fear of either Middle Eastern or European censure. But once one climbs into a cesspool like Iraq, one must either clean it up or go home, and that means suffering the 48-hour hysteria of the global media about collateral damage in exchange for killing the terrorists and freeing the country. Only that way can we impress the fencesitting Iraqis that we employ an iron fist in service to their own security and prosperity, and thus we — not the beheaders and kidnappers — are their only partners for peace.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com. Sizing Up Iraq
Things are coming to a head in the Middle East.
From the various insurgencies of the Peloponnesian War to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaya, there remain constants across 2,500 years of time and space that presage victory or defeat. Drawing wisdom from that past, there are at least four critical issues that must always be addressed if we are to create a stable Iraq under the auspices of a broad-based consensual government. So far the occupation has been plagued by mistakes, false assumptions, and incompetence — and yet we find ourselves still with a good chance of success.
Do the bad guys -- the terrorists in their Afghan caves and Iraqi redoubts -- want George Bush defeated in this election? Bush critics, among them the editors of the New York Times, have worked themselves into a lather over the mere suggestion that this might be so. A front-page "analysis" in The Post quoted several Republican variations of this theme -- such as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage saying that the terrorists in Iraq "are trying to influence the election against President Bush" -- then noted that "[s]uch accusations . . . surfaced in the modern era during the McCarthy communist hunt."
Intimations of McCarthyism constitute a serious charge. But the charge is not remotely serious. Of course the terrorists want Bush defeated. How can anyone pretend otherwise?
|
Of course not. We know the terrorists' intent and strategy. We saw it on display in Spain, where a spectacular terrorist attack three days before the national election set off the chain of events that brought down a government that had allied itself with the United States. The attack worked perfectly. Within weeks Spain had withdrawn its troops from Iraq. Last month, terrorists set off a car bomb outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in the middle of a neck-and-neck Australian election campaign and just three days before the only televised debate between the two candidates. The prime minister, John Howard, is a staunch U.S. ally in both Afghanistan and Iraq. His opponent, Mark Latham, has pledged to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas. The terrorists may be medieval primitives, but they know about cell phones and the Internet and fuel-laden commercial airliners. They also know about elections. Their obvious objective is to drive from power those governments most deeply involved in the war against them -- in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. The point is not only to radically alter an enemy nation's foreign policy -- as in Spain -- but to deter any other government contemplating similar support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism. But Spain and Australia -- Britain, with Tony Blair up for reelection next year, will surely be next -- are merely supporting actors. The real prize is America. An electoral repudiation of President Bush would be seen by the world as a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, specifically his aggressive, preemptive and often unilateral prosecution of the war on terrorism, most especially Iraq. It would be a correct interpretation because John Kerry has made clear that he is fighting this election on precisely those grounds. Does this mean that the bad guys want Kerry to win? Michael Kinsley with his usual drollery ridicules the idea by conjuring up the image of Osama bin Laden, "as he sits in his cave studying materials from the League of Women Voters," deciding to cast his absentee ballot for the Democrats. The point, of course, is that the terrorists have no particular interest in Kerry. What they care about is Bush. He could be running against a moose, and bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi would be for the moose. How to elect the moose? A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As Sept. 11 showed, attacking the U.S. homeland would prompt a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide. ... The Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are conducting their own Tet Offensive with the same objective as the one in 1968: to demoralize the American citizenry, convince it that the war cannot be won, and ultimately encourage it to reject the administration that brought the war upon them and that is the more unequivocal about seeing it through. It is perfectly true, as Bush critics constantly point out, that many millions around the world -- from Jacques Chirac to the Arab street -- dislike Bush and want to see him defeated. It is ridiculous to pretend that bin Laden, Zarqawi and the other barbarians are not among them. |
TOKYO (Reuters) - Iran should freeze all its uranium enrichment-related activities by a Nov. 25 board of governors meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, said on Friday.
But ElBaradei added that he was hopeful Iran would comply by then and even if it did not the matter would not automatically be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
"I'm still hoping that before the meeting of the board that Iran will come into full suspension" of its uranium enrichment-related activities, ElBaradei told a news conference.
The IAEA board of governors passed a resolution last month demanding that Iran freeze all activities connected with uranium enrichment, including making feed material for centrifuges.
Earlier Friday, ElBaradei said his agency had not detected any signs that Iran was using its nuclear program to make weapons, but that he was still concerned.
Iran said Wednesday it had processed several tons of raw "yellowcake" uranium to prepare it for enrichment -- a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons -- in defiance of the IAEA.
ElBaradei said Iran's assurances that it was not developing atomic weapons needed to be verified by IAEA inspectors.
"Our job is to verify that the assurances are reflected on the ground," he said after giving a speech in Tokyo.
ElBaradei, tipped as a potential winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, to be announced later Friday, said the IAEA was making good progress in monitoring Iran's nuclear activities.
But he said it was too early to say that concerns about Iran's nuclear program had been cleared completely.
"We have not completed our job to be able to say that no undeclared activities exist in Iran," he said.
Iran has said it will not yield to foreign pressure aimed at stopping what it says is a peaceful energy program, but which Washington says is a covert scheme aimed at building bombs.
An IAEA spokeswoman in Vienna said Wednesday that the uranium processing was being closely monitored by the agency to ensure that nothing would be diverted for weapons purposes.
It was unclear how much processed uranium had been produced so far, though Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Hossein Mousavian, indicated the amount was not large.
Iran's uranium conversion plant at Isfahan intends to process a total of 37 tons of yellowcake, which experts say could be enriched into material for up to five atomic weapons.
Tehran had originally promised France, Germany and Britain in October 2003 that it would suspend its entire enrichment program and all related activities.
While it has yet to enrich any uranium, Iran never entirely froze the program and recently resumed key parts of it.
If Tehran fails to heed the demands, the board has said it will consider possible "further steps" when it meets next month.
Diplomats on the board said this included possibly referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions.
ElBaradei declined to say if the IAEA should refer Iran to the Security Council or whether it should set a deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program.
ElBaradei arrived in Tokyo Wednesday for a four-day visit.
10/8/04
| Statement on the Subject of Accusations Made Against Iranian-American Political Action Committee |
|---|
| Over the past year, certain groups and individuals on several occasions have leveled various accusations against the Iranian-American Political Action Committee ("IAPAC") and its members. These accusations have ranged from insinuations that certain of IAPAC’s members are sympathetic to and act to promote the policies of foreign governments such as the Islamic Republic of Iran to suggestions that the organization is designed to promote the narrow interests of only a few persons. While categorically denying such allegations, IAPAC does not see any purpose to responding to particulars of these attacks; they consist of no more than reckless and baseless ad hominems that should have no place in reasoned political debate. Instead, we trust that our audience will look beyond the dissonance caused by a few that are insistent on capitalizing upon issues that divide our community by circulating and recirculating a set of false rumors and look to the organization’s purpose and accomplishments to judge its merits. We therefore publish this communication not only to reintroduce ourselves, but also to present a report on some of our activities. IAPAC is a registered bipartisan federal political action committee that contributes to candidates for federal office. The principal criterion for making donations is whether the political candidate is attuned to the domestic policy concerns of the Iranian-American community residing in the United States. IAPAC focuses exclusively on these domestic policy matters, which, broadly speaking, thus far have consisted of civil rights and immigration issues. While supporting candidates on the issues, IAPAC also seeks to build and strengthen our community's political influence by, among other things, encouraging Iranian-Americans, regardless of their party affiliation, to participate actively in the political and electoral process and supporting Iranian-Americans who run for political office in the United States. The purposes of IAPAC reflect the concern of its founders about what they perceived to be a need for a voice for the Iranian-American community within the political institutions of the United States. For too long, Iranian-Americans have not had a coherent, let alone influential, voice in American politics, even though individually they have succeeded at the highest levels of their educational and professional endeavors. The reality of the American political system teaches, moreover, that a community’s voice will be heard only if it is organized, is financially strong, and has a coherent, persuasive message. As such, IAPAC’s founders concluded that a political action committee representing our common interests was indispensable. This political action committee required (and will always require) strong financial backing and community support. IAPAC is a bipartisan political action committee, meaning that it endeavors to advance its stated policy goals by reaching out to and building influence for the Iranian-American community among the ranks of both the Republican and Democratic parties. As such, IAPAC's trustees include individuals of diverse political persuasions and affiliations. While recognizing their differences of opinion, IAPAC's trustees have chosen to emphasize our community's common interests and to work together towards achieving the organization's stated goals. This is a model of collaboration that undoubtedly best serves our collective interest and that we sincerely hope and trust will be increasingly adopted by ever larger segments of the Iranian-American community. Recognizing both the need for political and civic success and the absence of the necessary organizational framework, the twenty-two founding Trustees of IAPAC sought to create a mechanism to fill that void for the Iranian-American community. The impact of recent legislation (actual and proposed) on our community provided the necessary impetus to found the organization. Founded in 2003, IAPAC has grown at a rapid rate because of the dedication and support of a broad, bipartisan, and geographically diverse group of Iranian-Americans from all walks of life. Click here to learn more about IAPAC’s organizational structure and leadership profiles. Our recent activities demonstrate that IAPAC has become a credible and strong voice for Iranian-Americans. For example, IAPAC’s efforts have helped counteract recent legislative and regulatory developments in the field of immigration law that had a prejudicial impact on Iranians. In this regard, in collaboration with other Iranian-American organizations, IAPAC has brought the detention of approximately 1000 Iranians to the attention of Congress and has assisted scheduling and publicizing bipartisan briefings on Capital Hill on the issues of immigration law and its implementation under the NSEERS program. In addition, IAPAC has supported candidates for Congress whose positions promise to further advance the concerns of our community. Click here to learn more about candidates supported by IAPAC. Click here to learn more about IAPAC’s activities. One final matter. Since IAPAC’s inception, many have asked what the organization’s position is with respect to Iran. As noted above, IAPAC is singularly dedicated to matters of American domestic policy. But we add the following thoughts. It goes without saying that the vast majority of, if not all Iranian-Americans ardently hope for a free, tolerant, and democratic Iran. However, in our experience, more specific discussions touching on matters of Iranian domestic politics traditionally have engendered great division within the community. Therefore, in forming IAPAC, the twenty-two founding trustees concluded that the organization would succeed only if it were built around domestic issues of interest or concern upon which there was consensus in the community. Thus, the goal has been not to confront and divide, but to encourage the community to believe that America belongs to it as much as it does to anyone else, and to get involved so that the Iranian American community can define its own image and can have a say about its future in America. We believe that those who continually seek to hurl baseless accusations and recycle the same old insinuations against IAPAC do a great disservice to all Iranian-Americans who are seeking to establish their rightful place within the American political system. We at IAPAC believe that it is more important for Iranian-Americans to participate and engage in thoughtful and deliberate discussions – regardless of what their views may be – than for them to sit on the sidelines or to perpetuate innuendo. We only hope that Iranian-Americans will enter the political debate aiming to persuade with facts and sound reasoning. We invite you to learn more about us by visiting our web site at www.iranianamericanpac.org. |
Friday, October 8, on the morning after an terrorist bombing rampage at three idyllic Sinai desert resorts – with two dozen known dead and scores still missing – the first clues have been found to the identities of the hands behind the massacre and their targets. DEBKAfile’s intelligence and counter-terror sources report that the explosives used to tear away the entire frontage of the Taba Hilton and hit the Nueiba oasis campside further south on the Red Sea coast were of Iranian manufacture; the same make as the bombs used in the 1996 Khobar Towers blast and he 2003 Istanbul attacks.
Egyptian intelligence investigators are working on the same premise as their Israeli counterparts that a Hizballah cell based in Sinai rigged the four bomb cars and by mid-September had them ready for Thursday’s multiple strike. Two were reserved for the 10-storey Taba Hilton, where bodies are still being dug out of the rubble.
Intelligence of suggestive Hizballah movements prompted the counter-terror center at the Israeli prime minister’s office to warn Israeli travelers on the eve of the Jewish New Year to miss out on their favorite holiday sites in Sinai. Nonetheless, 15,000 Israelis were trapped there Thursday night.
(The Hizballah’s Sinai cell is part of the Palestinian international weapons smuggling network that has grown out of the Sinai-Gaza tunnel system and which now branches out to East Africa, Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Turkey and Chechnya.)
Two of the four bomb cars have been identified as “Ramses,” an Egyptian version of the Fiat. They were kept hidden in caves and wadis around the Sinai desert in waiting for the suicide bombers. Another Egyptian intelligence premise is that between 4 and 6 bombers activated the death cars, arriving one or two days earlier by one of two routes - from Sudan or from Saudi Arabia via Sudan. They would have reached the Egyptian Red Sea port of Gardaka and taken a regular ferry to Sharm el-Sheikh. Disembarking passengers are only lightly searched as Egypt has no wish to hurt its tourist trade. The other possibility is that the bombers crossed the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia and arrived at the Sharm el-Sheikh marina aboard a Saudi yacht, knowing the Egyptians would never search it.
A few hours later, they would have been picked up and driven to the hidden bomb cars by Hizballah operatives.
Friday's Casualty Figures.
Updated interim casualty figures from terrorist attacks on three Sinai resorts Thursday night: Total number of dead estimated at 28 including 14 Israelis and 6 Egyptians. Others will be identified by DNA testing. Six bodies transferred to Israel thus far. Of the 142 known Israeli wounded, 126 were taken to Eilat hospital and 16 to Beersheba. Six thousand Israeli trippers are still in Sinai of the 15,000 at the time of the attacks. No contact has been established with 250. At the ravaged 10-storey Taba Hilton, 70 Israeli rescue teams with heavy equipment are burrowing in the rubble for survivors alongside Egyptian teams. Altogether 200 Israeli aid and rescue personnel operating now in Sinai.
Iran's cleric leaders are harboring Osama bin Laden, according to two Iranian intelligence officials cited in a new book.
The sources say they have seen the al-Qaida terrorist leader alive and well, although he no longer resembles the picture on FBI wanted posters.
Author Richard Miniter writes in "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror" that bin Laden "has trimmed his beard to fit the more traditional look of a Shi'ite cleric and he seemed to have put on weight, according to intelligence officials." The sources say bin Laden is constantly on the move, "shuttling from Iranian safe houses controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Iranian-backed warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."
"Choopan," one of the sources, gives three reasons why Tehran would give safe haven to bin Laden, risking the wrath of the West.
"First, the Iranians believe they can keep bin Laden's presence a secret and plausibly deny it if publicly accused," Miniter writes. "Second, the mullahs are feeling increasingly threatened by the War on Terror.
"The mullahs, Choopan says, fear a counter-revolution and see bin Laden's fighters as tools they can use to ensure the failure of these young democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the survival of mullah-dominated Iran. Finally, they share enemies, including many Arab leaders, the United States and the rest of the Western world."
The book, launched earlier this week by Regnery, publisher of "Unfit for Command," already is No. 2 on the Amazon.com list.
Posted Friday, October 8, 2004
DAMASCUS-TEHRAN 8 Oct. (IPS) Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and his Syrian host Bashar Asad discussed best ways and means to form a new anti-American-Israeli axis to take off pressures Washington and Tel Aviv are putting on them.
The embattled Iranian President confirmed on Friday that the two countries would expand their cooperation in the face of mounting pressures from the United States and Israel as well as foster peace in the troubled region of Middle East.
The Iranian embattled President arrived in Damascus early Thursday morning at the end of an official visit to the neighbouring kingdom of Muscat and Oman, the last leg of a weeklong trip to African Arab nations of Algeria and Sudan.
The unscheduled visit came at a time that both countries, staunch opponents of the United States and Israel, are under increased international pressures, accused of derailing peace efforts by providing military, logistic and financial assistance to Palestinian and Arab radical groups opposed to peace with the Jewish State.
While the Iranian ruling ayatollahs are suspected of leaving no stone unturned in order to become a nuclear power, Syria, for its part, is under international pressure because of its “satellisation” of Lebanon.
"These pressures have always existed and we have to neutralize them through our cooperation", the official news agencies of both countries reported Khatami as saying in Damascus at the start of his visit to Syria.
Both Tehran and Damascus are also suspected by Washington of being behind Iraq’s insurgency by leaving their porous borders open to Arab and Muslim fighters, known as “jihadis” the remnants of Osama Ben Laden’s “Al-Qa’eda” network that masterminded the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.
According to Mr. Patrick Seale, a well-known British journalist based in Paris, under the auspices of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a new and “much dangerous” alliance is taking shape uniting for the first time Sunni and Shi’a Muslims in the one hand and Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah with hard line Palestinian groups assisted by Damascus.
“A new high command is taking shape, formed by Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a movement that booted out Israel from southern Lebanon, HAMAS, the Palestinian resistance movement that has overshadowed the Palestinian Authority of Yaser Arafat as a spearhead of resistance to Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, represented in the occupied territories by the Islamic Jihad and last but not least, the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Mr. Seale, author of a biography of the former Syrian strongman Hafez Asad wrote in the last edition of “Jeune Afrique-L’Intelligent” dated 3 to 9 October 2004.
“The particularity of this new alliance is that first of all, it abolishes the Shi’a-Sunni division among Muslims and also reunites Arab nationalists and islamists under one common flag. There is no more differences between resistance and jihadis”, he added, quoting one western intelligence source.
Khatam-Bashar talks also focused on ways of maintaining stability in the Middle East in view of escalated Israeli violence and developments in neighbouring Iraq, where both Syria and Iran strongly oppose the presence of American forces.
"In our meetings we will try to cooperate toward ensuring calm and stability in the crisis-ridden Middle East region", Khatami said. "The situation is getting more perilous because of the inhuman and violent actions of the Zionist regime", he added.
“The visit took place at a time when great pressure is being exerted on Syria, as a significant regional country, by the US, Zionist regime and some Western countries”, the official Iranian news agency IRNA commented, referring to a recent UN-based measure, sponsored by Washington and Paris, urging Syria to pull its 40.000 strong troops out of neighbouring Lebanon.
Bowing to the move, Syria returned around 10.000 soldiers from around Beirut.
Syria's support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups and allegations Damascus was pursuing weapons of mass destruction were among key reasons behind U.S. economic sanctions in May.
“Political experts call Khatami’s visit to Syria as being “important”, believing that it would consolidate Syrian position in this critical situation”, the agency added, failing to mention Iran’s growing troubles with the United States, European Union’s so-called Big trio of Britain, France and Germany and the the International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear projects as well as Iran’s isolation in both the international community and the Arab and Muslim worlds.
In the past two decades, Iran and Syria have been enjoying close strategic relations based on their bilateral interests, as Damascus ruled by a rival faction of the Ba'th Party, was the only Arab nation that sided with non Arab Iran when the now toppled Saddam Hussein attacked it on September 1980.This is Khatami’s fourth trip to Syria.
Both presidents condemned the massacre of innocent Muslims in the occupied Palestine and called on the international community to react against the Zionist regime’s crimes, IRNA reported, as Mr. Khatami returned to Tehran on Friday.
This was Khatami's fourth official visit to Syria. The younger Asad came to Tehran three times.
According to Mr. Seale, American unilateral and systematic backing of Israel’s hard line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in crushing the Palestinians in the one hand and American-Israeli’s menaces against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear ambitions are among major factors “explaining” the new mobilisation, “better organised and more determined.
ENDS IRAN SYRIA 81004
Disclaimer: 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.
/312_G.jpg)
