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

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert -- September 10, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST
The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 9.10.2003 | DoctorZin

Posted on 09/10/2003 3:08:02 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; studentprotest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Discover all the news since the protests began on June 10th, go to:

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

1 posted on 09/10/2003 3:08:03 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread

Live Thread Ping List | DoctorZin

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

2 posted on 09/10/2003 3:09:15 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Tehran Criticizes IAEA, Threatens To End Cooperation

September 10, 2003
Radio Free Europe
RFE/RL

Tehran -- Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi says Iran may reconsider its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), if it is denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program.

In comments to the official IRNA news agency, Kharrazi accused countries on the IAEA board of governors of "arrogance" and of adopting an "extremist posture."

The IAEA is set to consider at a meeting in Vienna today a draft resolution that would give Iran until the end of next month to fully comply with its nonproliferation obligations.

The United States yesterday accused Iran of violating international nuclear nonproliferation agreements but agreed to give Iran another month to clear up questions about its nuclear program.

Iran says its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. But IAEA inspectors say they recently found traces of highly-enriched uranium at an Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.

Meanwhile, Kharrazi today concludes a two-day official visit to Bulgaria that will include talks with Foreign Minister Solomon Pasi, Prime Minister Simeon Saxecoburggotski and President Georgii Parvanov.

The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry says their meetings will focus on bilateral issues as well as on Iran's controversial nuclear program.

The United States says Iran is working on a secret nuclear weapons program. But Iran says its nuclear efforts are aimed only at generating electricity.

Iran and Bulgaria are both among the UN agency's 35 member nations.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/09/10092003083905.asp
3 posted on 09/10/2003 3:11:36 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
30 Arrests in Sardasht Riots

September 10, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Iran va Jahan Network

Tehran -- Around 30 youth are reported to have been arrested in the riots that took place in Sardasht, in Iranian Kurdistan, on Monday and Tuesday.

A group of youth attacked a building which belongs to the Centre of Islamic Propaganda and broke the windows. Islamic regime's anti-riot troops intervened and managed to disperse the youth. However the city's youth re-grouped again and this time attacked the Baseej bank.

Most of the shops were closed Yesterday and there was a heavy presence of security forces in the city.

Those arrested have been transferred to Mahabad.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=10&a=3

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
4 posted on 09/10/2003 3:13:48 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Reza Pahlavi Uses Stamford Visit to Push Democracy For Iran

September 10, 2003
The Advocate
Mark Ginocchio

STAMFORD -- For a crown prince, there was something familiar and comfortable about Stamford for Reza Pahlavi.

"While driving on (Interstate) 95, I started thinking about how my mother used to live in Greenwich, and I, myself lived in Fairfield in 1984 before I relocated to Washington (D.C.)," he said.

Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah, and heir to the ousted Peacock Throne, has been fighting against Iran's ayatollahs since his own exile in 1979.

Last night, at the University of Connecticut's Stamford campus, Pahlavi spoke of his ultimate goal -- creation of a democracy in Iran.

"Democracy has a universal message . . . can various people be subjected to it? The answer is yes," he said.

The lecture, sponsored by the Stamford-based World Affairs Forum, featured a standing-room crowd of more than 150 people, many who remember the overthrow of Pahlavi's father and its implications for the Middle East.

"We backed the shah and it seems like we always have a habit of choosing the wrong people," said Judy Peknik, a member of the forum, before the lecture. "But the people are oppressed now . . . it'll be interesting to hear what he has to say."

Waseen Fayyaz, a Stamford resident, said he was in his native Pakistan when the shah was overthrown and has since been interested in the Iranian situation.

"It is important to me, and I have some questions for him," he said. "I believe both our countries are facing similar issues."

Pahlavi said the people of Iran have long grown tired of the oppressive rule of the ayatollahs and have been looking to take control and choose their own leaders.

"The current regime has not delivered what the people want. They don't believe what they say anymore," he said.

But those in attendance were quick to remind Pahlavi that his father was thought by many to be oppressive and that it would be difficult to generalize what the majority of Iranians want.

Pahlavi said his fight for democracy is not for personal gain and he would not restore a monarchy unless a majority supported it. However, he said he believes that consensus can not be reached under the current system of government.

"I am asking for nothing more than to give Iranians the benefit of the doubt. Do we know what they want? Does the current regime even give them a chance to say? No, they do not," he said.

Pahlavi also used the evening as an opportunity to address the problems of state-sponsored terrorism and its connection to Iran. While he said he believes Iranians would not resort to such means, he does not put it past the current regime which he described as a "rogue nation" that "cannot be trusted."

"Hours after the attacks on September 11, Iranians were the first people with candle vigils . . . Suicide bombers and other terrorists take root in desperation and a lack of hope," Pahlavi said.

However Pahlavi is staunchly against any kind of U.S. military intervention similar to Iraq and Afghanistan because he does not feel it is necessary. But that didn't stop him from reaching out to his audience and asking for their assistance.

"You, as concerned citizens, must not be idle. In your own interest, they must talk to your government and ask for their support. Every voice counts," he said.

The cry for help reminded Pahlavi of an old saying in his native Farsi tongue:

"Drop by drop it goes and all of a sudden it becomes an ocean."

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-shah5sep10,0,6560483.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines
5 posted on 09/10/2003 3:15:06 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Amir Taheri: Britain's Iran policy of covert appeasement, overt criticism

10-09-2003
GulfNews

Until just a few weeks ago, Iran and Britain, having completed a diplomatic honeymoon, appeared to be destined for a mutually enjoyable partnership. Hours after shots had been fired at the British embassy building in the centre of Tehran, however, the British government recalled its ambassador Richard Dalton and announced the "temporary closure" of its embassy.

Iranian authorities said they did not know who was responsible. This seems incredible. Hundreds of people, including more than a dozen policemen supposed to be guarding the embassy, watched the whole bizarre episode. It is clear that the Islamic Republic wished to pass a "strong message", and in the only way it knows best: violence.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has invested greatly in courting Iran's ruling mullahs. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visited Tehran four times in less than two years, equalling his Syrian counterpart, Farouq Al Shara.

Even before Baghdad had been liberated, both Blair and Straw announced that Britain would not join the US in any "regime change" move against Iran. In all his meetings with US President George W. Bush, Blair hammered in the theme of "constructive dialogue" with Iran as alternative to "regime change".

Ardent supporter

By last March, Britain had emerged as Iran's most ardent supporter in the European Union, assuming a role that Germany and France had played for more than two decades. The British assumed the leadership of efforts to conclude a trade agreement between the EU and the Islamic Republic. London also supported Tehran's bid to join the World Trade Organisation, despite Washington's reservations.

Relations got so warm that some of the ruling mullahs began to come to London for medical checkups while others dispatched their offspring to British schools. Some Khomeinist activists received scholarships to study at British universities. It was one such student who became the cause of a sudden end to the Anglo-Iranian courtship.

The man in question is Hadi Suleimanpour, who had enrolled at Durham University to study Islamic civilisation. Now in his early forties, Suleimanpour was no ordinary student. Having joined the Khomeinist revolution in his teens, he was one of the first to join the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a paramilitary force created by Khomeini in 1979 to crush his opponents. Suleimanpour served as bodyguard for various political mullahs and eventually ended up as Iran's ambassador to Argentina.

His tenure as ambassador coincided with the blowing up of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires that killed scores of Argentines, many of them Jews. Iran always denied any involvement and blamed Argentine pro-Nazi police and army officers. By the mid-1990s, the episode seemed to have been shelved.

Last year, an Argentine court reopened the case and ended up formally pointing the finger at Tehran. It issued arrest warrants for a number of Iranian officials - including Suleimanpour, who had just landed in Britain to start life afresh as a middle-aged student.

Contacted by Interpol, the British police picked up Suleimanpour without informing the Foreign Office in London. That led to what could only be described as a clash of political cultures.

Tehran's mullahs simply cannot understand that the British government may well be unable to just order the police to let Suleimanpour loose. They see the episode as part of a sinister "Zionist-Crusader" plot whose aim is to prepare international public opinion for a "regime change" plot against the Islamic Republic.

The mullahs' anger at Britain is partly understandable. After all, on many occasions, EU states have ignored their laws to let Iranian suspects escape police arrest. In 1996, a Berlin court issued an arrest warrant for Ali Fallahian, who was the Islamic Republic's Minister for Intelligence and Security at the time.

Fallahian had been charged with participation in the murder of four Kurdish dissidents in Berlin in 1992. When the warrant was issued, Fallahian was visiting Germany at the invitation of his counterpart, Brend Schmidbauer. Learning of the warrant, the German authorities arranged for him to fly back to Tehran before the police arrived.

The French have done even better. In 1994, Prime Minister Eduarad Baladur ignored a Swiss demand for the extradition of two Iranians charged with political murders in Switzerland and helped them fly back to Tehran - first class.

Before that, in 1986, President Francois Mitterrand allowed Tehran's key terror agent in Europe to return home without answering any questions by the French government's own anti-terrorist judges.

Even earlier, the Italian government ignored the fact that Tehran's embassy in the Vatican had become a centre of terrorism in Europe. Four Iranians involved in a series of assassinations in Italy were never troubled, although they had been called in for questioning by Italian courts.

Britain's own record wasn't so bright. John Major's government allowed an Iranian agent, convicted by a British court of murdering two Iranian dissidents in London, to return home after serving half of a three-year prison term.

He was received as a hero in Tehran and, when he became a candidate for parliament, based his campaign on his success in "eliminating two evil anti-Islamic elements" in Britain. There are similar cases concerning other European countries.

Biggest showdown

The biggest showdown, of course, concerned Salman Rushdie, the British-Indian novelist who was sentenced to death in a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Defining the issue as "a matter of fundamental principle", the Europeans withdrew their ambassadors for a while, only to send them back later with "apologies" to Tehran. The issue was fudged to cover the cowardice of the Europeans. But the fatwa was never annulled.

Will the latest tussle between Tehran and London confirm the mullahs' opinion of the West? Sadly, yes.

EU Foreign Minister Javier Solana has just visited Tehran where he spent more time criticising the US and Britain for the "quagmire in Iraq" than telling the mullahs that they cannot send agents around the globe to kill people without, one day, being held accountable.

Almost two decades ago, Khomeini summarised his policy towards Western powers thus: Kick them in the teeth, and they will kiss your hand!

The writer, Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe. He can be contacted at his e-mail at amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=97187
6 posted on 09/10/2003 3:18:13 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Amir Taheri: Britain's Iran policy of covert appeasement, overt criticism

10-09-2003
GulfNews

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/979381/posts?page=6#6

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
7 posted on 09/10/2003 3:19:26 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran May Review Cooperation with Nuclear Body

Wed September 10, 2003 03:30 AM ET
By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will be forced to review cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it is denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the official IRNA news agency Wednesday.

Kharrazi voiced the tougher Iranian government position as diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board in Vienna appeared ready to approve a U.S.-backed resolution giving Tehran until October 31 to reveal the full extent of its nuclear program.

"If the hawks gain the ground and ignore our legitimate rights for peaceful nuclear activities, we will be forced to review the state of play and the current level of cooperation with the agency," Kharrazi said without specifying who the hawks were.

Japan, Britain, France and Germany joined forces with the United States in co-sponsoring a toughly worded draft resolution which demands Iran demonstrate full compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It also calls on Iran to sign and implement "promptly and unconditionally" an Additional Protocol on snap inspections.

Iran has said it is ready to start negotiations on signing the protocol that would allow more intrusive checks of Iranian facilities. But Iranian officials have said too much outside pressure could swing opinion inside Iran away from signing. Some hard-liners have called for Iran to scrap the NPT.

The United States has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is purely civilian, aimed at meeting surging demand for electricity.

"There is an apparent and deliberate attempt by some to torpedo the process of cooperation and remove the agency from the process," Kharrazi said, adding that the position of some states was "outrageous and irresponsible."

"The prevailing view seems to favor consensus. This can lead to accelerated cooperation on our part," Kharrazi said.

The draft resolution also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities." Iran has said it wants to control the whole fuel cycle, from mining and processing the uranium ore to reprocessing the spent fuel.

Kharrazi said he was "surprised" at Canada's position in Vienna. IRNA said the Canadian governor had told the board the issue should be moved to the U.N. Security Council without delay, echoing a call previously made by Washington.

Kharrazi, who has said the nuclear debate should not be politicized, said Wednesday that Canada had "moved way beyond its traditionally principled views."

Iran is embroiled in a diplomatic row with Canada over the death in Iranian custody in July of a Canadian photojournalist.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3417741


8 posted on 09/10/2003 3:20:44 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Draft Resolutions Call on Iran to Comply With IAEA Demands

Voice of America - World News
Sep 9, 2003

VIENNA - A resolution is circulating at the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna calling for Iran to comply with all the agency's demands by the end of October.

The draft resolution presented by Britain, France, and Germany calls for Iran to fully disclose details of its nuclear program, including what type of material and equipment it has imported. The resolution also calls for Iran to give full cooperation to IAEA inspectors, including the right to do environmental sampling, which can reveal contamination from nuclear material.

The draft would require Iran to fulfill all its obligations to the U.N. nuclear agency by the end of October.

Another draft presented by South Africa calls on Iran to remedy all failures to abide by IAEA demands, and to show full transparency on its nuclear program. But that draft does not set a deadline. The draft was circulated on behalf of the non-aligned movement, of which Iran is a member.

The IAEA is expected to vote on an Iran resolution during its meeting this week.

In Tuesday's session, the United States made a strong statement on Iran's nuclear record. Ambassador Kenneth Brill accused Iran of violating its nuclear safeguard obligations, and has long been providing false and misleading information regarding its nuclear ambitions.

According to the text of his remarks, Ambassador Brill said Iran has been "working in secret since the 1980s to develop sophisticated nuclear facilities." He dismissed Iran's claim that it is cooperating with the IAEA. Instead, the U.S. ambassador said Iran has "been stonewalling and stalling" so that results of important environmental tests are not yet ready.

He said Iran is in non-compliance with its obligations under IAEA rules. But Ambassador Brill said the United States also recognizes that many other nations want to give Iran one more chance.

The Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi said Tehran had allowed more inspections than it is currently legally bound to allow, and is acting as if it had already agreed to an additional inspections protocol that the IAEA wants it to sign.

"This is what we have already done," said Iranian envoy. "In other words what has been taking place since June up to now, it is like, as if, we have provisionally applied the protocol on ourselves by allowing the agency to visit the places which are not in the framework of the current agreements we have."

The IAEA board of governors' resolution is expected to call on Iran to officially sign the additional protocol allowing for surprise nuclear inspections.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_2250.shtml
9 posted on 09/10/2003 3:24:24 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran faces October deadline

Sep 10, 2003
BBC

The UN's nuclear watchdog is considering setting a deadline for Iran to fully comply with its obligations under the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty NPT.

A draft resolution - drawn up by Britain, France and Germany - is being considered by the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at a special meeting in Vienna.

It says Iran should "remedy all failures identified by the agency" and "co-operate fully with the [the IAEA] to ensure verification of compliance with Iran's Safeguards Agreement by taking all necessary actions by the end of October 2003".

The draft was released hours after the US said Iran had clearly violated the Safeguards Agreement - part of the NPT which Iran signed in 1970.

"The United States believes that the facts... would fully justify an immediate finding of non-compliance by Iran," US ambassador Kenneth Brill told the board earlier.

But Mr Brill, who serves as ambassador to the UN in Vienna, said Washington had consented to other board member states' desire "to give Iran a last chance to stop its evasions".

The US accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons and wants the UN agency to condemn it for violating the NPT.

Diplomats at the week-long meeting say a second draft submitted by South Africa does not mention a deadline, the BBC's Bethany Bell reports from Vienna.

Uranium worries

The closed-door session of the IAEA's governing board has been examining a report by its inspectors, which says traces of weapons-grade uranium were found at an Iranian nuclear plant.

Iran denies its uranium enrichment activities are part of an illegal weapons programme.

It says it is seeking to produce only low-grade uranium fuel to meet its energy needs.

The draft resolution requests that Tehran provide "a full declaration of the sources and types of all imported material and components relevant to the enrichment programme, especially imported equipment and components stated to have been contaminated with high enriched uranium particles".

It said third countries should "co-operate closely and fully" in determining who supplied Iran with the contaminated uranium.

It says Iran should allow IAEA inspectors free access for "environmental sampling" and resolve questions about gas centrifuges which could be used in enriching uranium.

Earlier, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei he hoped Tehran would sign up to an additional protocol that would allow intrusive snap inspections of its nuclear facilities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3094440.stm
10 posted on 09/10/2003 3:27:00 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
U.S. Says Iran Violating Nuclear Treaty

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:01 a.m. ET
NY Times 9.10.2003

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The United States accused Iran on Tuesday of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but said Tehran had ``a last chance'' to prove it wasn't running a covert weapons program.

Backed by key allies, chief U.S. delegate Kenneth Brill took Iran to task on the basis of a report outlining discrepancies between its past statements on its nuclear program and findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report, by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, lists the discovery of weapons-grade enriched uranium and other evidence that critics say point to a weapons program.

``The United States believes the facts already established would fully justify an immediate finding of noncompliance by Iran,'' Brill said at a meeting of the agency's board. Still, he said, the Americans were ready to give ``Iran a last chance to drop its evasions'' before pushing for punitive action.

The United States accuses Iran of working on a secret nuclear weapons program. Tentative plans to come down hard on Iran at the board meeting were dropped last week after the Bush administration decided it wouldn't find enough support at the conference.

The U.S. delegation had been pushing for a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance -- a conclusion that would have brought the matter before the Security Council, which in turn could have called for sanctions.

A confidential U.S.-backed draft resolution submitted by France, Germany and Britain and obtained by The Associated Press urged Iran to ``provide accelerated cooperation'' with agency efforts to clear up questions over Tehran's nuclear program.

It also said Iran should ``ensure there are no further failures,'' in reporting obligations and ``suspend all further uranium enrichment-related activities, including the further introduction of nuclear material'' into a facility where IAEA inspectors found traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium.

Chief Iranian delegate Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran could not meet that demand, saying activities at the facility, at Natanz, were already controlled by the IAEA. He described other disagreements over the text as ``minor.''

While setting an October timetable, the draft threatened no consequences. Diplomats at the meeting said that if the draft was approved without substantial changes, Security Council involvement appeared more likely if the next board meeting in November found the Iranians not cooperating.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the Bush administration will continue to seek a strong resolution.

``We've been expressing our strong concerns about Iran's nuclear program,'' Boucher said. ``I think I described yesterday the number of issues, questions that have been laid out by the secretary general of the IAEA, and we do believe that the resolution needs to call on Iran to satisfy those requirements.''

Brill accused Iran of ``stalling and stonewalling'' on the true aims of its nuclear activities, and Washington's allies expressed support of the U.S. position.

``The nature of Iran's nuclear program, coupled with its evasiveness, only makes sense in the context of nuclear weapons ambitions,'' said chief Canadian delegate Ingrid Hall.

``We are forced to conclude that Iran is in noncompliance,'' she said.

The European Union said Iran's failure to honor its IAEA commitments of full openness was a matter of ``grave concern.''

Iran has suggested it may sign a protocol opening its nuclear programs to full and unfettered inspections by the IAEA. But ``the additional protocol very well depends on the outcome of the board,'' said Salehi, warning that his country would have to rethink its position if ``things are totally against'' Iran.

The IAEA report said traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium were found at the Natanz plant, about 300 miles south of Tehran. The report also noted tests by Iran that experts say make little sense unless the country was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Tehran insists its nuclear programs are for generating electricity and says its equipment was ``contaminated'' with enriched uranium by a previous owner.

Asked what he expects from the resolution, ElBaradei said he hoped ``the board calls on Iran to accelerate its cooperation ... and to make sure that in the next few weeks we should be able to clarify all the important issues.''

ElBaradei pressed the Iranians for a complete list of all imported equipment and components they contend were contaminated as well as their countries of origin, the dates they were acquired and where they have been used or stored since.

On the Net:

IAEA, http://www.iaea.org/worldatom

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Iran.html
11 posted on 09/10/2003 3:43:31 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran Angry Over Nuclear Pressure

September 10, 2003
BBC News
BBCi

Iran has warned it may review co-operation with the UN's nuclear watchdog if "extremists" prevail in current deliberations and eliminate Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi accused some Western countries of trying to destroy co-operation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and exclude the agency.

His comments come as the IAEA's Board of Governors meets in the Austrian capital Vienna to consider a resolution setting a deadline for Iran to clarify questions about its nuclear activities.

Iran had a right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy and the position adopted by some countries on the board was irresponsible and arrogant, Mr Kharrazi said in a statement carried by the official Iranian news agency.

"There is an apparent and deliberate attempt by some to torpedo the process of co-operation and remove the agency from the process," Mr Kharrazi said.

"The prevailing view seems to favour consensus. This can lead to accelerated co-operation on our part."

Tough reaction?

Mr Kharrazi's reference to "some Western countries" most likely referred to Britain, France, Germany and Japan, the BBC's Jim Muir in Tehran says.

All these countries have joined the US in sponsoring a motion tabled on Tuesday which would give Iran until the end of October to fully clarify all outstanding questions about its nuclear programme.

Our correspondent says the minister's statement was opaque enough to leave options open, but was also a signal that if the resolution is carried in Vienna, Iran's reaction may well be tough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3096168.stm
12 posted on 09/10/2003 3:55:13 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran's Last Chance

September 10, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Review and Outlook

Iran's chief delegate to the International Atomic Energy Association cautioned Monday that putting too much pressure on Iran could backfire, saying if board members asked too much of Tehran there could be "unexpected, surprising consequences." There's a word for this: chutzpah.

A recent confidential report on Iran to the IAEA's board noted the traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium that were found at the Natanz Iranian nuclear facility. It also noted that Iran was conducting tests that make no sense unless the country was pursuing nuclear weapons. Then there were the discrepancies between past Iranian statements on the nature of its nuclear power program and IAEA findings.

"The U.S. believes the facts already established would fully justify an immediate finding of noncompliance by Iran," said Kenneth Brill, chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA yesterday in an address to the organization's board. Still, he added, Americans were prepared to give Iran "a last chance to drop its evasions" before calling for U.N. Security Council involvement.

The IAEA's findings spell noncompliance with Iran's NPT obligations. So why give Tehran another chance? Namely, it seems because of concerns that a tougher resolution, kicking the issue to the U.N. Security Council, would not get the agreement of Russia and other members of the IAEA's 35-nation board who are willing to give Tehran an infinite number of "last" chances. Nor has the Security Council proved enthusiastic about such confrontations itself.

An IAEA resolution backed by the U.S. but submitted by Germany, France and the U.K. demands that Iran "suspend all further uranium enrichment, including the further introduction of nuclear material at Natanz," according to a copy obtained by the Associated Press. The resolution also "calls on Iran to ensure there are no further failures to report material, facilities and activities that Iran is obliged to report," to the IAEA. It remains to be seen whether Iran will match its professions of good faith with deeds.

Meanwhile, Israel is watching from the sidelines with concern and has hinted at possible military action to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if the U.S. and U.N. are unwilling to act. It was a similar pre-emptive act -- the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981 -- that deprived Saddam Hussein of the nuclear weapons he was working toward then. For that the world owed Israel a debt, though one it never acknowledged. Iran must not be allowed to go the way of North Korea -- or Iraq for that matter.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=10&a=6
13 posted on 09/10/2003 4:00:41 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Iran's Last Chance

September 10, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Review and Outlook

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/979381/posts?page=13#13

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
14 posted on 09/10/2003 4:01:49 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
What Iraqis Really Think

September 10, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Karl Zinsmeister

America, some say, is hobbled in its policies toward Iraq by not knowing much about what Iraqis really think. Are they on the side of radical Islamists? What kind of government would they like? What is their attitude toward the U.S.? Do the Shiites hate us? Could Iraq become another Iran under the ayatollahs? Are the people in the Sunni triangle the real problem?

Up to now we've only been able to guess. We've relied on anecdotal temperature-takings of the Iraqi public, and have been at the mercy of images presented to us by the press. We all know that journalists have a bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news; one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzy. And some of us who have spent time recently in Iraq -- I was an embedded reporter during the war -- have been puzzled by the postwar news and media imagery, which is much more negative than what many individuals involved in reconstructing Iraq have been telling us.

Well, finally we have some evidence of where the truth may lie. Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.

Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

- Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.

- The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view -- "Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things" -- five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.

- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities -- neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran ; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S. -- the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five -- more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

- Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.

- You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.

- And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.


This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. "We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam," said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month -- and our research shows that he's not unrepresentative.

None of this is to suggest that the task ahead will be simple. Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they thought the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50% to 36% they chose hurt over help. This is fairly understandable; Iraqis have just lived through a war in which Americans were (necessarily) flinging most of the ammunition. These experiences may explain why women (who are more antimilitary in all cultures) show up in our data as especially wary of the U.S. right now. War is never pleasant, though U.S. forces made heroic efforts to spare innocents in this one, as I illustrate with firsthand examples in my book about the battles.

Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in our poll. Less than 30% of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully half knew some family member, neighbor or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power.

Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America's aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year.

We're making headway in a benighted part of the world. Hang in there, America.

Mr. Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise magazine and holder of the J.B. Fuqua chair at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq," just out from St. Martin's Press.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=10&a=7
15 posted on 09/10/2003 4:05:06 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
"Iran's chief delegate to the International Atomic Energy Association cautioned Monday that putting too much pressure on Iran could backfire, saying if board members asked too much of Tehran there could be "unexpected, surprising consequences." There's a word for this: chutzpah. "

Good One.
16 posted on 09/10/2003 4:06:26 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
"- The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view -- "Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things" -- five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men."

"- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities -- neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran ; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S. -- the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five -- more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance."

"- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

- Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears."

"- You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf. "

Since Mr. Zinsmeister was working with Zogby at the time, it's hard to tell about the accuracy of the polling figures. However, the numbers will most likely be a revelation for those unfamiliar with sentiments in the region. Very interesting.
17 posted on 09/10/2003 4:23:11 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
...the numbers will most likely be a revelation for those unfamiliar with sentiments in the region....

I hope so.
18 posted on 09/10/2003 4:27:28 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Do these "riots" have anything to do with the Kurd UNCHR refugees being returned to Tehran? Or something else?
19 posted on 09/10/2003 4:28:28 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

Free Republic's 9-11 100 Hours of Remembrance
Click on the Link Above


20 posted on 09/10/2003 4:34:48 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
But those in attendance were quick to remind Pahlavi that his father was thought by many to be oppressive and that it would be difficult to generalize what the majority of Iranians want.

And this changes the situation and elevates the dialogue, how?

21 posted on 09/10/2003 5:09:29 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

This is refreshing. When the media portrays the conflicting sides in any nation, they always intimate that both have equally reasonable positions and that they should both be considered.

22 posted on 09/10/2003 5:12:16 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; DoctorZIn; seamole; AdmSmith; Persia; Valin; McGavin999; nuconvert; Pro-Bush; ...
9/10/03
Iran President addresses Experts Assembly, invites factions to unity

President Mohammad Khatami on Wednesday stressed the need for officials to consider the lofty Islamic principles and called on them to use rational measures and practices to contribute to the progress and prosperity of the nation, IRNA reported from Tehran.

Addressing members of the Leadership Experts Assembly, he refereed to the vast facilities and created infrastructure in the country and said grounds are now favorable for reaching a comprehensive development.

He commented on the performance and programs of the government in the industrial, agricultural and job generating sectors and said the government needs the cooperation of the people and is not able to settle all the drawbacks on its own.

He said the government budget is not sufficient for the speedy growth of the national economy and creation of enough job opportunities to remove the unemployment bottleneck.

All national resources should get mobilized and concerted measures need to be taken to deal with the problems facing the country, President Khatami said.

The political, judicial and public security would drastically be effective in efforts to create a prosperous nation free of tension and based on popular trust, Khatami said.

Creation of the Forex Reserve Fund, adoption of single currency rate policy, reforming the tax legislation and attracting foreign investment are among the measures the government has undertaken to solve the problems, he noted.

Khatami said the factional tug-of-war between the political camps would intensify tension in the society. The factional disputes, he asserted, would overshadow the performance of the system and would create division in the ranks of the people and officials.

President Khatami called on the political camps to mull over the current sensitive circumstances in the country and try to adopt common stands to promote the unity in the face of foreign threats. Discriminatory behaviors and introduction of personal perceptions and viewpoints as public stand would compound the problems, he noted. A promoted rule of law would contribute to a strong unity and solidarity among the officials and people, he said adding that all formations and camps should express their viewpoints within the boundaries of law.

To attract the popular support, some factions give promises and pledges that they cannot realize, he said and added such measured pledges would make the people ask the government what it is unable to translate into action.

He touched on the seventh round of parliamentary elections and said a massive popular turnout in the elections would result in the frustration of the enemies of the Islamic Revolution and system. He said in a time when the enemies try to undermine Iran`s Islamic system, a massive participation of the people in the voting would disappoint them and would foil their ploys against Iran. The enemies are taking advantage of any possible opportunity to launch a psychological war against Islamic Iran and that is why the officials and people should keep vigilant, he said.

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/sep/1060.html
23 posted on 09/10/2003 9:08:07 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; DoctorZIn; seamole; AdmSmith; Persia; Valin; McGavin999; nuconvert; Pro-Bush; ...
Bush Hopes World Effort Will Disarm Iran

By GEORGE GEDDA

WASHINGTON - A top State Department official said Tuesday the Bush administration hopes to focus the efforts of a U.S.-led international effort to halt commerce of weapons of mass destruction on the nations of North Korea and Iran.


North Korea and Iran are receiving the strongest initial focus because of the relatively advanced stages of their nuclear weapons development programs, said the senior official, briefing reporters on the condition that he not be identified.


According to the official, North Korea also is of particular interest to the United States because U.S. officials believe it exports and imports sensitive materials, reaping a double benefit from illicit trafficking.


The first phase of the Proliferation Security Initiative begins this Saturday with a four-nation training exercise in the Coral Sea off the Australian coast.


The maneuvers will include personnel and equipment from the United States, Australia, France and Japan.


The initiative came into being last Thursday in Paris. The 11 countries agreed to strengthen their capabilities to interdict suspect weapons by land, sea or air.


John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control who attended the Paris meeting, told reporters there that the U.S. objective was "to dramatically reduce the international commerce in weapons of mass destruction, production equipment, precursor chemicals, all things related to weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems."

Given the magnitude of the challenge and that some components of doomsday weapons are the size of a grapefruit, the official said U.S. officials believe a 100 percent interdiction success rate is beyond reach.


Intelligence gathering, the official said, will be a key to successful interdiction.


Besides the participants in exercises this weekend, the PSI members include Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Britain.


The official said consultations are under way with countries such as China, Russia and South Korea as possible future members.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/weapons_proliferation_1
24 posted on 09/10/2003 9:12:21 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
INVERT THE ROLES OF MAIN PLAYERS IN IRAQ TO SAVE THE NATION

By Safa Haeri, IPS Editor

PARIS, 9 Sept. (IPS) "The Iraqi people have the sad impression that they are taken as hostage by strategists devising planetary issues, such as fighting international terrorism or redrawing the map of the Middle East, using them as guinea-pig", according to a UN observer and scholar.

This cabalistic view of the way the Iraqi thinks about their situation under Allied occupation was expressed by Mr. Ghassan Salameh, a Lebanese who worked as a political adviser to the late Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN’s special Representative in Iraq.

A former professor of political science at the American University of Paris, Mr. Salameh escaped "miraculously" the car bomb explosion that destroyed the United Nations offices in Baghdad on 19 August, killing de Mello as well as another 23 people, most of them UN’s employees.

Addressing a packed press conference held on Monday at the Foreign Press Centre (CAPE) in Paris, he proposed to "invert" the roles played in Iraq by present actors as the best and more efficient way for saving Iraq from chaos and possible disintegration.

"The Iraqis must be put in the front seat, dealing directly with their affairs, and the Allied, plus the United Nations and other international agencies helping them from the behind", he suggested.

Coming back from a three months survey of the Iraqi situation, Mr. Salameh said though the present American-sponsored Iraqi Provisory Council does not represent all the components and parties of the Iraqi nation, -- which explain its unpopularity with the population by large --, yet it can be made credible if it could put forward crystal-clear plans for free elections.

As he was presenting his suggestions to the press, in Washington, US President George W. Bush, in a key speech, asked for help in Iraq from the United Nations and the international community, mainly his most important allies that opposed the war, namely France, Germany and Russia, pointing out however that the United States would continue as the main conductor.

"What Washington ought to do for being credible in Iraq and bring the Iraqi people to effectively back them is to present a clear-cut date for ending the occupation, otherwise it would be seen as an occupier and colonial force, uniting the Iraqis to put up resistance, as they do now", Mr. Salameh said, stressing that he was speaking on a personal position and not that of a UN official.

But this was exactly what was missing in President Bush’s Sunday speech, a clear strategy for restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

"What the Iraqis want now and foremost is security, public services and a government and institutions that speaks for them", he said, based on extensive talks and meetings with the highest Iraqi religious dignitaries and political leaders.

For the time being, Salameh said, none of the three demands exist.

"There is no light at the end of the tunnel", he added, observing that adding more troops to the existing ones would solve nothing until the Iraqis take more responsibility in running the affairs of their country.

He also blamed on "foreign elements" that "invaded" Iraq coming from neighbouring countries, thanks to the Iraq’s "porous" borders, but stopped short of naming any neighbours.

According to American and British sources, thousands of Iraqis serving with the Badr Brigades, the military wing of SAIRI and hundreds of Iranian special agents entered Iraqi during the very first days of Iraq’s invasion by the Allied forces.

The explosions of the Jordanian Embassy, the UN’s offices, the Assassination of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim, the leader of the Iran-backed Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, as well as sabotaging pipe lines coupled with increasing attacks on Allied forces, are few examples of what Mr. Pepe Escobar, a senior journalist with the Hong Kong-based "Asia Times Online" internet newspaper describes as the "vietnamisation of Iraq"

For Mr. Salameh, though the present Provisory Council is not the best of the solutions, "for the simple reason that the people do not trust it", yet, taking into account the present circumstances, it can help improving the situation, provided it also shows it is provisory, help draw a secular constitution and is backed by international community, the Arab world and above all, its neighbours.

"However no Arab and no neighbour would ever accept to see Iraq becoming an example of a nation occupied by foreign forces under whatever pretext, being of restoring democracy or fighting terrorism", he warned.

[In an interview with Mr. David Ignatius, the former Editor of the Paris-based International Herald Tribune, published in "The Daily Star" of Beirut a day before, Mr. Salameh had suggested the merging of the existing governing council and cabinet.

"The two 25-member interim bodies are duplicative, with the heads of key political factions sitting on the council and their deputies typically serving as ministers. The merged body would be reduced to 20 to 25 people, and the United Nations would then recognise it as Iraq’s legitimate government", he proposed.]

"Whatever the Allied reasons for attacking Iraq, it belongs to the past. One has now to look forward, to address Iraqi people’s most urgent needs and this can be done only in case all the pros and the cons of the war joins hands and sent a unanimous, clear message to them.

Contesting the clichés that presented Iraq of the toppled dictator Saddam Hoseyn to the Nazi Germany politically of to the satellites of the former Soviet empire economically, Mr. Salameh stressed that the present situation was not "tenable" and could explode anytime, "no matter of how many foreign forces you have there".

"By wanting to fight terrorism at any cost, one has ended to encourage it to install itself in Iraq", Mr. Salameh pointed out without naming the United States.

"In any country, particularly if it is ruled by a despotic regime and its society is mosaic, when the central regime collapse, every one wants to become king in its own kingdom", the scholar and political analyst observed.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Sept-2003/us_iraq_9903.htm
25 posted on 09/10/2003 10:18:26 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All

It has come to the Thread's attention that discrepancies appear in the following article posted 09/09/2003, 11:35 AM.

"Iran: anti-Government demonstrators arrested in June, July to be executed"

iranncrfac ^ | 9/8/03 | iranncrfac

Some of the people arrested during antigovernment demonstrations Iran in June and July have been executed, according to reports from inside the jails of the clerical regime...."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978342/posts


The Khordad is no longer in business.
If anyone can confirm or deny this news story, please respond with proof from other sources. It is of utmost importance that we maintain truth and accuracy to the best of our ability.

Thank You.





26 posted on 09/10/2003 10:37:18 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
"The official said consultations are under way with countries such as China,..."

Bush just initiated sanctions against China for dealing WMD's.
27 posted on 09/10/2003 1:03:06 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Thanks for the post nuconvert, I hope someone will be able to investigate this further. We need to maintain the integrity of the information posted here.

DoctorZin
28 posted on 09/10/2003 5:17:09 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
How's This for an Answer?

WSJ, 9.10.2003

Blogress Karol Sheinin reports that an Iranian democracy activist named Banafsheh contacted the most prominent "antiwar" group asking them to take a stand against Tehran's thuggish theocracy. In an e-mail (quoted verbatim), Banafsheh describes the answer she got:

Recently I contacted a group called A.N.S.W.E.R. COALITION which organizes marches. After having introduced myself and explained to them the situation in Iran (after 4 phone calls and messages) I was told that they won't help the Iranian activists and their friends in organizing marches against the Islamic Republic as they're afraid the Iranian student movement might be run by IMPERIALIST!!!!!

They claimed to be "intelligent" and very well informed though essentially they had NO IDEA what on earth I was talking about. They were not only unaware of the crimes committed by the Islamic Republic, they had never even heard that an organized group of hoodlums, called the BADR Brigade, trained by the KGB and Palestinians, armed and bankrolled by the Islamic Republic's ruling theocrats, were infiltrating Iraq to run a muck in killing American soldiers and destroy the future of Iraq! When I explained that the people of Iran are acting on their own but that encouragement from the PEOPLE of the west was crucial in holding anti-Islamic Republic demonstrations etc. (that's all I had asked them for: help in organizing demonstrations) the woman basically said that they won't help because their cause was to eradicate Imperialism! I explained that Iranian oil was being pilfered by member nations of the EU and other countries such as Japan, at which she replied: since we don't live in Europe or Japan, I cannot help! I guess imperialism is concentrated only in the U.S.!!!!! AND that Mullahs can't be "Imperialists!"

I then explained that Hossein Khomeini (Khomeini's grandson) is now one of the biggest opponents of the Mullacracy in Iran...She told me that he was probably being bought by Americans!!! In other words, she was convinced that there could be no dissent among the Mullahs themselves!!!!!

I told her about my father and other political prisoners in Iran (not to mention the number of people stoned to death, hung, assassinated, raped...), she thought for a moment and said that my father is probably a dissident and that the Islamic Republic was possibly justified in putting him in prison!!!!! I don't know, but doesn't that seem oxymoronic coming from someone working at an "activist/protestor" organization?????

Well, not really. International Answer is the brainchild of America-hating ex-attorney general Ramsey Clark. As we've noted before, this group makes common cause with every one of America's enemies, from Fidel Castro to Saddam Hussein to Kim Jong Il.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003993

Banafsheh is a friend of mine and has stumbled on an interesting story. -- DoctorZin
29 posted on 09/10/2003 5:24:30 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
"...they're afraid the Iranian student movement might be run by IMPERIALIST!!!!! "

LOL!

"I told her about my father and other political prisoners in Iran (not to mention the number of people stoned to death, hung, assassinated, raped...), she thought for a moment and said that my father is probably a dissident and that the Islamic Republic was possibly justified in putting him in prison!!!!!"

OUTRAGEOUS!!!! Wish I'D been on the phone with her!!
Maybe the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition needs some mail?
LOTS of it!
30 posted on 09/10/2003 5:46:27 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
ElBaradei says needs full Iran help - diplomat

Reuters | Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Posted on 09/10/2003 7:44 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

VIENNA, Sept 10 (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog told his governing board that unless Iran fully cooperated he could not guarantee Tehran was not diverting resources to a weapons programme, a diplomat said on Wednesday....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/979577/posts
31 posted on 09/10/2003 6:01:13 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
U.S. Cranks Up Pressure on Iran, UN Deadline Looms

September 10, 2003
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA -- The United States and more than a dozen allies pushed the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Wednesday to back a resolution that would give Tehran until October 31 to prove it has no clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Japan, Turkey, Britain, France and Germany joined forces with Washington and nine other nations by co-sponsoring a draft that demanded Iran demonstrate full compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which the United States says Tehran has violated to secretly develop atomic weapons.

The toughly-worded draft resolution, expected to be voted on at Thursday's closed-door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation Board of Governors, also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities."

Iran's foreign minister warned that the Islamic republic, which denies having atomic weapons ambitions, would "review" cooperation with the U.N. watchdog body if its governing board came down too hard on Tehran.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, told Reuters the decision of France and Germany to co-sponsor the resolution was clearly an attempt to ingratiate themselves with Washington after refusing to back the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

"They are now taking Iran as a scapegoat to bring themselves together," he said, rejecting the idea of a deadline.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei appeared to support the U.S.-backed resolution when he spoke to the board on Wednesday, a diplomat told Reuters.

"If we're not getting immediate and full cooperation (from Iran), we might not be able to verify non-diversion," the diplomat quoted ElBaradei as saying at the closed door meeting.

If the IAEA board decided the agency was unable to verify "non-diversion" of nuclear resources to a weapons program -- as it did with North Korea in February -- it would have to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic and diplomatic sanctions.

"I would like to come to a conclusion (about the nature of Iran's nuclear program) by the next board meeting," ElBaradei said. The IAEA board is due to meet again in November.

IRAN THREATENS TO 'REVIEW' IAEA COOPERATION

Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the IRNA news agency in Tehran that Iran would be forced to reconsider cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program.

"If the hawks gain the ground and ignore our legitimate rights for peaceful nuclear activities, we will be forced to review the state of play and the current level of cooperation with the agency," Kharrazi said.

A Western diplomat told Reuters that this kind of comment from Tehran was "blackmail."

The IAEA said in an August 26 report that inspectors had found traces of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium at an enrichment facility at Natanz, arousing suspicions Iran might have been secretly purifying uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Iran has said the traces detected at Natanz were found on machinery already contaminated before Iran purchased it from abroad in the 1980s. This explanation has met with skepticism inside and outside the IAEA.

The U.S.-backed resolution also calls on Iran "to promptly and unconditionally sign, ratify and fully implement" an NPT Additional Protocol granting the IAEA the right to carry out more intrusive snap inspections of its nuclear program.

Iran has not signed the protocol, though it has offered to begin talks with the IAEA about doing so.

(Additional reporting by Francois Murphy in Vienna and Parisa Hafezi in Tehran)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3421331
32 posted on 09/10/2003 6:03:36 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Tel Aviv Worried About New Delhi's Ties with Iran

September 10, 2003
The Times of India
Indiatimes

NEW DELHI -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon raised the issue of Iran-India relations with Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a senior Israeli source said.

Briefing reporters, the source said that Israel was worried about the leakage of its military technology to a country it considered "the epicentre of terrorism". According to him, Iran along with Syria was supporting forces opposed to Israel with weapons and funding.

But, he added, "We got answers to the questions raised and we are satisfied with the answers."

The source said that the subject of Iraq was not discussed in detail. He skirted a question on Pakistan’s role as an epicentre of terrorism, saying he was not familiar with the situation there. However, the source insisted, "We are not fighting Islam, we are fighting agents of terrorism."

The source reiterated Sharon’s declaration at Tuesday’s state banquet that while Israel was willing to make "painful concessions" for a durable peace in the region, on the issue of security Israel would not make any concession "not now, nor in the future".

Asked whether there were any less violent options to Israel’s "eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth" tactics, the source said that in every war civilians were killed and "every casualty was a tragedy". But, he said Israeli forces never planned operations against Palestinian civilians, while "the other side" which sends suicide bombers to blast commuter buses had no such compunction. Israel, he lamented, was the only democracy that had to operate defence systems around its kindergarten schools because they were targets.

On the subject of cooperation in fighting terrorism, the source said that "cooperation did not mean that units of the Indian Army are going to fight in Israel or Israelis will fight here." He said that the discussions were on a concept such as the decision not to compromise with terrorism and which would then incorporate practical things like sharing information. Other issues, he said, were not discussed by the PMs. "They will be discussed by the secret services."

The source said that in his discussions with Vajpayee, Sharon had emphasised that relations between the two countries must stress reciprocity. In this context, Israel was more than pleased with India’s decision not to sponsor any more anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations. Summing up, he said Israel was ready to learn from India, share knowhow, "ready to help and liked to be helped".

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=176277
33 posted on 09/10/2003 6:04:19 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iranian Demand Holds Up Bushehr

September 11, 2003
The Moscow Times
Simon Saradzhyan

Tehran has made an unexpected and unacceptable demand that could derail Russian-Iranian cooperation on the Bushehr nuclear plant, a senior Nuclear Power Ministry official said Wednesday.

To address concerns that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, Russia has said it will freeze construction on the $1 billion plant and will refuse to supply fuel unless Iran agrees to return all of the spent fuel. Both sides in recent weeks have said that an agreement was close to being signed.

On Wednesday, however, Deputy Nuclear Power Minister Valery Govorukhin said Iran is now demanding that Russia pay for the spent fuel, Itar-Tass reported. Usually it is the other way around; countries get paid for receiving and storing spent fuel, he said.

Govorukhin chose to go public with Iran's demand as the board of directors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna debated a U.S.-backed resolution that would find Iran in noncompliance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it has signed.

The draft resolution -- put forward by the United States, Britain, France and Germany -- gives Iran until the end of October to prove that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. If Iran fails to meet the deadline, the IAEA would refer the issue to the Security Council, which would vote on whether to slap sanctions on Tehran.

The IAEA board was expected to vote late Wednesday or Thursday, a spokeswoman said by telephone from Vienna.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is designed solely for generating electricity, but it has avoided signing an additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that would allow for comprehensive IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities without notice.

Govorukhin insisted the dispute was commercial and said both sides have agreed to start talks, Itar-Tass reported. Should Iran refuse to withdraw its demand, Russia would have to charge Iran a higher price to include the cost of buying it back, he said.

Alexander Pikayev, a security expert with the Carnegie Moscow Center, said Iran might have concluded that it can produce fuel compatible with the Russian-made reactor itself -- and, thus, be deliberately making unrealistic demands in order to disrupt the deal altogether. If Iran used its own fuel in the power plant's reactors, it could then enrich the spent fuel to weapons-grade using one of the centrifuges that it possesses.

The IAEA has recently said that its inspectors found residue of highly enriched uranium on gas centrifuges at a nuclear facility in Natanz, about 300 kilometers south of Tehran, during an inspection in February. Iran said it imported the centrifuges and that they were "contaminated" with enriched uranium by a previous owner.

The decision to publicize Iran's demand during the IAEA debates may be an attempt to create international pressure on Iran to drop its demand and sign the agreement on the return of spent fuel, Pikayev and Ivan Safranchuk of the Center for Defense Information said.

Moreover, Pikayev said, it may be a sign that Moscow has decided to end its lucrative nuclear cooperation with Tehran altogether because of its own security concerns.

The Nuclear Power Ministry may have decided that it is time "to wash their hands" of Iran rather than continue cooperation with a country that avoids making its nuclear program fully transparent and draws constant fire from the United States, Pikayev said.

Safranchuk, however, said he believes the ministry will complete the reactor unless Iran refuses to sign the fuel-return agreement.

Earlier this month, the ministry said Iran had already reviewed a draft of the agreement and was ready to sign it. Officials said the agreement would be signed as soon as Russian government agencies finished reviewing it.

Govorukhin himself said in late August that the ministry intended to sign it within a month. Ministry officials said Russia should complete construction of the first reactor at the Bushehr plant in 2005 but may send the first batch of nuclear fuel to Iran as soon as this year.

During a visit to Moscow in July, Iranian atomic chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said he hoped the agreement would be signed soon.

"There are no vague points about the return of spent nuclear fuel," he said.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/09/11/001.html
34 posted on 09/10/2003 6:05:21 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
"Funny in Farsi" Adds Humor To Iranian-American Experience

September 09, 2003
U.S. Department of States
Steve Holgate

Washington -- "When I was seven, my parents, my fourteen year-old brother, Farshid, and I moved from Abadan, Iran to Whittier, California."

So begins the highly acclaimed new book by the first time Iranian-American author, Firoozeh Dumas. Like most adventures stories, the book begins simply. Unlike most, it has no galloping horses or swordplay, no enchanted forests or imprisoned princess. "Funny In Farsi: A Memoir of Growing Up in America" is, instead, a more adult adventure about negotiating the difficult transition from one culture to another, the task of respecting traditional values while becoming part of a new and highly modern society. It is about the great challenge of taking on a new identity without losing the old one.

In this brief and often laugh-out-loud memoir, Firoozeh Dumas tells about her life growing up in two cultures. In the early chapters of the book she shares with her readers the thrill as well as the difficulties of arriving in the United States in 1972 as a seven year-old schoolgirl, making a new home in a place that seems both a wonderland of Mickey Mouse and Barbie dolls and a baffling maze of strange customs and a new language. She speaks of the kindness of many new neighbors to an immigrant family from a place about which most of them knew little, if anything - though one man assured them, "I know all about Iran. I've seen 'Lawrence of Arabia.'"

The difficulties of grade school and her parents' struggles with the language of their adoptive country seem, as described by Dumas, both painful and hilarious. Her father, perhaps the strongest presence in the book, was a petroleum engineer who had come years earlier to the United States as a Fulbright Scholar and longed for the chance to return one day with his family. He never loses his sense of wonder at the endless opportunities and surprises that America has to offer. These surprises often seem less wondrous to his family, and his surprising inability to speak good English, even after his time there as a student, makes Firoozeh, for one, wonder if he had lived in some other United States that they had not yet seen. Nor does he lose his fascination for saving money in every conceivable way. When a family member visits, her father immediately offers to take him out to lunch, which turns out to be a stop by the local grocery story, where they graze on the variety of small free samples often offered on weekends in American grocery stores.

Despite his occasionally quixotic ways, he also possesses deep wells of wisdom. Years after their arrival in the United States he began to return regularly to Iran with his wife. Though they are far from wealthy by American standards, he uses his Iranian pension to help the needy in Iran and to enjoy a few luxuries. On his return to the United States after one such trip, Dumas asked him if it was difficult to come back after living so well during his trip to Iran. "But, Firoozeh," he replied, "I'm a rich man in America, too. I just don't have much money."

Her mother is a firm but quieter presence. Though fascinated by the game shows on television, she seems at first more skeptical of her new world. When American acquaintances lavish praise on young Firoozeh for her facility in translating both Farsi and English for her parents, her mother simply observes, "Americans are easily impressed."

The book takes Firoozeh through high school and college to her marriage with a young French immigrant, with whom she makes a new home in California, but never loses sight of her family. The book relates her father's boundless enthusiasm and optimism, her mother's more guarded appreciation of their new country, the reactions of her brother and a series of visiting relatives, until it is clear that the book is as much about them as her -- and most of all about their adventure together in making a life in their new country.

Not every experience is pleasant. During the revolution, Dumas says, she felt the sting of Americans' understandable but unreasonable anger toward everything Iranian. In more recent years, these emotions have faded and she observes a greater knowledge of the region among her American friends.

More remarkable even than Dumas' humorous and touching story is the way that it has touched American audiences. In a recent telephone interview from her home in Northern California she sounds exactly as her readers might hope, friendly, humorous and full of energy. The reaction to her book, she says, "has been phenomenal." American readers have loved the book and critics have praised it. Dumas, who recently returned from a promotional tour for the book, says that she has also received a flood of e-mails from around the world, particularly from the Middle East and Iran, who have read about the book and its reception. (It is not yet in Farsi translation, due in part to the fact that Iran does not belong to international copyright conventions.) "They are thrilled that this is a book about people, not politics," Dumas says. "I'm struck that people from all walks of life relate to it."

Naturally, Dumas says, Iranian-Americans have especially enjoyed the book. Iranians "have a very developed sense of humor that most Americans are not aware of," she says.

Dumas seems especially pleased that, through her book, "Iranians, Americans and others are being brought together by laughter." In the book, she says, "I wanted to show my respect for both cultures. I sincerely believe that we have something to learn from each other." Iranians, she says, "put emphasis on family. Things like hospitality and generosity are woven into our culture." But, Dumas says, "the thing that is great about America is that you can pursue your dream. I came here. I wrote a book published by the biggest publishing house in America because it was good." She laughs as she adds, "I am the American dream."

Dumas says that the inspiration of the book came from her father. "He was always a great story-teller. I felt like I grew up with him," she says, "So, when I had kids, I wanted my children to know why I am here, who I am."

Her father, she says, also had a dream, "He dreamed that someday he would return to America with his own children. And they, the children of an engineer from Abadan, would have access to the same educational opportunities as anybody else, even the sons of senators and the rich. It was a dream that my brothers and I were honored to fulfill." That education and the opportunities it has offered have allowed his children to follow their dreams and have helped him to realize his. With feet planted firmly in two cultures they all continue to follow their dreams.


(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=September&x=20030909161802namfuaks0.6079523&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html
35 posted on 09/10/2003 6:06:25 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Anonymizer Working on Iran Web Censor System

September 10, 2003
The Associated Press
Anick Jesdanun

NEW YORK -- A San Diego company that runs a system for evading Internet censors is working with the U.S. government to create a special service for people in Iran.

Anonymizer Inc.'s six-month contract with Voice of America's parent agency, International Broadcasting Bureau, calls for daily e-mail newsletters to Iranians with instructions in Farsi for accessing the free service.

According to Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media freedom group, Iran requires Internet service providers to block hundreds of news and other sites deemed illegal. Several providers have been closed for failing to install filters.

Anonymizer and similar proxies bypass filters by masking the sites users are trying to reach.

Theoretically, anyone in the world can access Anonymizer to reach blocked sites. But many governments and companies have learned to include Anonymizer.com on their filter lists.

So Anonymizer will frequently change its Web addresses and publicize them through its daily newsletter.

Lance Cottrell, Anonymizer's president, would not disclose the amount the government is paying for the Iran project.

Last year, Anonymizer provided a similar service in China, although it has been suspended pending additional funding.

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030910/APF/309101067&cachetime=5
36 posted on 09/10/2003 6:06:56 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Anonymizer Working on Iran Web Censor System

September 10, 2003
The Associated Press
Anick Jesdanun

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/979381/posts?page=36#36

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
37 posted on 09/10/2003 6:08:21 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
American-Iranian September

September 11, 2003
Koorosh Afshar
Iran va Jahan

A new September is approaching. The world is getting prepared to stand still one more time to remember those who lost their lives on that disastrous day.

"Things will Never be the Same Here" was the title of an article I read in the following weeks of 9/11. This was the best way one could describe not only America but the whole world on the days to come.

These terrorist acts were truly acts of the evil against civility in the modern era which, unlike the past, had the potential to attract almost everybody's attention in the world. "Why unlike the past"? Since many of you might not know but as heartbreaking and unbearable 9/11 could be for the Americans, 9/10, as well as 9/11, is for the Iranians.

The reactions towards what happened on 9/11 were different in different parts of the globe but since the very happening of these evil acts, the youth of Iran sided with the Americans.

You might still remember that our youth, the new generation of the Iranians, we, were the only people among the Middle Eastern countries, while opposing the ruling mullahs, poured into the streets and held candle light vigils to show our solidarity with the Americans, quite contrary to the vile policies of our government. At the time this seemed quite sufficient to disclose to others as to how we felt about the 9/11 tragedy.

Removing the last excuse for the mullahs and also to dismiss any probable doubt regarding their role in these catastrophic events some links were found later which suggested that the mullahs of the Islamic Republic have very close ties with the "Al Qaida", as they previously had with other terrorist groups.

The irony is that while we shared the same pain and grief with the modern world on that day, I am afraid many of Westerners might not have known that September, points to a very bitter experience in the common memory of my nation too.

It was almost on these same days, nearly 15 years ago, that the old Devil of deadly wrath and fear, Ayatollah Khomeini, ordered his henchmen to execute thousands of prisoners of conscience (mostly political prisoners) in an unprecedented action not only in our contemporary history but also in our distant history. One might only be able to trace similar acts in the early centuries of the Arab incursion to Persia. The detestation for the Bedouin culture is obvious and raising day by day among the Iranians. I believe that lot of us are making fundamental reconsiderations in our religious beliefs. Our emphasis on being a non-Arab state (contrary to what the mullahs advocate) has deep psychological roots among the present generation of our nation.

It was during that time that lot of our mothers lost their only son or daughter. What made this an unbearable blow to our country was the fact that a considerable percentage of those (more than 15000 people) murdered then, were the elite of our society, the ones for whose education and training this ancient land had invested tremendously and had counted on their participation in the construction of her future – a future which never materialized.

And the mullahs knew it well. The gallant children of this great nation were summarily slaughtered by these shop-keepers of religion and in cold blood.

Right after Khomeini accepted the ceasefire (U.N. resolution 598) in 1987, an Iraqi based Iranian opposition group, which didn't (and still does not) have a popular support in Iran, initiated an attack which proved to be a loss for the group as hundreds of them were murdered brutally. This gave Khomeini a good reason to quench his never ending blood thirst by ordering all the political prisoners to be executed throughout the country.

Another demagogue, Ayatollah Montazari, who was supposed to be Khomeini's successor, has written his memoirs in the recent years. There is a chapter in his book in which he describes how he had written to Khomeini suggesting him not to execute the virgin girls captured as political prisoners because it was "against the teachings of Islam". In response to Montazari's suggestion, Khomeini, then, issues a fatwa in which he authorizes the interrogators and the guards (consisting of the members of the regime's intelligence, the guardians of revolution to temporarily marry the girls (Islamic Sighe') and deflower them the night before their execution. In his fatwa which was later released Khomeini says: "I hope that you will win Allah the Almighty's satisfaction with your revolutionary anger and grudge in carrying out this order..."

Try to imagine the feelings of that Iranian female student, still in her teens, captured merely for the ownership of a dissident paper and sentenced to spend 5 years in prison. Now, after passing 2 years of her sentence, after all those insults and tortures and persecutions they interrogate her one more time. A mullah tries her. He is the judge and the jury is himself. He sentences her to death. As she is still a virgin, in order to make her "eligible" to be murdered, she must get married to that filthy, bearded Haji that same night….

Morning comes. The Arabic words of Azan can be heard everywhere through the loud speakers. Her whole body is bruised and aching. She is bleeding, she hates herself. She is asked to wear that black veil, in her slippers they walk her to the saloon where she is to be executed. The thick blue ropes are hanging from the ceiling. She hopes it will be over sooner.
And...

It is over now.

Thousands of girls like her have been executed since the beginning of the Islamic Republic. Some of them hanged some of them killed under sadistic tortures of the interrogators and other agents of the ochlocracy - some of them are shot dead.

You can find many families in Iran who have lots of heart breaking stories to tell. Many of them still recall their reaction when they had gone to learn about their loved one and in return were given a few of her (or his) belongings and were required to pay money for the bullet with which their loved one was executed.

Needless to say that nobody knows where these people are buried. Under the pressure of the families of the killed prisoners, the regime referred to a few locations outside few cities as the mass graves for those lost ones. There are so many corpses buried there that in the past years, mostly during the winter time, there have been cases that rain or snow wash away the soil revealing the bodies which were buried on top of the other ones. Only to be covered by the bulldozers of the regime immediately.

The regime refers to these places "La'nat Abad" (meaning "damnville") or "Kaafarestaan" meaning "infidelville".

People call those places "Flower Gardens".

The same stories continue today. In our struggles in June and July of this year quite a few of us were captured. And history was repeated; only this time the person who was arrested, tortured, raped, beaten and killed was a 54 year-old-Iranian-Canadian-journalist who was captured while she was taking some photographs outside of a prison, here in Tehran. The mullahs didn't accept her family's request to have her remains returned to Canada. She was buried rapidly and before burying her some chemicals were injected to her corpse so that her body would deteriorate rapidly in order to leave in vain any attempts aimed at returning her remains to Canada and examining the cause of her death and also any traces of a rape.

My friends and I would like to thank you, American people, for your concern and also for the uplifting words of some of your statesmen, only, please remember that after all these years of pain and agony for all of us, the talk of reformist and non-reformist and elected and unelected in the Islamic Republic should be dismissed on the spot by all of us.

I can certainly name a few patriotic Iranians who have, and will remain inspiring to all of us in this struggle, but in such adverse times, I'm reminded of the eloquent words of Thomas Paine, when he said:


I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death.


Rest assured that our conscious, the conscious of the youth in Iran, approves our conduct.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=11&a=3
38 posted on 09/10/2003 6:09:27 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamole
pong
39 posted on 09/10/2003 6:09:44 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
"- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities -- neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran ; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S. -- the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five -- more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance."

"- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question."

This is awesome, Dr.Z! Thanks!

40 posted on 09/10/2003 6:30:58 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
The people of C.A.N.S.W.E.R. are nothing but a bunch of useful idiots.
41 posted on 09/10/2003 6:41:27 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
The people of C.A.N.S.W.E.R. are nothing but a bunch of useful idiots.
42 posted on 09/10/2003 6:47:23 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Anonymizer Inc.

Excellent!

43 posted on 09/10/2003 6:51:28 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Sorry about the hiccup.
44 posted on 09/10/2003 6:55:32 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; F14 Pilot
"Since many of you might not know but as heartbreaking and unbearable 9/11 could be for the Americans, 9/10, as well as 9/11, is for the Iranians."

"The reactions towards what happened on 9/11 were different in different parts of the globe but since the very happening of these evil acts, the youth of Iran sided with the Americans."

SOLIDARITY!

45 posted on 09/10/2003 7:02:19 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
"A new September is approaching. The world is getting prepared to stand still one more time to remember those who lost their lives on that disastrous day."

What a poignant piece.
46 posted on 09/10/2003 7:12:38 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
"Iran along with Syria was supporting forces opposed to Israel with weapons and funding"

Seems Damascus and Tehran have been very chummy lately.
It's obvious all the benefits Syria can get from Iran.
And in return, Iran expects what?
47 posted on 09/10/2003 7:32:07 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; piasa; Valin; nuconvert; Texas_Dawg; kattracks; RaceBannon; seamole; ..
Argentina Ripped For Coddling Iran In Bombing Case

By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD STAFF
BUENOS AIRES — After promising to throw its full weight behind the investigation of the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center, Argentina's new government is now under fire from Jewish groups that say it appears unwilling to confront Iran, the country suspected of responsibility for the attack.

The unexpected arrest by British authorities last month of an indicted suspect in the case, former Iranian ambassador to Argentina Hade Soleimanpour, provided an unprecedented test of Argentina's willingness to confront Tehran.

Iran, which denies involvement in the attack, has denounced the arrest in the strongest terms, recalling its ambassador to London and threatening to break off cultural and economic relations with Argentina.

The government of Argentina's newly elected president, Nestor Kirchner, has responded by scrambling to avoid antagonizing Tehran, receiving an Iranian delegation to discuss the matter and suggesting that the entire case be referred to an international tribunal. At the same time, Buenos Aires has told Jewish groups and Jerusalem that it is determined to bring Soleimanpour to Argentina, and is merely exploring the best way to achieve that, given the diplomatic aspects of the affair.

"After the arrest and very harsh words from Iran, we had to make a decision," said Eduardo Valdes, chief of staff to Foreign Minister Rafael Bielsa and a key actor in the deliberations on how to handle the matter. "If you only think of dignity, Argentina would have had to cut diplomatic relations with Iran. But we also need to continue with Iran and so we decided that we would try to get them to be involved in the investigation."

While the case's investigative judge, Juan José Galeano, who issued the initial warrant for Soleimanpour's arrest, was working on an extradition request that must be transmitted to a British judge before September 20, an Iranian delegation came to Buenos Aires to meet the judge and Argentinean officials.

At the same time, Argentina's foreign minister undercut Galeano's drive to prosecute Soleimanpour, proposing instead the creation of an international tribunal for the case like the one created to judge Libyan officials for the 1989 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

This infuriated the country's main Jewish groups, which accused the government of coddling Tehran and seeking a compromise after announcing with great fanfare that it would leave no stone unturned in pursuit of the perpetrators of the attack, which killed 85 people. Kirchner's government had previously earned their praise two months ago by announcing that it would open the archives of Argentina's intelligence agency, known as SIDE, pertaining to the case and have its operatives testify in public.

"It now seems that the gestures of Kirchner were just publicity stunts," said Miguel Bronfman, a lawyer for AMIA, a Spanish acronym for the Jewish Mutual Association of Argentina. "They say this is a government priority, we are opening the SIDE archives, etc. But when Soleimanpour is arrested, they say this is just the judge's problem, then they come up with the idea of an international tribunal."

But Valdes said that the government was fully committed to the investigation and that it was not avoiding its responsibilities. In addition, he said, the Iranians had agreed to participate in the judicial process by appointing a local lawyer who would give them access to court documents. An Argentinean diplomat closely involved in the discussions with the Iranians said the Iranian delegation had visited some 15 law offices in Buenos Aires.

The diplomat said that Argentina was consulting with London and Washington to craft its position, an indication that Buenos Aires does not want to confront Tehran on its own.

The extradition process could take some time, observers said, pointing to the case of former Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet, who remained in legal limbo for more than a year in London following a Spanish extradition request.

After the British judge renders a verdict, the last word on the extradition belongs to the British Foreign Office. In the meantime, Soleimanpour has been ordered to remain in jail.

It remains an open question whether the information from intelligence agencies that form the bulk of Galeano's case against Soleimanpour will be accepted as legally valid evidence by a British judge.

One allegation, which is based on the testimonies of several Iranian defectors, is that Soleimanpour attended an August 13, 1993 meeting at the Iranian Security Ministry at which the decision to bomb the AMIA was taken. The meeting was allegedly headed by Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and then-intelligence minister Ali Fallahian. Also allegedly participating was Mohsen Rabbani, who was at the time a cleric in a Shiite mosque in Buenos Aires and was subsequently named cultural attaché to the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires.

Soleimanpour and Rabbani then allegedly coordinated the attack that was carried out by Hezbollah operatives, according to a March 2003 indictment from Galeano. The judge also issued arrest warrants for Rabbani and Fallahian.

There remains a mystery about Soleimanpour's arrest that could provide another explanation about Tehran's concern about the case: When arrested he may have been in the middle of defecting and providing information to Britain.

Despite his past as an ambassador and his alleged links to terror activities, he was granted a student visa by the British authorities. In addition, an Iranian newspaper reported that he had been questioned three times by British security services prior to his arrest — a report several Argentinean and European sources believe to be true.

Soleimanpour apparently did not seek diplomatic protection from the Iranian Embassy, nor did the embassy apparently inquire about him after this alleged questioning. Meanwhile, Iranian authorities had known since March that Galeano was preparing an arrest warrant and attempting to locate Soleimanpour, and they apparently did not bother to attempt to remove him from the country.

"It could well be that this is because he had decided not to come back to Iran," a well-placed source said. "And this could be a big worry for Tehran."

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.09.12/news5a.argentina.html
48 posted on 09/10/2003 10:34:24 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; nuconvert; onyx; Pro-Bush; Valin; Tamsey; ...
Hawks a threat to cooperation, Iran warns watchdog

REUTERS AND AFP
Thursday, Sep 11, 2003,Page 6

Iran will be forced to review cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog if it is denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the official news agency yesterday.

Kharrazi made the comments to the IRNA news agency as diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board in Vienna appeared ready to approve a US-backed resolution giving Tehran until Oct. 31 to reveal the full extent of its nuclear program.

"If the hawks gain the ground and ignore our legitimate rights for peaceful nuclear activities, we will be forced to review the state of play and the current level of cooperation with the agency," Kharrazi said.

Kharrazi did not specify who the "hawkish elements" were, but denounced them for "arrogance" and taking an "extremist posture." Japan, Britain, France and Germany joined forces with the US in co-sponsoring the toughly worded draft resolution.

"The posture of certain countries (on the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency) is irresponsible and arrogant," Kharazi said in a statement published by state news agency IRNA.

"Unfortunately, some are trying openly and willfully to destroy the process of cooperation between Iran and the agency and seeking to cut the agency out of the process.

"If the extremists take control of the matter and do not recognize our legitimate rights to have peaceful nuclear activities, we will then be obliged to review the situation and the current level of cooperation with the agency," he added.

The IAEA draft demands Iran show its full compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Washington says Tehran has violated.

"There is an apparent and deliberate attempt by some to torpedo the process of cooperation and remove the agency from the process," Kharrazi said, adding the position of some states was "outrageous and irresponsible."

The draft did not say what would happen if Iran did not cooperate, but a Western diplomat said what was important was "that a signal is sent, that a clear bright line is laid down that Iran must comply with IAEA requests in a quick, complete and transparent manner."

Kharazi stopped short of criticizing the draft resolution but singled out Canada for its hard line: "In a speech to the board of governors, the Canadian representative asked that the issue of the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities be immediately sent to the Security Council, thus wanting to ignore the role of the agency," he said.

The draft came after Ken Brill, the US ambassador to the IAEA, had said: "The United States believes the facts already established would fully justify an immediate finding of non-compliance by Iran" with international non-proliferation accords. Such a finding by the IAEA could send the issue to the UN Security Council.

Tehran insists that it has fully cooperated with the IAEA and denies it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/09/11/2003067407
49 posted on 09/10/2003 10:35:59 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; nuconvert; onyx; Pro-Bush; Valin; Tamsey; ...
9/11/03: What has changed, what has not

By: ROBERT D. GARY

The profound reverberations of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 continue to reshape our world two years later. The Bush presidency was defined by the events of that day. George W. Bush, who as a candidate condemned nation-building, is now mired in it. The perceived success or failure of his policies may very well determine the outcome of the 2004 presidential race. The Homeland Security Act threatens our privacy from our credit card purchases to our library books while simultaneously promising to be a necessary tool to prevent another strike. We now live in a color-coded world where the primary impact of Code Orange is longer waits at the airport and greater general anxiety while conspicuously absent is any meaningful information.

We watched live on CNN as our sterling military quickly vanquished the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Republican Guard in Iraq. The outcome of the military battles in Afghanistan and Iraq were never in doubt but two years after 9/11 the winning of the peace remains perilously out of view. Afghanistan has reverted to being a major producer of drugs. Lawless warlords continue to exert their authority, and a resurgence of Taliban resistance is emerging. All prior assurances by our government to the contrary, Afghanistan has mostly slipped off the public radar and is now a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

The events of 9/11 provided the rationale, and the inevitable heightened anxiety created a fertile ground, to persuade the American people that Iraq's possession of now-illusory weapons of mass destruction required a preemptive strike to head off another potential 9/11. The alleged and improbable connection between Saddam Hussein's secular regime, the religious extremists al-Qaida, and the WMD threat, was a cover for the real reason we sought to upend Saddam Hussein. It was certainly not to lift the Iraqi people from an undeniably oppressive and murderous government. If so, where were we in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, the Congo and most recently Liberia where hundreds of thousands of civilians have been mutilated, raped and butchered?

Our real reason for invading Iraq was considered by our political leaders, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, to be politically unacceptable to the world community and too nuanced to sell to the American public. Post 9/11, America's present and future security required a foothold, maybe even an armlock, in the simmering Middle East.

For years we turned a blind eye to the explosive expansion of radical Islam, which although unquestionably virulently anti-American, was believed to be contained almost exclusively within the borders of our friends and enemies in the Middle East.

The American public, until September 11, 2001, remained blissfully ignorant of Osama bin Laden. We were all, for the most part, indifferent or unaware that the Wahabbi-influenced bin Laden had in August of 1996 published a "Fatwah" entitled "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," referring to Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Five years later, any statement by bin Laden is not only widely reported but pored over by soldiers and scholars for clues to the next terrorist attack.

Prior to 9/11, our government paid no heed to the government-sponsored media from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the like's penchant for wildly inflammatory anti-American rhetoric. It has been widely reported in the media of those nations and widely accepted that it was not al-Qaida that destroyed the twin towers but the Jews. A prominent Egyptian columnist, Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud, recently published an article accusing American soldiers of skinning Iraqis, subtitled "America Does No Less Than Prehistoric Cannibals." We were unworried when the Saudis pumped millions of dollars into programs run or sponsored by the fundamentalist, anti-American Wahabbi Islamists. The Wahabbis are not only intolerant of non-Muslims but also of non-Wahabbi Sunnis and Shiites. Nor were we overly concerned with the increasing strength and influence of Islamist terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

America tolerated all of this pre 9/11; it was more someone else's problem than our own. Post 9/11 the stakes changed. The recruitment and training of terrorists became an American nightmare. Post 9/11 the very real threat of the overthrow of Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations became a vital security issue that could not be ignored. The potential solution was Iraq. If Iraq could be converted into a model of democracy as well as an example to the rest of the Arab world of democracy's impact on quality of life, the mindset of the entire region would begin to shift. We reasoned, perhaps naively, who would want to be a suicide bomber with a motorbike in the drive, a TV in the house and a chicken in the pot?

It was no small bonus that Iraq had the second-largest known oil reserves in the world next to Saudi Arabia. With an established military presence in the Middle East, a western-inclined government in place, and a people with a dramatically improving standard of living, we could reshape the Middle East, drain the terrorist swamp and assure a continued flow of oil. All accomplished by knocking out the unpopular regime of Saddam Hussein and replacing it with an Iraqi version of a western democracy.

Having won the military battle, the peace in Iraq is not cooperating with the Bush administration's vision of the post-war situation. Iraq has become the favored destination of fighters from Saudi Arabia and other foreign extremists looking for a short-cut to paradise by dying fighting infidels. There are constant attacks against our soldiers. Nor are the Iraqi people welcoming the American presence with roses and fresh-baked bread. Most disturbing is the reaction of the Shiite Muslim community. During Saddam Hussein's rule the Sunni Muslim minority had oppressed the Shiite majority. Younger Shiite Muslim clerics are calling for our expulsion. Those clerics, who are to some degree favorable to an American presence, may have been murdered by Wahabbi-inspired Sunni Fundamentalists, hostile to an American presence. The death of the influential Shiite cleric Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al Hakim, silenced a constructive influence on the Shia community to remain calm and avoid sabotage. His stance, although openly resentful, counseled a wait-and-see attitude and willingness to consider the political process. But caveat-emptor, in the words of the Princeton Islamic scholar, Bernard Lewis, Islamic democracy can best be described as "one man, one vote, one time." This is not the democracy we hoped for as described by our pugnacious Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The bombing at the holiest Shiite Muslim shrine, the Iman Ali Shrine in Najaf, if by foreign Sunni Muslims influenced by the ultra-extreme Wahabbi sect, may be the spark that ignites ethnic violence in Iraq. The religious significance of this bombing was underscored by Saddam Hussein, who not known for his sensitivity, denied by audio tape any connection to it. If extremists are able to pit the Shiite Muslim majority against the Sunnis and then mix in the Kurds, who get along with neither, our limited American forces would soon be overwhelmed by the ensuing chaos and violence. Ethnic-based civil war looms as a very real possibility in Iraq. As goes the Shiite majority, so goes the American hope to have a stable pro-western presence in the Arab Middle East. The jury is out.

Post 9/11, having occupied Iraq from a homeland security perspective, we cannot afford to leave. The terrorists fear the American strength but believe we have no resolve. Our stunning and swift victories in Iraq and Afghanistan surely have deflated those falsely encouraged by our withdrawal in Somalia and Lebanon. Leaving Iraq before it has been stabilized will fuel the perception we can be bullied and even intimated. It will embolden terrorists to strike at American targets across the world as well as in our own country. Once the decision was made to invade Iraq we have no choice but to succeed in what may be the greatest, perhaps most expensive, nation-building exercise in our history.

While Iraq occupies center stage, the Hamas terrorist organization still holds the trump card on the Israeli-Palestinian peace. Whenever the peace talks proceed, Hamas unleashes a terrorist attack in Israel, which prompts an Israeli response, which begins the cycle again. This is the side show, not the main event.

The goal of Islamic fundamentalists is an all-Islamic region with Islamic governments. A secular state in the Middle East, rather than a religious state, whether it is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Israel, cannot be tolerated. The Islamists recognize no separation of church and state. Just take a look at Iran.

So we will have to learn to live in a color-coded world. Much has changed from Sept. 11, 2001, but much has not. The site of the World Trade Center remains an open pit. The adjoining Deutsche Bank Building still stands empty as if in mourning, covered by a black mesh shroud. The American Red Cross continues to provide mental health services and aid to nearly 3,000 victims of Sept. 11. There is a plan to place still-unidentified remains in vacuum-sealed bags to await improved technology. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden continue to get up in the morning and go to bed at night despite lottery-sized bounties on their heads. The former now powerless; the latter arguably growing in popularity and strength. Sept. 11, 2001, neither marks a beginning nor an end, but the day when most Americans first saw the face of the enemy.

The most significant fact in the intervening two years since Sept. 11 is that there has not been a second attack on American soil. Do not rest easy - annihilation remains the terrorist's goal and our crime is failing to believe properly. It is ultimately intolerance that drives the terrorist to contemplate the spread of smallpox or the detonation of a dirty radioactive bomb in our cities.

If intolerance is at the root of the problem, then ultimately only tolerance, rather than military might, is the antidote. Although the origins of the war in Iraq may have preceded 9/11, it is the success of the peace and the potential for fostering co-existence and tolerance in the Middle East which hold out the best hope to defuse terrorism.

Have we, as a response to 9/11, defeated Iraq perhaps only to have created an even more dangerous haven for the Islamists, but with unlimited access to oil and money, or will we succeed in creating a new Iraq which will reshape the Middle East and defuse terrorism? We have raised the stakes and now must be prepared to pay the ante.

When we appeared invincible, we should have struck our deal with the United Nations, France and Germany. We will now have to concede more influence and control. Our fair-weather friends, President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, having skipped the war, will reluctantly assist in the management of post-war Iraq, but only after they have extracted concessions on oil and reconstruction contracts. Even after 9/11, the fight against international terrorism is still governed by "what's in it for me?" If we are to contain the number of American casualties, we must bring them to the table. American lives are more important than pride.

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1699&dept_id=46368&newsid=10134992&PAG=461&rfi=9
50 posted on 09/10/2003 10:43:24 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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