Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert -- August 16, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST
The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 8.16.2003 | DoctorZin

Posted on 08/16/2003 12:04:44 AM PDT by DoctorZIn

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movment in Iran from being reported.

From jamming satellite broadcasts, to prohibiting news reporters from covering any demonstrations to shutting down all cell phones and even hiring foreign security to control the population, the regime is doing everything in its power to keep the popular movement from expressing its demand for an end of the regime.

These efforts by the regime, while successful in the short term, do not resolve the fundamental reasons why this regime is crumbling from within.

Iran is a country ready for a regime change. 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.

Please continue to join us here, post your news stories and comments to this thread.

Thanks for all the help.

DoctorZin


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran; iranianalert; protests; studentmovement
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
To find all the links to all 68 threads since the protests started, go to:


1 posted on 08/16/2003 12:04:44 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Join Us at the Iranian Alert -- August 16, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

Live Thread Ping List | 8.15.2003 | DoctorZin

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”


2 posted on 08/16/2003 12:05:39 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
IRANIAN ANALYSTS WARNED THE US AGAINST NORMALISING WITH IRAN

PARIS 15 Aug. (IPS) 8.16.2003

Iranian political experts welcomed US State Department’s decision to outlaw the Council of National Resistance of Iran (CNRI), the political front of the outlawed Mojahedeeen Khalq Organisation (MKO), but at the same time expressed concern to see it being exploited by the ruling ayatollahs to increase their crackdown on Iranian dissidents.

The State Department said on Friday that it had placed the CNRI on its list of terrorist organisations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) immediately proceeded to close down the Council’s offices in Washington D. C and other major American cities, including New York and Los Angeles.

"The Americans for the first time in their relationship with Iran have a real capital of sympathy with the Iranian people, mostly with the young generation, the only one in the whole of the Middle East to really like and appreciate the Americans. They should not deceive the Iranian people by comforting a regime that has no future", observed Mr. Ali Keshtgar, the Editor of the Paris-based "Mihan" (Homeland) monthly.

The order, signed by Mr. Colin Powell, the State Secretary, says all banking accounts of the CNRI would be closed and its members in the US would be informed that their activities would be regarded as harmful to the interests of the United States.

"The Mojahedeen Khalq Organisation and its affiliates, under any name, are considered as terrorist organizations and their activities are illegal inside and outside the United States", Mr. Powell stated.

The MKO had been already been declared a terrorist organization by both the US and the European Union, but its political arm, the National Council of Resistance was allowed to operate.

When the Allied occupied Iraq some 100 days ago, they also attacked several of the military bases the deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hoseyn had placed at the disposal of the MKO for their operations against the Islamic Republic, but latter reached an agreement with the Organisation allowing its members to keep their light weapons.

On last June, more than a thousand French crack policemen and gendarmerie forces raided the MKO's international headquarters in the small town of Auvers Sur Oise near Paris, arrested 13 leaders of the group, including Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the NCRI's co-leader, and seized more than 9 millions US Dollars and 200.000 Euros, all in cash.

A semi-military organisation, the MKO, led by Mr. Mas'oud Rajavi, obeys a strict Marxist-Islamist ideology and is the only armed group fighting the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Because of Friday weekly holiday in Iran, there was no immediate reaction from Tehran and at the time of placing this article on the web, no spokesmen from the MKO or the CNRI had made any comment.

Though the State Department offered no reason for its somehow surprise decision, but some Iranian and western sources said it might be part of the ongoing

Tehran-Washington secret negotiations aimed at encouraging Tehran to hand over to the United States some of the high-ranking al-Qa’eda officials believed to be in the Iranians custody.

According to the Americans, one of Osama Ben Laden’s sons, Sa’d, his second man in command, the Egyptian Dr Eyman al Zawaheri, al-Qa’ed’a spokesman, Soleyman Abou Qaith, the network’s present coordinator Seyf al Adl are in Iran.

But the Saudi-owned pan Arab daily "al Sharq al Awsat" said on Thursday that all four men had left Iran, probably for safer places along Iranian-Afghanistan-Pakistan borders.

Informed Iranian sources confirmed the news, saying that the Iranian authorities, of fear to see some of the men being officially pinpointed by the Americans, had evacuated tem outside Iran.

Tehran immediately denied the information, reiterating that none of the men were ever in Iran.

But the statement lacks credibility, as in previous declarations; the official spokesman for President Mohammad Khatami had insisted that Iran had not been able to identify all of the 500 al-Qa’da and Taleban operatives in detains.

"The Americans are well aware of the activities of the MKO. At the same time, they have also put the Islamic Republic among evil and terrorist states. It is therefore possible that Washington, by placing the NCRI on their list of terrorist organizations, wants to encourage Iran in handing over leading terrorist personalities" Mr. Keshtgar added.

"The decision to ban the Mojaheden’s Resistance Council does not mean that Washington wants normalize relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime that is the mother of all terrorists, but that it wants enter into a bargain over the suspected al-Qa’eda people believed to be in the custody of the Iranians", he pointed out.

In his view, Washington would make a "terrible mistake" if it really was looking to appease the Iranian Mullahrchy.

Asked by Iran Press Service if, anyhow, Iran is in a position to reciprocate the Americans decision, handing over to them some of the senior al-Qa’eda people? Mr. Keshtgar ruled out, observing not only the Islamic Republic would be discredited in Arab and Islamic worlds, but also would face rebellion from its own base, the basij volunteers, the revolution’s guards, the judiciary, the lumpen religious and the masses of uneducated people. ENDS US MKO 15803

http://www.iran-press-service.com/
3 posted on 08/16/2003 12:13:16 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
IRANIAN ANALYSTS WARNED THE US AGAINST NORMALISING WITH IRAN

PARIS 15 Aug. (IPS) 8.16.2003

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/965111/posts?page=3#3

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
4 posted on 08/16/2003 12:14:20 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
US Bans Iranian Opposition Group

August 15, 2003
Middle East Online
middle-east-online.com

WASHINGTON - The United States on Friday banned the political wing of the Iranian opposition group People's Mujahedeen, froze its assets and moved to close down its offices here, the State Department said.

The move, announced in a notice signed by Secretary of State Colin Powell that was published in the Federal Register, outlaws the National Council of Resistance, declaring it to be a terrorist organization.

The designation also applies to the group's alias "the National Council of Resistance of Iran" and includes "its US representative office and all other offices worldwide," Powell said in the notice.

The People's Mujahadeen -- also known as the Mujahedeen e Khalq (MEK) -- has been on Washington's terrorism blacklist for some time, but its political wing has fought the designation in US courts.

Amid the uncertainty over its status, the National Council of Resistance maintained offices in Washington and other US cities and has frequently held news conferences to denounce the Iranian government.

Friday's announcement appears to be aimed at closing that legal loophole, paving the way for US authorities to shut down the group's offices, according to a State Department official.

The US move against the People's Mujahadeen follows a similar crackdown on the group in France, where police raided its headquarters in a Paris suburb in June, arresting scores of people.

The group's leader, Maryam Rajavi, was one of more than 160 people initially detained in the raids and her arrest outraged her followers, with a spate of self-immolation protests across Europe that left two women dead.

Rajavi and 16 others who were then placed under investigation were granted conditional release in early July after two weeks in detention, although that does not preclude charges being brought against them.

The group - which is also designated a terrorist organization by the European Union and Iran - has denied all wrongdoing.

With a program that blends left-wing and Islamic ideology, the People's Mujahedeen took part in the 1979 revolution in Iran, but the movement was suppressed in the years that followed and its members fled abroad.

Under the leadership of Rajavi's husband, Massoud, the military wing of the group took refuge in Iraq in 1986, from where it organized attacks inside Iran.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=6799
5 posted on 08/16/2003 12:17:04 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; Texas_Dawg; McGavin999; Eala; happygrl; risk; ewing; norton; piasa; Valin; pcx99; ...
Europe pressed to shun Iranian oilfield

By Carola Hoyos in London

Published: August 15 2003 18:52 | Last Updated: August 15 2003 18:52

Spencer Abraham, US energy secretary, has warned the Netherlands and Italy not to allow its companies to invest in Iran's giant Azadegan oilfield.

Mr Abraham's move, made on a trip to Europe this week, heralds a new US campaign to increase pressure on a reluctant Europe to isolate Iran over its nuclear weapons programme.

In 2000 Iran agreed with the Japanese government to give priority rights to Japex and Indonesia Petroleum, both Japanese companies, to develop the field in return for Japanese loans.

The US State Department in the past months has put pressure on Tokyo to forgo developing the field, which is said to hold up to 45bn barrels of oil.

Mr Abraham, who on Friday cut short his trip to Europe because of the massive power outages in North America, was asked to "secure commitments from other governments and companies" not to step in and snatch up the field if the US was successful in dissuading Japan from making an investment, a senior administration official told the FT.

He said that Japan was "open to the idea of forgoing the field" and that discussions were "moving in the direction we want".

The Iran-Libya Act of 1996 imposed sanctions on non-US companies that invested more than $20m (?17.7m, £12.4m) in Iran's oil or natural gas sector. But neither Bill Clinton, the former president, nor President George W. Bush enforced the measure.

Antonio Marzano, Italy's industry minister, told Mr Abraham that Eni, Italy's biggest energy company - which has interests in both Iran's on and offshore oil and natural gas fields - would provide written assurance that it would not take over the Azadegan field.

However, the Dutch government gave the US no commitment that Royal Dutch/Shell would not widen its investment in Iran. Shell in 1999 signed an $800m deal to develop two oilfields, one of which began production in late 2001.

Shell, together with Total of France and British Petroleum, has also shown interest in another oilfield in south-western Iran.

The US is still looking for a promise by France that Total, which rarely has qualms about investing in countries deemed unacceptable by the US, would not expand its oil and gas activity in Iran.

Iran, which holds 90bn barrels of oil reserves, is counting on foreign investment of up to $5bn a year to increase its daily oil production. This was as high as 6m b/d in 1974 but has remained less than 4m b/d since the revolution in 1979. Despite the threat of US sanctions, more than 90 companies are active or have shown interest in Iran's oil sector.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479056119&p=1012571727162
6 posted on 08/16/2003 12:23:56 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran allows sampling ahead of IAEA report

By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran and Roula Khalaf in London
Published: August 14 2003

Iran allowed UN atomic energy inspectors this week to take samples from a controversial and previously banned site, in an apparent attempt to moderate the tone of a report on Iran due early next month.


The move comes after samples from the Natanz plant removed in June by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) tested positive for enriched uranium, raising further concerns about Iran's nuclear programme.

Saber Zaeimian, spokesman for the Iran Atomic Energy Organisation, confirmed that a four-man IAEA team, which ended a three-day visit to Iran yesterday, had taken samples from the Kalay-e-Electric company "and other places they asked for".

The IAEA had complained in a report to its board in June that it had been barred from taking environmental samples at Kalay-e-Electric, suspected of being part of Iran's uranium enrichment project.

According to western diplomats the agency's concerns over Iran's nuclear programme have been exacerbated by the results of the samples taken in June, which suggest that Iran could have tested centrifuges with enriched uranium.

Diplomats said that while the samples were not proof of aweapons programme they contradicted earlier Iranian assertions.

Tehran insists its nuclear programme is strictly for civilian use. But it has faced increased international pressure to agree to enhanced inspections of its sites by signing the "additional protocol" to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Pressure will intensify if the new IAEA report raises fresh suspicions by finding that Iran had once again breached the so-called safeguards agreement. The US could seek to find Iran in violation of the NPT and refer the issue to the UN Security Council.

Iranian officials have hinted in recent weeks that, despite misgivings, Tehran will agree to the additional protocol, though western diplomats say a final decision by the leadership has not been reached yet.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, Iran's top energy official, told reporters yesterday that Iran would address the world's concerns. But he said more discussions with the IAEA were needed on the additional protocol.

"No questions [or] ambiguities remained unanswered," Mr Aghazadeh said after a cabinet meeting. "With our behaviour and co-operation with the IAEA and other countries, we'll remove the world's concerns and [instead] expect them to be transparent."

Iran has demanded assurances it would have access to international help for its civilian nuclear projects if it signed the protocol. But diplomats say Tehran must accept tougher inspections, without conditions, to ease international concerns over its nuclear activities.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479005771&p=1012571727172
7 posted on 08/16/2003 12:30:31 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
US bans Iranian opposition group, moves to shut political office

The United States on Friday banned the political wing of the Iranian opposition group People's Mujahedeen, froze its assets and moved to close down its offices here, the State Department said.

http://www.iranian.ws/news/publish/article_265.shtml

Comment: This group seems to be hatred in Iran, because they fought against their homeland during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's.
8 posted on 08/16/2003 12:40:04 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
I found this story so much interesting for all to read.

These are words of the Cyrus" The Great, a persian king who ruled Persia 2500 years ago:

I am Cyrus, King of the world. When I entered Babylon... I did not allow any one to terrorize the land... I kept in view the needs of people and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune.
The great god has delivered all the lands into my hand; The lands that I have made to dwell in a peaceful habitation...

http://www.iranian.ws/7000.htm
9 posted on 08/16/2003 12:51:01 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
The MEK or People's Mujahedeen were the first modern Islamic group to use suicide bombers. Most Iranians, within Iran, despise them.
10 posted on 08/16/2003 1:01:47 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
As far as I know, they also killed innocent people in the early 80's to terrorize the soceity.
They are responsible for many violent actions inside Iran.
11 posted on 08/16/2003 1:04:16 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
As far as I know, they also killed innocent people in the early 80's to terrorize the soceity.
They are responsible for many violent actions inside Iran.
12 posted on 08/16/2003 1:06:36 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All
Kharrazi stresses continuation of policy of detente

Tehran, Aug 16, IRNA -- Foreign Minister Dr. Kamal Kharrazi here
Saturday stressed the need to continue Iran's policy of detente and
holding of dialogues with other countries and civilizations as means
of confronting the challenges facing the country.
Speaking before a gathering of heads of Iranian missions in
foreign countries, he took note of the latest world developments and
said efforts to remove tensions with certain world countries have
reaped for the Islamic Republic distinct honors in the international
arena.
He further referred to government policies adopted to reduce the
threats against the national security, and expressed his view that
the country needed to continue talking to other countries, keep
abreast with latest information, and adopt new strategies to confront
new challenges.
Kharrazi reiterated his belief that dialogue with other cultures
and civilizations was an effective instrument in achieving the
country's goals.
Heads of Iranian missions abroad opened their week-long annual
meeting this morning with President Mohammad Khatami giving the
opening remarks.
The Iranian envoys will be discussing the latest developments in
various fields of significance to their work and adopt the agenda of
their activities for the coming year.

http://www.irna.ir/en/head/030816120137.ehe.shtml
13 posted on 08/16/2003 1:14:14 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Just checking out your post, DoctorZIn. You've put a lot of work into making this happen. The Iranian people deserve some measure of freedom from these Islamofacists. I'll be checking back to view your posts. BTW, I'm of ME ancestry, 1st generation here. My parents came to this country to escape the killings.

Thanks for all you do. Most Americans don't appreciate the our Freedom nor do we understand the hell others endure in this world.

I now need a kleenex.
14 posted on 08/16/2003 1:30:39 AM PDT by Gracey ( All your base are belong to the Terminator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Come the revolution


Photo: Adri Berger


Only in a few countries could a philosopher of science be seen as an enemy of the state. Abdolkarim Soroush, one of Iran's best-known intellectuals, argues that science cannot progress under totalitarian regimes. His greatest "crime" is to suggest that this is a legitimate Islamic view. After six years in exile, Soroush bravely returned to Iran last week. Ehsan Masood spoke to him on the eve of his departure



Why are you going back to Iran?

I have been away for six years. I need to go back to sort out various things and visit my students, family and friends. Some of my closest friends have been arrested. Before I left I set up an independent institute for epistemological research, which I have discovered was closed down last month. The building has been sealed off. I need to find out what happened.

How risky will this visit be in terms of your personal safety?

It is difficult to say. My friends tell me I am taking a risk. But I need to go.

President Mohammad Khatami is also a personal friend of yours. Will you meet him?

I avoid him and he avoids me. That is better for both of us.

Many of your students are taking to the streets in Iran calling for more freedoms. Do you think they will succeed?

These protests are coming entirely from within. They are not because of foreign provocation. Iran has had an explosion in its university population since the revolution, when there were just 200,000 students. Today there are 2 million. They and their families want greater freedoms and I believe the end result will be a reduction in the power of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, more power to parliament, and greater academic freedom.

How has your experience in Iran influenced your views about science?

My experience in Iran teaches me that a minimum amount of freedom is necessary for the advancement of science, for the advancement of thought. Research cannot flourish if you cannot communicate with your fellow scientists; if you cannot explain your ideas freely, or have to hide part of them lest you be arrested.

I am communicating with you now. We can freely chat and freely exchange information. Science is a child of these kinds of conditions. If I hide something from you and you hide things from me, and both of us are obliged to read between the lines, these are not ideal conditions for research to progress.

Yet science has done well under totalitarian regimes in China and the former Soviet Union, and even under some fairly unpleasant governments during Islam's "golden age of science" between the 9th and 13th centuries...

Let me make a distinction between empirical research and thinking per se. Thinking needs a free environment. Empirical research, where you have a well-defined project with official approval, can indeed flourish even under a totalitarian regime, because scientists can still meet other scientists, read the literature and publish. But it is impossible to advance new theories - particularly in the social sciences - when you are under the influence of a particular view, or under the pressure of a particular dogma.

And I disagree with you about Islam's golden age. Totalitarianism is absolutely a modern phenomenon. In the past, kings were despots but they were not totalitarian. They weren't able to put their hands on science and philosophy. There was no widespread plan to limit scientists, philosophers and other academics. If there were restrictions, they came from religion or fellow philosophers rather than the political system.

You started your professional life as a chemist. Why did you switch to history and philosophy of science?

While still in Iran, I became fascinated with a whole series of problems to do with the nature of science. This happened when I took private tuition in the philosophy of Islamic metaphysics and my teacher and I would often discuss issues such as the nature of theories, the nature of observation and experimental evidence. Neither of us was ever satisfied that we had properly understood these issues, but then neither of us knew that there existed a branch of knowledge called philosophy of science. In fact, philosophy of modern science was unknown in Iran at the time. I didn't find out about it until I came to the UK in 1973.

Are you saying there was no teaching or research in philosophy of modern science in Iran before the Islamic revolution of 1979?

Yes. I was the first person to introduce this subject in Iranian universities. I arranged for academics to be trained and books to be translated and written. Prior to the revolution, philosophy courses at Tehran University concentrated on figures such as Kant, Hume and Heidegger. There was no teaching of the works of modern analytical philosophers such as Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell. This may have been because our heads of department were mostly educated in Germany and France - French is Iran's second language - and were generally weak in English.

You were a supporter of the 1979 revolution...

Yes. Everybody was a supporter. We thought that there was no other way to get rid of the hated regime of the shah and the insecurity that came with it.

Scientific revolutions and political revolutions are similar in many ways. You cannot plan them, they just happen, and you become wiser after the event. After the revolution there was no one dominant view. There were secular people, moderate Muslims, radical Muslims and so on. Revolutions tend to result in totalitarianism. People like me were in it to make it more moderate.

After the shah was overthrown, you returned to Iran. How did you attract the attention of Ayatollah Khomeini?

I met Ayatollah Khomeini when he was in exile in Paris during the 1970s. I later discovered from some of his intimate friends that he had read and liked one of my books on the philosophy of Islamic metaphysics. Khomeini himself had taught metaphysics. I was also known for another book I had written criticising Marxism - considered a serious threat in Iran at the time - and for another on ethics and science. You could say I was a public figure in Iran.

After the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini set up what he called the Advisory Council for the Cultural Revolution to revise the curricula in the universities. I was invited to become one of the council's seven members and I served on it for four years. It was here that I was given the opportunity to introduce philosophy of modern science in universities.

How did the students take to it?

The students became very excited. I myself taught the subject for more than 10 years and set up a research faculty at Tehran University. Today, I am happy to say that history and philosophy of science is flourishing in Iran. There are many professors and books are constantly being published.

How did you fall out with the authorities?

Around 1990, I published a series of seven articles in a popular cultural magazine called Kyan. The magazine is part of the country's biggest-selling newspaper group. The articles went under the title "The expansion and contraction of religious knowledge". In these articles, I defined a branch of knowledge called religious knowledge and tried to explain it using the principles of philosophy of natural and social sciences. These articles rapidly became quite controversial. The ayatollahs [Shiite Muslim religious leaders], in particular, became very sensitive. Some 10 books have since been written in response to my series.

What did you write that got the ayatollahs so inflamed?

They didn't like the idea that interpretations of religious knowledge can change over time, or that religious knowledge can be understood in its historical context. They thought I was taking away the sacredness of religion and making it dependent on human understanding.

But as the controversy grew, I was happy to see these ideas debated in the public media. The original articles were later published in a 700-page book, and I found that I was beginning to attract quite a following. My classrooms became overcrowded and my books were selling very, very well. Books on philosophy usually sell between 2000 and 3000 copies. Some of my books sold more than 50,000. This made the politicians and clergy very sensitive as I was seen to be undermining their exclusive position. I started coming under restrictions.

What kinds of restrictions?

Vigilante groups would stop me from speaking in public. I was often attacked and beaten. I found that I no longer had a job. No one would employ me. No one would publish my work. Invitations to speak stopped coming. The magazine where my original series of articles appeared was closed down. I was summoned to the Ministry of Intelligence and told very explicitly that the authorities did not like me any more and did not want me to feel secure in the country.

To what degree do you think research in Muslim countries should be regulated?

When I was on the Advisory Council for the Cultural Revolution, the clerics thought there was an excessive leftist influence on the social sciences and wanted us to purge them of this. I always argued that this would not work because scientists never accept commands from anybody.

But in a country like Iran, surely religion will always guide what research you can do?

There are always barriers to science. Some come from the nature of the research itself, and these have to be recognised and acknowledged. Others come from outside, and these need to be minimised or eliminated. If you are asked to confirm predetermined conclusions to further a social, political or religious cause, that has to be resisted. If you believe through your religion that you know the answer to a particular issue, then embarking on research to find the answer seems to be a contradiction.

You are sometimes described as Islam's Martin Luther, the 16th-century Christian reformer. Are you?

I do not think I am. My main job is to offer an alternative to the totalitarian view of Islam.

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp;jsessionid=AJEAEHNHBCEP?id=ns24081


15 posted on 08/16/2003 2:45:40 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Press Statement Tom Casey, Acting Spokesman Washington, DC August 15, 2003

Designation of National Council of Resistance and National Council of Resistance of Iran under Executive Order 13224

The Secretary of State has amended the designation, under Executive Order 13224 on terrorist financing, of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, known as the MEK, to add its aliases National Council of Resistance (NCR) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

That Executive Order blocks the assets of organizations and individuals linked to terrorism. The decision also clarifies that the designation includes the U.S. representative office of NCRI and all its other offices worldwide, and that the designation of the People s Mujahedin of Iran ( PMOI ) as an alias of the MEK includes the PMOI s U.S. representative office and all other offices worldwide.


The Secretary of State designated the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and again in 2001 pursuant to section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224.

That order (as amended) authorizes the Secretary to designate foreign entities and individuals that he determines in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

The action to amend the Executive Order 13224 designation of the MEK to include NCR and NCRI is based on information from a variety of sources that those entities functioned as part of the MEK and have supported the MEK's acts of terrorism. [End]

Released on August 15, 2003

http://www.voanews.com
16 posted on 08/16/2003 3:34:34 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
This is most interesting.

Thank you for the post.
17 posted on 08/16/2003 4:39:17 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=185960&n=31
18 posted on 08/16/2003 7:33:16 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Shahroudi says Iran able to respond to enemies' judicial question

Tehran, Aug 16, IRNA -- Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Seyed Mahmoud
Hashemi Shahroudi said here Saturday that Iran has definitely
technical and judicial answers to all the issues raised by the
enemies.
Shahroudi told heads of Iran's representative offices abroad
that through sound, transparent and clear information one can repel
all judicial aggressions and propaganda campaign of the enemies.
He said all the issues and disputes raised against the
Iranian Judiciary are answerable.
He added, "We should not put domestic principles and main goals
into oblivion under enemies' propagandistic pressures, not should we
get intimidated by enemies' propaganda."
The judiciary chief voiced displeasure with actions of the
so-called human and women's rights activists worldwide, saying they
act contrary to their words.
Labeling Iran as supporter of terrorism and violator of human
rights is a blatant act of mischief and enmity with the Islamic
Revolution, said Shahroudi.
The scenario of the sworn enemies of the system is a sinister
policy and the enemies of the system have launched a smear campaign
to misportray the realities in the country.
Referring to the role of foreign media and news networks in
recent unrest in Iran, Shahroudi said the pro-US and pro-Zionist
regime media have concentrated their efforts on weakening and
dismantling the Islamic establishment in Iran.
"Enemies of the Islamic Revolution have been offering strongest
support for terrorism, while at the same time they accuse Iran of
supporting terrorism," he added.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Shahroudi complained about shortcomings
in defending Islamic values, dissemination of information and
defending and supporting achievements and values of the Islamic
Revolution.
He referred to visit of foreigners to Iranian prisons and
their talks with Iranian prisoners as something "unprecedented."
The meeting of heads of Iranian representative offices abroad
opened here on Saturday with President Mohammad Khatami and Majlis
Speaker Mehdi Karroubi attending the gathering.

http://www.irna.ir/en/tnews/030816183639.etn02.shtml
19 posted on 08/16/2003 8:00:42 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Well, this has to be printed to give everyone a laugh.


Khatami stresses promoting culture

Tehran, Aug 16 - President Mohammad Khatami here on Saturday underscored the need to promote culture, arts, science and intellectualism in order to build a world free from war and discrimination.

Khatami, in a message to the first international congress of ancient cultural ties in Iran and West Asia, stressed that today's world needs kindness and friendship more than before, and that the world is already tired of wars and conflicts.

"And to satisfy this real need, the culture and science must be promoted," he said in the message that was read by his advisor Hadi Khaniki.

Khatami said the Iranian plateau has been keeping a treasure of mankind's oldest civilizations, stressing that cultural ties, traditions and myths are still connected to each other in this part of the world.

"People's traditions in the Iranian plateau are connected to each other in such a way that the beautiful manifestation of their spiritual co-existence is just as charming as the manifestation of their joint struggles to overcome the elements of nature and to develop trade and industry," he wrote in the message.

Khatami called Iran `the land of kindness,' and said the spirit of tolerance, dialogue, affection, and wisdom has always been obvious in the efforts of the Iranian nation throughout the history.

"This ancient spirit cannot and should not be looked for only in history. Rather,the modern manifestations of this spirit should be explored in the cultural life of today's world," he said.

"Whoever wants to make a world free from wars, animosity and discrimination should struggle to promote arts, culture and intellectualism before political issues, and our ancestors were the pioneers in that struggle."

20 posted on 08/16/2003 10:06:44 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert; DoctorZIn; RaceBannon; dixiechick2000; McGavin999; Valin
Iran: Another Deck of Cards Needed
News Analysis by J.J. Johnson

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/19/article_jj.htm
21 posted on 08/16/2003 10:49:32 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
"...our ancestors were the pioneers in that struggle."

Why not follow in their footsteps and skip Islam.
22 posted on 08/16/2003 10:51:16 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; nuconvert
Customs role should change to promote Iran's economic status

Tehran, Aug 16, IRNA -- Head of Iran's Customs Administration Masoud
Karbasian here on Saturday said that to promote Iran's status in
the world economic scene, the general role of customs should change.
He told IRNA that given the decisive role of electronic trade in
the world, mechanized services and electronic customs should develop
across the country.
"At present, over 90 percent of Iran's trade exchange is handled
mechanically. We are determined to apply the method of electronic
manifest, according to which the client is notified on the
information about products by the shipping company prior to its
delivery to customs," he added.
Stressing that mechanization of customs affairs will expedite
the process, he added that once the system of payment after the
release of goods becomes effective, the investors capitals will no
more be kept suspended at customs.
He reiterated that the growing trend of the world trade requires
a change in the customs in proportion to it.
Karbasian said that heavier punishment for smuggling of goods
has prompted the customs to safeguard the benefits of the community
more effectively.
"Customs plays a decisive role by preventing import of unhealthy
foodstuff, non-standard medicine, drugs, arms, unethical published
material and infected cattle," he added.
The official said that Iran's Customs Administration is
determined to encourage domestic producers and investors to attend
the world markets to facilitate export.

http://www.irna.ir/en/tnews/030816192624.etn06.shtml
23 posted on 08/16/2003 11:00:55 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; nuconvert; DoctorZIn; RaceBannon; Valin; McGavin999
Iran says Argentina playing politics over ‘94 bomb

TEHRAN: Iran’s Foreign Ministry accused Argentina’s judiciary on Thursday of playing politics after an Argentine judge ordered the arrest of eight Iranian officials suspected of involvement in a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires.

“The sentence of the Argentine judge is a political sentence and we condemn it,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid ........

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-8-2003_pg4_12

24 posted on 08/16/2003 11:08:46 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; RaceBannon; nuconvert; dixiechick2000; AdmSmith; Valin; piasa; Eala; McGavin999; ...
Profile: Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani

Once considered a progressive force, he is widely seen to have moved closer to the conservative camp since the election of the reformist President, Mohammad Khatami.

President for two terms from 1989-97, Mr Rafsanjani is currently chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, as well as a deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts.

The Expediency Council arbitrates in disputes between the Majlis, Iran's parliament, and the Guardian Council, which can block legislation. The Assembly of Experts appoints the Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mr Rafsanjani's pre-revolutionary credentials earned him a place among the trusted advisers of Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

He established himself as a powerful figure soon after the revolution as co-founder of the Islamic Republican Party. The party played a major role in Iranian politics until its disbandment in 1987 following internal wrangling over policy.

Mr Rafsanjani was Majlis speaker from 1980-89. In the last year of the 1980-88 war with Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini appointed him acting commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

He is seen as the main influence behind Ayatollah Khomeini's acceptance of the UN Security Council resolution which ended the war.

As president between 1989 and 1997, Mr Rafsanjani sought to encourage a rapprochement with the West and re-establish Iran as a regional power. His influence in Lebanon helped bring about the release of Western hostages in the early 1990s.

Domestically, he has opposed harsh Islamic penal codes and promoted better job prospects for women. His daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, is a known champion of women's rights. Her reformist publication Zan (Woman) was closed down by the hardliners in 1997.

Since the war in Iraq, he has used Friday prayers to denounce US "plots" in the region.

"Anyone who stretches out their hands towards Iran will have those hands cut off," he said in one sermon.

And he warned students who took to the streets in June over the slow pace of reform that the US was "pinning its hopes" on them. "They should take care they are not entrapped by the Americans' sinister networks."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3034480.stm
25 posted on 08/16/2003 11:20:24 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; RaceBannon; nuconvert; dixiechick2000; AdmSmith; Valin; piasa; Eala; McGavin999; ...
Profile: Reza Pahlavi

Reza Pahlavi is the eldest son of the former Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Followers see him as the heir to the Peacock Throne.

Since the death of his father in exile in 1980, he has been a focus for monarchists and other dissidents hoping to oust the authorities in Tehran.

Some Washington hawks are said to regard him as their most promising ally in pushing for regime change in Iran.

In 1979, when his father was swept from power, Reza Pahlavi was in Texas completing his air force training.

After a number of years in Egypt and Morocco, he moved to a Washington suburb in 1984, where he still lives with his wife and two daughters.

The extent of his support among Iranians at home and abroad is difficult to gauge.

But since the reformists' poor showing in local Iranian elections in early 2003, there are signs Reza Pahlavi is seeking to broaden his constituency in a possible bid for a future political role.

"In the past I defended the idea of a constitutional monarchy," he told a Turkish newspaper in June 2003. "But my views have changed. I think the best for Iran is a secular and democratic system."

'New chapter'


His vision for Iran is set out on his website. It speaks of a country in the "abyss" of isolation, inflation, unemployment and corruption.

The time has come to write a "new chapter", it says, where freedom and prosperity for Iranians, including women, are guaranteed. The way ahead leads through a referendum, then on to "free and fair" elections.

In June 2003 he told London's Financial Times that regime change could happen "in months, or in one or two years".

Comparing the situation in Iran to the economic decline of 1978, which precipitated the Islamic Revolution, he said he was committed to "non-violent civil disobedience".

And he appealed to the opposition to organise an Afghan-style loya jirga to map out the future.

But, according to Iranian media, Reza Pahlavi's campaigning has not gone down well at home.

Reformists have criticised what they see as his attempt to exploit the June student unrest in Tehran to further his own political ends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3053421.stm


26 posted on 08/16/2003 11:25:31 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran: Hard-Liners Strike Down Bill To Loosen Election Restrictions

August 15, 2003
Radio Free Europe
Charles Recknagel and Azam Gorgin

Prague -- A reformist bill to loosen conservatives' hold over Iran's election process looks ever more doomed to failure after hard-liners struck it down this week for a second time.

The parliamentary bill, originally written at the initiative of President Mohammad Khatami, seeks to limit the ability of Iran's watchdog Guardians Council to vet and bar candidates running for public office. The conservative-dominated council routinely uses its power to screen candidates for vague qualities, such as loyalty to the Islamic Revolution, in order to disqualify liberals from elections.

The watchdog council, which also vets parliamentary bills for conformance to the Islamic Republic's constitution, rejected the bill and two other reformist initiatives on 13 August on the grounds they were unconstitutional and against Islamic law. The other two bills required Iran to adopt United Nations conventions on eliminating torture and ending discrimination against women.

The latest rejection of Khatami's election-reform initiative comes almost a year after he first sent it to parliament. The parliament is now considered likely to resubmit the bill to the council yet again in hopes of reaching some compromise. Khatami has said he does not want the dispute to go to arbitration by another, higher body. That body, the conservative Expediency Council, would have the authority to increase the Guardians Council's powers further if it ruled against the parliament.

Analysts say the new setback for the election-reform bill could be a signal that Iran's hard-liners have made up their minds to use the candidate-screening process to wrest back control of the parliament from reformists in the next legislative election, due in February.

This week's rejection of the bill closely follows moves by the council to set up scores of permanent provincial election-supervision offices around the country to monitor the statements and records of potential candidates. Reformists have called the new offices illegal.

Firuz Guran, a Tehran journalist, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda recently that he expects the next legislative elections to go to the conservatives.

Speaking to Farda correspondent Fereydoon Zarnegar, he said: "I think that the next parliamentary seats will be filled by the right-wing conservatives. If people are willing to go to the polls, they must realize that they have to vote for the candidates chosen by the Guardians Council. The next parliament will pass a piece of legislation or two for the people's welfare, but it will be run by totalitarians."

Other observers say there appears to be little reformists can do to derail any such plans. Sadeq Zibakalam, a professor at Tehran University, said the Islamic Republic's constitution deliberately divides authority over elections between the unelected Guardians Council -- whose members are appointed by the supreme leader -- and the Interior Ministry, which is a branch of the elected government.

He told correspondent Zarnegar the division of powers makes it difficult for reformists to use the executive branch to close the new provincial election-monitoring offices or put other practical limits on the Guardians Council's operations. "Unfortunately, in the Islamic Republic we have parallel institutions where some are linked to the Supreme Leadership [appointed] and some to the Republic [elected]. They often have conflicts since their realm of responsibilities has never been specified and both the Guardians Council and the Ministry of Interior can legally oversee the elections," Zibakalam said.

Iran's conservative camp rejects the reformist charges that the Guardians Council selectively screens out liberal candidates. The conservatives say the reformists' own sweep of the parliamentary elections four years ago proves the screening process is impartial. The council claims to screen out only those candidates who are "antirevolutionary" or have criminal records.

As conservatives and reformists battle over candidate screening, there are increasing signs that the Iranian public is losing faith in elections as a way to bring about change. The most recent elections, the nationwide local and municipal polls in February, saw 28 percent voter turnout, compared to 60 percent in the previous local elections of 1999. The February local elections saw mostly only hard-core conservatives going to the polls, resulting in a severe setback for reformist candidates.

Zibakalam said Iran's conservatives appear to be ready to accept low voter turnouts so long as they win at the polls. "I think the conservatives will be the sole beneficiaries [of the next elections], and will utilize their utmost power to refute the competency of [reformist] candidates," he said. "Undoubtedly, not many people will come to the polls."

He said of 28 million voters who went to the polls in the last legislative election in 2000, "only 14, 15, or 16 million will vote [this time]. The conservatives are fully aware and have accepted this fact and are prepared to pay its international and internal political consequences. Under no circumstance will the conservatives allow the [next] parliament to be filled with reformists and have legislative power out of the right wing's hands."

Khatami publicly warned hard-liners this week that their opposition to reforms is alienating the country's youth and storing up trouble for the future. He said, "Ignoring young people and their demands and misusing religion and Islamic values to oust political rivals from the scene could create big problems for society."

The president, re-elected two years ago on promises to push reform, also acknowledged that he has largely been unable to deliver. He said that "recently it has been difficult for me to speak because...many of my opinions, my beliefs, and my promises which I expressed truthfully and sincerely and were supported by the people have not been fulfilled."

Still, despite the continuing string of setbacks being suffered by the reformist camp, few observers in Iran expect the demands for change to die away -- as many conservatives hope.

Asked if he expected a conservative takeover of parliament to end public pressure for reforms, journalist Guran replied, "Not at all...people have not vested all their hopes [for change] in one or two reformists, but in themselves."

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/08/15082003155107.asp
27 posted on 08/16/2003 12:20:10 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Iran: Hard-Liners Strike Down Bill To Loosen Election Restrictions

August 15, 2003
Radio Free Europe
Charles Recknagel and Azam Gorgin

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/965111/posts?page=27#27

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
28 posted on 08/16/2003 12:21:08 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran and the Bomb: Three Endings

August 14, 2003
Shijie Xinwen
Lu Ling

In the years since the end of the Cold War, the United States has put a strategic focus on containing countries that are capable of challenging its superpower status. But the events of Sept. 11, 2001, convinced the Americans that antiterrorism and antiproliferation are their highest priority. Considering the general political atmosphere in the United States, it was just a matter of time before it started investigating Iran’s nuclear plan.

After a swift victory in Iraq, the Americans came to believe that it was a good time to solve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. So they went ahead and began pressuring Iran to sign an additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In a way, the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program is just the inevitable result of America’s strategic readjustment. But one can’t help but wonder what the results will be in this round of the U.S. battle with Iran.

Iran suspects that the United States is politicizing the nuclear issue and is really trying to kill Iran’s legitimate nuclear plan and activities in the name of nonproliferation. So Iran insists that the “international community” should guarantee Iran the right to obtain advanced nuclear technology and develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In a press conference hosted by the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw during his recent visit to Iran, the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, told the press, “When we make any concessions on our side, we have the right to request the other side to make a positive response accordingly.”

Having drawn lessons from the Clinton administration’s handling of the North Korean nuclear issue, the Bush administration believes it is necessary to seek a thorough solution to the issue by uprooting Iran’s nuclear programs and eliminating any possibility of their re-emerging. The United States has explicitly refused to bargain with Iran about its “right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The general U.S. strategy is to eliminate any possibility that Iran might develop nuclear weapons through a program of checks and inspections; to create barriers and obstacles against Iran’s peaceful development of nuclear energy; to pressure certain countries to terminate their nuclear partnerships with Iran; and to eventually suffocate and kill Iran’s nuclear program in the cradle.

Taking the current situation into consideration, the current controversy over Iran’s nuclear program has three possible outcomes:

Scenario one: Iran will fight to the end.

One possible scenario is that Iran would fight to its last breath, refusing to accept any “flash inspections” from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Since the [1979] Islamic Revolution, U.S.-Iranian relations have ebbed and flowed but have always been marked by confrontation and conflict. Iran’s nuclear program actually has a lot to do with the current state of the relationship between the United States and Iran. If Iran wants to change its strategically passive position in its relationship with the United States, it must possess some “decisive” leverage and develop a strategic counterbalance against the United States.

In the past two years, the U.S. antiterrorism campaign has succeeded in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States is tightening its net around Iran. This galvanized Iran’s determination to pursue nuclear weapons even more vigorously. If Iran does sign the additional protocol, its nuclear program will die in the cradle or be put off indefinitely. Iran will lose the opportunity to turn the situation around in its confrontation with the United States.

Recently, Iran’s religious elites and high-level officials have started discussions about Iran’s future. The conservative extremists claim that Iran should develop nuclear weapons at any expense and in spite of U.S. pressure. They propose that Iran should completely isolate itself from the international community and revert to its “not West, not East” position of the early revolutionary era. As the conservatives are currently in charge of setting the country’s foreign policy, it is possible that Iran might make some drastic moves under intense pressure.

If that is the case, the United States, once again, will probably dish out a resolution to “fix” Iran at September’s International Atomic Energy Agency conference. At the moment, the United States is in the process of negotiating with 10 allied countries to block Iranian ships and planes carrying nuclear materials in the open sea and air. If necessary, the United States is likely to use “the military option” and launch “surgical strikes” against Iran’s sensitive nuclear facilities.

Not long ago, an poll conducted by a U.S. news outlet showed that 56 percent of the U.S. public supports the government’s tough approach to Iran’s nuclear program. As the election is approaching, it is likely the Bush administration will use the issue of Iran’s nuclear program to garner more public support.

Scenario Two: Iran and the United States will reach a secret deal

This scenario is possible because Iran is holding the card that Americans badly need. Iran is a big kid on the Western Asian block with great geopolitical significance and a unique religious situation. Iran has a major influence on the peace and stability of the region.

In the Middle East, Iran has close links with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas. Anxious to push forward its “road map” peace plan, the United States is frustrated with Hamas’ constant provocations but has yet to come up with a good solution.

In Iraq, after years of maneuvering, Iran has built a large body of political supporters among the Shiites and has a sizable military presence in the country. Without Iran’s full cooperation, the Americans won’t be able to get the support of the Shiites in the South.

Besides, Iran has arrested many Al-Qaeda fighters, many of them senior members of the organization. America has been drooling to get hold of them, in the hope that they might help in the quest to find Osama bin Laden and destroy the intelligence and operations systems of Al-Qaeda.

Although Iran and the United States have been in a constant state of confrontation for decades, communication between the two has always been flowing on some level. The way Iran and the United States communicated with each other during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that the possibility of the two reaching a secret deal on Iran’s nuclear program has always existed.

Scenario Three: Iran will make unilateral concessions.

At the moment, Iran’s biggest challenge is the unified voice of the “international community,” which is now insisting that Iran sign an additional protocol to the NPT providing for tougher inspections before discussing any further cooperation on nuclear energy. The European Union has made the additional protocol a prerequisite for its signing a new E.U.-Iran trade and cooperation agreement. Russia, which has worked with Iran on nuclear development, is also concerned by the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear-weapons program. Iran might find itself forced to make concessions when it realizes that there is little hope of dividing the international community.

The Iranians will not find it impossible to make such compromises. Islamic law contains provisions that allow certain practices to be sacrificed in times of emergency or urgent necessity. Such acts of compromise have been seen in Iran before. When Ayatollah Khomeini signed the 1988 cease-fire that ended the Iran-Iraq War, he famously remarked that even if the cease-fire was a glass of poisonous wine, he would still drink it.

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1421.cfm
29 posted on 08/16/2003 12:22:08 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Iran and the Bomb: Three Endings

August 14, 2003
Shijie Xinwen
Lu Ling

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/965111/posts?page=29#29

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
30 posted on 08/16/2003 12:23:02 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Divisions Over the Road to Tehran

August 14, 2003
Counter Punch
Jim Lobe

After the occupation of Iraq, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush appears to be torn between moving from Baghdad on to Tehran, or refocusing on al-Qaeda as the main target in the "war on terrorism."

According to a series of leaks by U.S. officials, Iran has offered to hand over, if not directly to Washington then to friendly allies, three senior al Qaeda leaders and might provide another three top terrorist suspects that Washington believes are being held by Tehran. But its price--for the U.S. military to permanently shut down the operations of an Iraq-based Iranian rebel group that is on the State Department's official terrorism list--might be too high for some hard-liners, centered in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, who led the charge for war in Iraq. Members of this group see the rebels, the Mujahedin el Khalq (MEK), or People's Mujahedin, as potentially helpful to their ambitions to achieve "regime change" in Iran, charter member of Bush's "axis of evil" and a nation that is believed to have accelerated its nuclear weapons program in recent months.

The question of what to do about the reported Iranian offer is one of the issues being discussed by Cheney, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice during Bush's summer vacation at his Crawford, Texas ranch.

Al Qaeda Leaders in Custody

Iran has confirmed that it is holding three al Qaeda leaders, including Seif al-Adel, considered the network's number three and chief of military operations who has a $25 million bounty on his head; its spokesman, Suleiman Abu Gheith; and Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's third oldest son.

In addition, Washington believes Tehran also has custody of three other much-sought-after targets: Abu Hafs, a senior al Qaeda operative known as "the Mauritanian;" Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has been depicted by the administration as a key link between al Qaeda and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein; and possibly Mohammed al Masri, an al Qaeda associate active in East Africa, according to a recent report by a special investigative team of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain. "If Washington could get its hands on even half these guys, it would be the biggest advance since the fall of Afghanistan in the fight against al Qaeda," according to one administration official who declined to be identified. "If we could get them all, that would be a huge breakthrough."

According to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi in a statement on August 11th, Iran plans to try any al Qaeda members it cannot extradite, and while it has so far said it will not hand over any al Qaeda members to the United States, it would extradite some of those it has arrested to unspecified "friendly countries." The Iranian Foreign Ministry has not made any public statements with respect to a deal with the U.S.

State Department Battles Pentagon, Again

The State Department has been pushing the administration to engage Iran more directly in pursuit of the best deal possible and was reportedly authorized to hold one meeting with the Iranians two weeks ago. Washington and Tehran broke off bilateral relations during the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in 1980, but quiet meetings were held over the past year, until they were broken off in mid-May after administration hard-liners charged that a series of terrorist attacks carried out against U.S. and other foreign targets in Saudi Arabia May 12th were organized from Iranian territory, presumably with the approval of elements of its government.

But the same hard-liners reportedly oppose a deal with Tehran, which they depict not only as a sponsor of terrorism determined to acquire nuclear weapons, but also an exhausted dictatorship teetering on the verge of collapse that could be easily overthrown in a popular insurrection, with covert U.S. help or even military intervention. The hawks are backed by the Likud government in Israel, which has been urging Washington to go after Iran since even before the war in Iraq. As soon as Iraq is dealt with, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the New York Post last November, he "will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list."

Pentagon hard-liners, who exert the greatest control over the occupation authority in Iraq, last month authorized the re-birth of the arm of Saddam Hussein's intelligence service--the Mukhabarat--that worked on Iran, according to the Pentagon-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC), which is helping in the effort. That was the same unit that worked closely with the MEK under Saddam Hussein.

The MEK, which began in the late 1960s as a left-wing Islamist movement against the Shah but broke violently with the leaders of the Islamic Republic after the 1978-79 revolution, was given its own bases, tanks, and other heavy weapons by the Iraqi leader during the Iran-Iraq War, all of which it retained during his regime to use in raids against Iran, but also to help Hussein put down unrest, particularly after the 1991 Gulf War. U.S. forces bombed the group's bases in the initial phases of the Iraq campaign earlier this year, but negotiated a cease-fire and eventually a surrender as Washington expanded its control over Iraq. Yet the group has been permitted to retain most of its weapons, remain together, and, despite its listing by the State Department as a terrorist group and Tehran's demands that it be completely dismantled, continue radio broadcasting into Iran.

Although the MEK, which displays many of the characteristics of a cult in its hero-worship of its "first couple," Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, appears to have intelligence assets inside Iran--the group was the first to alert Washington to the existence of a previously unknown nuclear facility earlier this year--most Iran specialists believe it has no popular following there whatsoever, and is mostly despised due to its alliance with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. "It's hard to see how they could ever be seen as a political asset to the United States in Iran," one administration official who favors a deal said. "The (MEK) is precisely the kind of common enemy against which both the reformists and the conservatives--and even the students--are likely to rally against."

A deal would also re-confirm to an increasingly skeptical Islamic world that al Qaeda was indeed the primary target of Bush's war on terror and not simply a pretext for a major intervention in the Middle East and the Gulf to ensure U.S. and Israeli domination of the entire region, say analysts here. "Our priority should be al Qaeda, and if we can engage the Iranians tactically to get some high-ranking al Qaeda operatives, we should," Flynt Leverett, the top Mideast expert on the National Security Council under both Clinton and Bush until his departure earlier this year, told the New York Times on August 2nd. The same analysts argue that disbanding the MEK would help demonstrate that Washington is not applying a double standard to different terrorist groups, depending on their usefulness.

But the Pentagon reportedly remains resistant to stronger action against the group. "There is no question that we have not disbanded them, and there is an ongoing debate about them between the office of the Secretary of Defense and the State Department," Vince Cannistraro, a former counter-terrorism director in the Central Intelligence Agency, told USA Today in early August.

It appears that some officials believe the MEK could yet serve some purpose.

Jim Lobe is a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus. He also writes regularly for Inter Press Service. He can be reached at: jlobe@starpower.net

http://www.counterpunch.org/lobe08142003.html
31 posted on 08/16/2003 12:23:52 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Divisions Over the Road to Tehran

August 14, 2003
Counter Punch
Jim Lobe

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/965111/posts?page=31#31

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
32 posted on 08/16/2003 12:24:54 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Our Wobbly Ally

August 15, 2003
The Jerusalem Post
Caroline B. Glick

Eyebrows were raised on Tuesday when, just hours after Fatah and Hamas bombed civilians in Rosh Ha'ayin and Ariel, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Palestinian terrorism would have no effect on US Middle East policy.

"We will continue to move forward on the road map " he said. "We will not be stopped by bombs, we will not be stopped by this kind of violence."
The question arises: How can the US not reassess its policy of coddling the Palestinian Authority when the policy has already failed so abundantly?

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policy on the Palestinian issue is part and parcel of an overall inconsistency in the administration's approach to the Middle East that bodes ill not simply for Israel, but for the US and its allies all over the world.

Laying out the foundations of the administration's foreign policy doctrine last week, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice explained that US foreign policy is aimed at making the world a safer and better place.

The former, she said, is advanced through military campaigns like those in Afghanistan and Iraq. The latter is done by promoting freedom and democracy abroad.

"There is one region of the world where all the challenges of our time come together, perhaps in their most difficult forms the Middle East," Rice said.

She's right. After the 9/11 attacks, it is inarguable that the Arab world, whose 22 states have not one democratic government among them and whose clerics daily call for jihad against the US, manifests the most direct threat to US and global security.

Iraq and the PA were Rice's two examples of how the US is advancing its dual agenda in the Middle East. She referred to the recently inaugurated Iraqi Governing Council as the "most promising" advance toward stability and democracy since Saddam Hussein's regime was deposed in April. In her words, "It serves as a first step toward Iraqi self-government and toward a democratic Iraq which can become a linchpin of a very different Middle East in which ideologies of hate will not flourish."

Yet there are indications that the Bush administration will squander much of the good work US forces have done in destroying the Ba'athist regime. Over the past month, reports have surfaced that the White House intends to appoint former secretary of state James Baker to lead the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Proponents of the appointment note Baker's tremendous experience in the region and his close association with regional leaders.

But a Baker-led occupation government is cause for alarm. "Putting Baker in charge of Iraq means the US is handing the country over to the Saudis," one senior diplomatic source told me this week. Baker is one of the Saudi government's chief supporters in the US. His law firm, Baker Botts, is now representing the Saudi government in the $1 trillion law suit filed against Saudi Arabia for its alleged role in the 9/11 attacks by the victims' families. Baker also serves as senior counsel and partner in the Carlyle investment group, which is a financial adviser to the Saudi government.

In view of this, it is not unreasonable to assume that as head of the Iraq occupation authority, Baker would not support the geostrategically vital idea of keeping liberated Iraq out of the OPEC cartel.

As for the Palestinians, Rice applauded the "reformed" leadership of PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and security chief Muhammad Dahlan. "A new Palestinian leadership is emerging that says, in Arabic and in English, that terror is not a means to Palestinian statehood, but rather the greatest obstacle to statehood," she said.

Then she added that "Israel has to fulfill its responsibilities to help that peaceful state emerge."

It is debatable at best whether either leader has made such anti-terrorist declarations. Not debatable is that Dahlan and Abbas refuse to take any action against terror groups. Far from working toward reconciliation, they, like their boss PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, have used every opportunity to condemn Israel and to undermine the legitimacy of its actions to defend itself against the same terrorist aggression that they are supposed to be combating.

In insisting on backing its hand-picked Palestinian leadership, the Bush administration is both rhetorically and effectively embracing a terror regime and abandoning a democratic ally.

Speaking of the US's own fight against terrorism, Rice briefly noted operations by the Homeland Security Department to secure potential targets like airports, power plants, and government buildings against attacks.

"But if we in the United States are to preserve the nature of our open society there is only so much of this 'hardening' that we can do. We must also address the source of the problem. We have to go on the offense," she said.

So while the Bush administration claims to be going on the offensive, it attacks every move Israel makes both defensive and offensive to protect itself against terrorism.

Last week, the administration attacked the newly passed legislation that makes it more difficult for Palestinians who marry Israelis to receive citizenship. This law, whose national security implications are clear, is no more draconian than procedures the US itself enacted in 1986 to protect itself against foreigners who enter into fictitious marriages to receive residency status.
The decision to build a fence to protect itself against terrorists is even more strongly condemned. From Bush to Powell to their spokesmen, the entire apparatus of the US government seems to have ratcheted up its rhetoric in placing the IDF's counterterror operations on a moral par with the massacre of Israeli civilians.

The administration has also ordered Israel not to take action against the growing Hizbullah threat from Lebanon, which over the past month has taken the form of direct aggression against civilians and military installations.

As for the greatest strategic threat presently emanating from the region, the Iranian nuclear program, the US is now moving steadily toward repeating with Iran the same failed policy of UN weapons inspections it used for 12 years against Iraq.

While Israel estimates that the Iranians are only one year away from nuclear capabilities, the US has moved discussion of the imminent threat to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

In a fine imitation of the policy of Iraq's former government, Iran is making a show of cooperating with IAEA officials. Now IAEA officials are apparently set to present a second inconclusive report about Iranian compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at their meeting in September.

The consequences of the Bush administration's policies for Israel can be simply put: We must no longer seek to coordinate our activities with Washington. The US is actively abandoning Israel, while embracing its authoritarian and terrorist enemies and neighbors even as it hollowly claims to be doing just the opposite. The unreformed and unrepentant PA leadership cannot be given control of territory today or statehood tomorrow.

Hizbullah bases in Lebanon must be destroyed. And the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran must not be allowed to materialize as the UN impotently engages the duplicitous Iranian government.

The consequences of the administration's policies for US national security are no less apparent. Its current fetish with Israeli-Palestinian engagement has allowed the Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, and Saudis to continue with their support for terrorism and incitement against the US.

Perceiving the US as unwilling to confront its open hostility, the Arab League did not bat an eyelash when it voted to refuse to recognize the Iraqi Governing Council.

As the Egyptians loudly proclaim their support for Israeli-Palestinian peace and blame its nonexistence on Israel, a weapons smuggling tunnel from the Sinai to Gaza unearthed this week was found to have originated in an Egyptian border guard base. On July 30, Egyptian religious authorities reiterated their call for all Muslims including women and old people to attack US and coalition forces in Iraq.

As for Syria, President Bashar Assad is directly arming and enabling Hizbullah as well as the guerrilla fighters in Iraq. He also continues to aid and abet Palestinian terror groups headquartered in his capital city.

For their part, the Saudis have taken no steps to close down the offices of their government supported charities either at home or abroad that have been directly implicated in global terror funding.

The US's abandonment of Israel is also liable to impact its strategic posture in Asia. Why should China be deterred from overrunning Taiwan when the US is abandoning Israel to similar totalitarian forces? Why should South Korea or Japan trust the US's commitment to their security from the North Korean nuclear threat when the US is not taking action against Iran and reportedly reining in Israel from taking action against Iran on its own?

In concluding her remarks, Rice said, "The desire for freedom transcends race, religion, and culture The people of the Middle East are not exempt from this desire. We have an opportunity and an obligation to help them turn this desire into reality.

That is the security challenge and the moral mission of our time."

Again, Rice is correct. And yet, with its current Middle East policy of embracing terror regimes like the PA and anti-American tyrannies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while publicly condemning Israel for trying to advance the administration's own stated policy, the US is failing to meet this challenge. Instead, the Bush administration's policies are damaging America's credibility, moral standing, and national security.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1060829013957
33 posted on 08/16/2003 12:25:53 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Our Wobbly Ally

August 15, 2003
The Jerusalem Post
Caroline B. Glick

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/965111/posts?page=33#33

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
34 posted on 08/16/2003 12:26:43 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Europe Pressed to Shun Iranian Oilfield

August 15, 2003
The Financial Times
Carola Hoyos

Spencer Abraham, US energy secretary, has warned the Netherlands and Italy not to allow its companies to invest in Iran's giant Azadegan oilfield.

Mr Abraham's move, made on a trip to Europe this week, heralds a new US campaign to increase pressure on a reluctant Europe to isolate Iran over its nuclear weapons programme.

In 2000 Iran agreed with the Japanese government to give priority rights to Japex and Indonesia Petroleum, both Japanese companies, to develop the field in return for Japanese loans.

The US State Department in the past months has put pressure on Tokyo to forgo developing the field, which is said to hold up to 45bn barrels of oil.

Mr Abraham, who on Friday cut short his trip to Europe because of the massive power outages in North America, was asked to "secure commitments from other governments and companies" not to step in and snatch up the field if the US was successful in dissuading Japan from making an investment, a senior administration official told the FT.

He said that Japan was "open to the idea of forgoing the field" and that discussions were "moving in the direction we want".

The Iran-Libya Act of 1996 imposed sanctions on non-US companies that invested more than $20m (?17.7m, £12.4m) in Iran's oil or natural gas sector. But neither Bill Clinton, the former president, nor President George W. Bush enforced the measure.

Antonio Marzano, Italy's industry minister, told Mr Abraham that Eni, Italy's biggest energy company - which has interests in both Iran's on and offshore oil and natural gas fields - would provide written assurance that it would not take over the Azadegan field.

However, the Dutch government gave the US no commitment that Royal Dutch/Shell would not widen its investment in Iran. Shell in 1999 signed an $800m deal to develop two oilfields, one of which began production in late 2001.

Shell, together with Total of France and British Petroleum, has also shown interest in another oilfield in south-western Iran.

The US is still looking for a promise by France that Total, which rarely has qualms about investing in countries deemed unacceptable by the US, would not expand its oil and gas activity in Iran.

Iran, which holds 90bn barrels of oil reserves, is counting on foreign investment of up to $5bn a year to increase its daily oil production. This was as high as 6m b/d in 1974 but has remained less than 4m b/d since the revolution in 1979. Despite the threat of US sanctions, more than 90 companies are active or have shown interest in Iran's oil sector.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479056119&p=1012571727172
35 posted on 08/16/2003 12:28:56 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Europe Pressed to Shun Iranian Oilfield

August 15, 2003
The Financial Times
Carola Hoyos

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/965111/posts?page=35#35

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
36 posted on 08/16/2003 12:29:41 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Islamic order re-established in Esfahan province

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 16, 2003

The Islamic order has been reported as re-established in the Semiram area of Esfahan province following 3 days of unrest.

The situation has been reported as calm, today, after riots during which clashes and use of incendiary devices, such as Molotv Cocktails, were reported.

Esfahan province has been the scene of major popular actions, during the last 2 years, against the Islamic regime and subject to harsh repressive measures.

Several Esfahanis have been killed and tens of other injured especially in the cities of Shahin-Shahr (renamed as Khomeini-Shahr) and Esfahan City itself.

The degree of some of the repressions were so high that the regime had to name the former governor as Esfahan as its current ambassador in Kuwait in order to try to calm the situation.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1774.shtml

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
37 posted on 08/16/2003 12:35:10 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
The Clerics are in a box, Dr. Z. 65 million citizens are incapable of being thwarted if they choose to force a new destiny. The Czars, Roman Chinese and Japanese Emporers, European Monarchs and Fascist Oppressors cannot endure absent violent repression.

Iranian folks demonstrated once they're not accepting of that when they threw the Shah overboard. An unstoppable force doesn't necessarily translate to the implementation of a superior system ... but the Clerics are going to have to withdraw into a strictly limited influence platform of religious guidance and authority, or they will be toppled. Iranians have an $1800 per capita GNP, that's an outrage in a nation blessed with the most prolific oil, mineral and geographically resourced potential for prosperity of ANY state in that region.

We need to talk sense to the theocrats, help them see that their secure world bordering Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the former Soviet republics and Turkey is gone forever. There's no more smuggled oil from Iraq and the U.N. There's no more express lanes across Iraq to Syria with terrorists and weapons, and we should make sure the black market trading funnel of Poppy/Opium from Afghans to Iraq to Turkey directly or through former Soviet states is OVER as well.

The jig is up. The threat from Hussein can no longer be employed to discipline the masses. There's no more unfettered money, people and resources moving to Syria for positioning against Israel. Pakistan is cleaning house. We're cleaning Afghanistans house. Iraq will have a free Shiite people. There's going to be no Food for Oil booty to support China and North Korea, no black market bankrolll for Hizbollah and Syria's Corrupt Lebanese lackey and to provide sanctuary and state tools to agents of Al Qaida.

There is an incalculably bright destiny for Islam and its devout worshippers, but there's no future for the despots of violence and merchants of murderous terror anymore.

38 posted on 08/16/2003 1:38:19 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
I don't trust what the Saudis say and we should treat all of their intelligence as unverified until it's verified by more reliable sources. The Saudis are still far more inteested in their own derrieres then in anything or anyone else. They are as likely to be hiding in Saudi or Iran as they are in Pakistan or Kashmir.

Thanks to all tho pinged me to this thread for the pings ;- )

39 posted on 08/16/2003 2:15:40 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This is not George W. Bush's campaign, this is a quest for peace, security and prosperity between ISRAEL and the Palestinian Authority.

I'm tired of agenda-obsessed mega extemists here on FR, and within U.S. and Israel press, accusing Ariel Sharon, Israel's greatest warrior lion, of dereliction of his LIFE SWORN loyalty to Israel, her people and his duty in an obsequious appeasement to George W. Bush and the Pali terrorists. They're trying to wound Bush, period.

This Peace process is moving ahead with resolve because the Israeli people and her unimpeachably patriotic leaders and Palestinian leaders of courage and vision are tired of the killing, tired of the fear, tired of the poverty and hate and hopeless futures.

Anyone who empowers George W. Bush with the cynical, reckless power to force Ariel Sharon to pursue a road that will destroy Israel and the miracle of Zion is either ignorant or a corrupt operator.

This is Israel's game. This is the Palestinian's game. We've steamrolled Saddam, we've turned the sweet little world of Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, IJ and Hamas upside down, and we want a peace that is enduring and flourishing and prosperous for Israelis and Palestinians.

That means a Palestinian State. That means a recognition and negotiation with a former PLO enemy. That means accomodation, that means consensus and that will eventually mean a life where a 13 year old Israeli student and a 13 year old Palestinian student can look forward to a life of security, prosperity and dutiful worship and a long life blessed by God.

I'm sick of this "State Department this, George Bush that" .... this is a tough journey that will require resolve and courage under seige from Islamist Terrorists and Pyrrhic End of Times Masada-fantasizing extremists. Mostly here on FR, we've got a slew of people who love seeing others go down in a blaze of principled display. That guy over there, he should make a principled last stand.

This thing may or may not work, but both the Israeli and Pali parties are invested, empowered and ultimately the shepherd of their own destinies. We're providing political cover, bolstering the power base of the Sharon government and the PA as necessary, it's posturing and gaining support and neutralizing parties bent on the sabotage of peace. There has never been a time more ripe for a lasting peace in that small tract of land.

40 posted on 08/16/2003 2:23:28 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
The Saudi Royals, above all, are survivors.

When the Wahabbi fascists within their family, and within their borders, become more of a threat to their survival than an asset to securing their throne, they'll conduct a purge that will make Stalin look like a procrastinating Quaker.

That time is near.

41 posted on 08/16/2003 2:36:32 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
While the roadmap will remove the rhetorical undepinnings from the terrorist movement and go a LONG WAY toward bringing about much needed representative forms of government in the region, it's not a fix-all solution.

It'll make the real solution far less bloody and painful to impliment - for the Arab world. The solution is an end to the Islamist dream of ruling the world under the banner of the Khalifah through basic freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of self determination in the persuit of life, liberty and happiness.

The roadmap, when implimented, will be a light of hope for oppressed people and a continued warning to tyrants of all stripes.

For most of the West, the reality which will come to pass will be yet another painful awakening from many ingrained, cherished dreams.

Remember that even if this succeeds, there will be a few diehard bloodlusters who are afraid and unable to change and will continue to murder innocent people. They'll be easier to catch though.

42 posted on 08/16/2003 2:45:49 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"That time is near."

Yep. Sadly, it's going to take more innocent deaths to shake them up enough to really act.

43 posted on 08/16/2003 2:55:02 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
There is a fundamental reality on the West Bank, in Baghdad and in every other haven of terror merchants: we can't find them ourselves. If we storm their homes, we're the enemy. If we provide them a concrete and superior alternative to their current squalor ... THEY'LL root out the thugs. The thugs are thugs, they're thugging up the Palestinians and Baghdad denizens with their thuggery, they're not inspiring loyalty and support from their mission. They're inspiring primal survival options at the end of a gun barrell.

The Palestinian Authority is the only entity that can root out Hamas and the other criminal killers lurking in the 'hood. The Israelis can never identify, locate and arrest or kill the bad guys. Impossible. As we Americans, in Baghdad, can never locate all the Baathist and Fedayeen scum going door to door. We need the community to point us to the right doors, and that's happening. It'll happen in the West Bank tenaments too, but it'll be PA security guys taking the garbage out. Or there's no end to the terror.

44 posted on 08/16/2003 2:55:38 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Nah, they don't care about any death that doesn't include their own.

My sense is that they will observe and calculate the outcome of the 2004 election: if Bush looks vulnerable, they will not move against the terrorists because any of the wraiths in the Democrat primary mix right now would be easily manipulated to retreat to the 1999 status quo.

If Bush is successful in Iraq, if his re-election prospects look likely, the Saudis, like Frank Costello of the NYC Mob in the 40s, will do what's best for business. Luciano was a very useful asset but when his killing became personal, he became a liability, and he ate lead. Bush means business, it's going against George W. Bush or a least favorite brother and 25 other troublemakers and power brokers ... goodbye Bro, the business comes first. Lucky Luciano, Nitti, Siegel, Giancana, Castellano, Jack Ruby, FREDO, Luca Brasi, Ron Brown, Vince Foster ... all were missed after they were killed for valid commercial purposes.

It'll be the same with the Saudis. Prince Naysid may be a good subject for a Dead Pool. How about a boating accident? They'll just kill as many of the Islamist benefactors within their family and borders as necessary to keep their filthy rich/dying of old age lifestyle business alive and send the unmistakable message that there's a new business model in the Kingdom and non-compliance warrants a negative sanction placed in their permanent personnel file, which will be active for approximately 2 hours until they die a slow death by torture and disembowling before a hastily called all-company staff meeting.

Abdullah and the pragmatists haven't been pushed to the brink yet, but I'll guarantee you there is HUGE intrigue and machinations underway in that incestuous cesspool, and the outcomes usually have unhelpful family and citizens dying in violence.

45 posted on 08/16/2003 3:26:46 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"The thugs are thugs, they're thugging up the Palestinians and Baghdad denizens with their thuggery, they're not inspiring loyalty and support from their mission. They're inspiring primal survival options at the end of a gun barrell. "

Well said and true.

"The Palestinian Authority is the only entity that can root out Hamas and the other criminal killers lurking in the 'hood. The Israelis can never identify, locate and arrest or kill the bad guys. Impossible. As we Americans, in Baghdad, can never locate all the Baathist and Fedayeen scum going door to door. We need the community to point us to the right doors, and that's happening. It'll happen in the West Bank tenaments too, but it'll be PA security guys taking the garbage out. Or there's no end to the terror"

Also well said and true. Surprisingly few people seem to understand that though. Nor do they understand that of the PA DOESN'T take the garbage out, and there's no end to the terror after Palestine becomes an independent state, there will be hell to pay under international law.

The president is forcing various organizations to suit action to rhetoric in this, and they're aware they line they walk is very fine.

46 posted on 08/16/2003 3:42:35 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"My sense is that they will observe and calculate the outcome of the 2004 election: if Bush looks vulnerable, they will not move against the terrorists because any of the wraiths in the Democrat primary mix right now would be easily manipulated to retreat to the 1999 status quo."

I'm impressed. That is EXACTLY what they're doing. The only support we've really received from the Saudis has been limp wristed and token while they wait out the current election cycle in the hopes of getting another Clintonista back into office. Their investigation following Riyadh has been only to reassure a frightened populace that they're real leaders and will keep them safe. Everything is rhetoric with them, as long as it preserves their hides, and they do not care HOW many innocents are killed as long as it isn't one of the inner circle.

After GW is reelected, their attitude will change temporarily.

47 posted on 08/16/2003 3:50:40 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
I consider George W. Bush a remarkable man of vision and human insight.

People rag here about Colin Powell, how he's watering down our policies and undermining the President. NO WAY. Colin Powell is perfectly in synch with the strategy, tactics and objectives. He has a job, that job is to be a diplomat. President Bush is unhesitant to permit Colin Powell to play the role of the mediating statesman, the adult among cowboys, the sophisticated governing element in a War crazy frathouse.

Bush positions him in that way. Every time Powell is perceived to be at odds with unilateral and forceful American prerogative, he gains standing and negotiating leverage among the State Department lifers (who can't do anything for you, but sure can do bad things TO you) and among the European bon vivants who think his judgements more valid, wise and worthy of support. Powell gets authority and leverage by appearing to be a foil to Bush to the 5th Column State Department functionaries and the International Diplomatic community. But, Powell works with Bush, he works FOR Bush, and he is an advisor and a dutiful executor of President Bush's directives. No doubt in my mind.

Bush does this constantly. From day one of his tenure till 9/11, he worked to bolster the credibility of Vincente Fox in his hostile and tenuous political position in Mexican politics. He wanted Fox to look independent, strong and dedicated to Mexico's autonomy and national interests. Bush did it to strengthen a critically vital ally and neighbor at a seminal time in their history. People here went nutzoid that Bush was selling out the USA to the Mexicans, but in reality, we can't address the immigration surge without the partnership of a strong, forceful Mexican leader to attack the Corrupt Federales and State sanctioned LEOs in border States.

Bush likes Fox, IMO. Meeting with him, now, gives Fox no boost because Bush can't play anything but a hardass on Domestic Security issues. Bush likes Putin, he considers Putin a partner, and Putin needs autonomy from the USA to maintain HIS political standing. Guaranteed, however, under the radar, Putin is giving us everything he can. Bush likes Abdullah from Saudi Arabia, he brought him to the Ranch. That was a signal ... Saudis are allies, these guys are helping us. Bush likes and trusts Masharraf. He likes and trusts the leaders of Italy, Jordan, Spain, Australia, Poland, Phillipenes, Indonesia and Colombia. He is whatever Tony Blair needs him to be as long as it doesn't hurt American standing. He understands political imperatives specific to nations, and he wants to make the people he trusts and values secure and strong. He likes Sharon, he trusts Mahmoud Abbas and fully realizes the limitations he is constrained by.

He hates Schroeder, Chirac, Chetrien and the guys running Brazil, Argentina and Egypt. He distrusts the Chinese leadership profoundly. The Scandinavians, excluding the Danes, don't exist.

If Bush meets with a leader, if he invites them here, that guy or gal is our teammate and we'll go to the wall to make them shine as equals to the American President in seriousness, influence and standing.

Bush didn't give McCain ONE bit of limelight on the CFR. He hasn't met with the NAACP or Jesse Jackson or at the request of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's frozen Daschele out of the spotlight he seized after those Congressional/WH breakfasts. He never thought of dumping a staffer for that 16 word non-issue. He sure did dump that turncoat Treasury Secretary, he sure did stiff arm the Army General Staff flotsam left over from the Clinton kindergarten, he won't let Cheney twist in Henry Waxman and Richard Shelby's intestinal gas, when somebody told him there was a big to do because Rumsfeld just called France and Germany "Old Europe", Bush looked up from his papers and said "Good."

Rummy's got unlimited proxy.

48 posted on 08/16/2003 4:22:56 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
I hope you're right,Arne
49 posted on 08/16/2003 4:36:30 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
The Arab world is not hard to understand.

I would forward a guess that 80% of all the Muslims living in the Middle East, Indonesia and North Africa just want the same boring stuff we do ... food on the table, a roof over their heads, a safe community and a more enlightened, prosperous life for their kids. 10% of that crowd want to lead their nations into prosperity, and 10% want to return to a 9th Century mirage of a total, pure Islamic governing authority.

The last 10% are bullying their neighbors into the 9th century by murdering and destroying 21st century societies. The first 10% are slowly gaining support and political traction. The other 80% are keeping their heads down, eyes open and keeping all options open.

When I see these guys jumping around on the streets of Cairo, Amman or on the West Bank, I think about going to an office parties that you hate, but need to make a showing for the team player props. You hang around long enough that your presence is noted by the boss, and then sneak out to throw darts and watch a blues band with your pals.

50 posted on 08/16/2003 4:49:44 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson