Re: Iran
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 28/06/2009, at 1:25 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > >> Um... a ship? Do you mean the Marines patrol boat a couple of years >>> ago? Wasn't a ship. >>> >> >> Sorry Charlie. You have to remember that, when I was I kid I was on many >> a >> boat longer than 200 meters, with the biggest over 300 meters and > 30k >> tons. I realize that it wasn't a big ship, but the way I was raised: >> saltwater=ship, freshwater=boat. Size didn't matter. >> > > It's not size, it's type. Submarines are boats... (they're also "it", not > "she" to anyone who's not actually a submariner). :-) > > Sure, it's probably a regional usage difference (like "LEFT-enant" in > Britain and Australia), but a patrol craft, a fast-attack craft (like the > couple of hydrofoils with guns we've had over the years) or a merchant > vessel with only 15 or so crew is usually a boat if you're talking about a > British vessel. > > C. > That's how it was when I was in the USN, 29 years ago. Subs are 'boats' as are small craft generally. Although, we used to refer to our ship as a 'boat' as in "Gotta report aboard the boat in the morning." (I served aboard USS Eisenhower, but in an aircraft squadron, I was not in ship''s company). And, I thought it was pronounced "LEF-tenant". john air-head maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Iran
xponentrob wrote: > > Agreed. Iranians seem to have had no stomach for a general strike. > I think they would like to, but the reality on the ground is not > conducive to an action that would entail incredible sacrifice and > an obvious hardship on all. > (I'm guessing it generally works this way in fascist countries?) > Yes. Been there. Our fascist dictatorship fell (probably) because the fascists were tired of being ridiculed by the population. The subtle and persistent strategy of Humour is far more powerful than guns or strikes. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Iran
On 28/06/2009, at 1:25 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Um... a ship? Do you mean the Marines patrol boat a couple of years ago? Wasn't a ship. Sorry Charlie. You have to remember that, when I was I kid I was on many a boat longer than 200 meters, with the biggest over 300 meters and > 30k tons. I realize that it wasn't a big ship, but the way I was raised: saltwater=ship, freshwater=boat. Size didn't matter. It's not size, it's type. Submarines are boats... (they're also "it", not "she" to anyone who's not actually a submariner). :-) Sure, it's probably a regional usage difference (like "LEFT-enant" in Britain and Australia), but a patrol craft, a fast-attack craft (like the couple of hydrofoils with guns we've had over the years) or a merchant vessel with only 15 or so crew is usually a boat if you're talking about a British vessel. C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Iran
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:10:27 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Iran On 28/06/2009, at 8:15 AM, Dan M wrote: > > Even with reporters locked up in their hotel rooms, I would guess than > marches of tens of thousands would be heard in the hotels. The > types of > reports that are getting out indicate that, if anything, the younger > more > militant aspects of the guard are increasing their power. (I'm > thinking of > the folks who captured a UK ship as an example). >Um... a ship? Do you mean the Marines patrol boat a couple of years >ago? Wasn't a ship. Sorry Charlie. You have to remember that, when I was I kid I was on many a boat longer than 200 meters, with the biggest over 300 meters and > 30k tons. I realize that it wasn't a big ship, but the way I was raised: saltwater=ship, freshwater=boat. Size didn't matter. But that's what I meant, yea. Even in Britian you might have heard the song "the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. I was on the Mighty Fitz a number of times and can still close my eyes amd remember the smell of those boats. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Iran
On 28/06/2009, at 8:15 AM, Dan M wrote: Even with reporters locked up in their hotel rooms, I would guess than marches of tens of thousands would be heard in the hotels. The types of reports that are getting out indicate that, if anything, the younger more militant aspects of the guard are increasing their power. (I'm thinking of the folks who captured a UK ship as an example). Um... a ship? Do you mean the Marines patrol boat a couple of years ago? Wasn't a ship. C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Iran
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:15 PM Subject: RE: Iran > >> Reports from inside Iran say the Guard is split and mostly inactive. The >> Army is similarly. The police have been ineffective because they won't >> shoot their own countrymen. That is why most of the violence has been >> committed by Basiji and Arab imports (such as Hezbollah and some Afghan >> Taliban with possibly some Russians thrown in according to rumor) Many of >> the people committing violence are non-Farsi speakers and that is a solid >> indictment of the gravity of the situation. > > > I'm curious to see where you stand now. I read your source, I think at this point we must both recognize that we both access several sources not noted in our discussion, and that the overall situation is much more complex than we are describing. I mention this because I believe we need to broaden the terms of the discussion a bit if either of us are to make arguments that give sensible predictions. I think most people would like to know what is coming from Iran over the next few years as recent events there could destabilize the local equilibrium. >and realize > that info coming from the country has been really cut backso there is a > lot more speculation than fact in the outside world. Media info is cut back dramatically, but there is still a lot, a whole lot, of lower quality information sneaking out. There is still a fair bit of higher quality info coming from Iran, just not from media outlets. > > I know the Rand Corporation thinks the Revolutionary Guard is the big winner > in this > > http://www.rand.org/commentary/2009/06/22/RC.html Interesting article, and probably accurate in some particulars, but I think it misses some crucial points. The group that has gained the greatest enhancement is the Basiji (your brownshirts). They have carried the load in the suppression (as semi-official and sanctioned enforcers) and (it seems to me) to be the locus of the increase in outright fascism in Iran. At this point Iran has to be defined as a fascist state on par with the WW2 fascists. This is a grave concern for reasons I think most of us already recognize. > > Even with reporters locked up in their hotel rooms, I would guess than > marches of tens of thousands would be heard in the hotels. The types of > reports that are getting out indicate that, if anything, the younger more > militant aspects of the guard are increasing their power. (I'm thinking of > the folks who captured a UK ship as an example). I would expect that the key to recognizing a nearby demonstration would not be the sounds made by protestors, but the sounds of gunfire from those supressing the protestors. Currently, I don't think there are any demonstrations that have 10K protesting, but there may occasionally still be 1K or 2K out on the street (max). > >> Amedinajad is pretty much irrelevant ATM. > > He may be a figurehead for the younger more militant guard members and their > brownshirt auxillary. Here we disagree. And what we disagree about is who Amadinajad fronts for. I contest that he is a schill for Khamenei. Further, I believe that the entire point of the clampdown is so that Khamenei can ensure that his son becomes the next Supreme Leader. Amadinajad is constitutionally prevented from serving as president after the upcoming term ends. I see three potential events coming. The constitution is changed to eradicate the term limits, the law is changed so that Prime Minister once again becomes the important position it once was with Amadinijad locked in, or Khamenei grooms someone equally pliable as the next president. It is really all about Khamenei and his scoin maintaining power. > >> >> A national strike is being called (starting today). How that goes will >> determine the course and success of this revolt. >> > >>From what I read, folks will have a hard time not working and not getting > paid at all. With unemployment at 25%, and virtually all money coming from > oil sales, and with everything government subsidized, the government has a > lot of power. Again, I'll agree that we are working on minimal information, > but I haven't been able to see a good source since Monday that indicates > that the reform is gaining a foothold. If anything, its falling back. Agreed. Iranians seem to have had no stomach for a general strike. I think they would like to, but the reality on the ground is not conducive to an action that would entail incredible sacrifice and an obvious hardship on all. (I'm guessing it generally works this way in fascist countries?) > > It reminds me of the USSR in the
RE: Iran
> Reports from inside Iran say the Guard is split and mostly inactive. The > Army is similarly. The police have been ineffective because they won't > shoot their own countrymen. That is why most of the violence has been > committed by Basiji and Arab imports (such as Hezbollah and some Afghan > Taliban with possibly some Russians thrown in according to rumor) Many of > the people committing violence are non-Farsi speakers and that is a solid > indictment of the gravity of the situation. I'm curious to see where you stand now. I read your source, and realize that info coming from the country has been really cut backso there is a lot more speculation than fact in the outside world. I know the Rand Corporation thinks the Revolutionary Guard is the big winner in this http://www.rand.org/commentary/2009/06/22/RC.html Even with reporters locked up in their hotel rooms, I would guess than marches of tens of thousands would be heard in the hotels. The types of reports that are getting out indicate that, if anything, the younger more militant aspects of the guard are increasing their power. (I'm thinking of the folks who captured a UK ship as an example). > Amedinajad is pretty much irrelevant ATM. He may be a figurehead for the younger more militant guard members and their brownshirt auxillary. > > A national strike is being called (starting today). How that goes will > determine the course and success of this revolt. > >From what I read, folks will have a hard time not working and not getting paid at all. With unemployment at 25%, and virtually all money coming from oil sales, and with everything government subsidized, the government has a lot of power. Again, I'll agree that we are working on minimal information, but I haven't been able to see a good source since Monday that indicates that the reform is gaining a foothold. If anything, its falling back. It reminds me of the USSR in the '70s, when my friend from Moscow said folks became disillusioned. I don't doubt that in two decades, we could see reform. But, in between, the odds are that the younger more militant members of the Republican guard are the most likely to have increasing influence. And, with predictions of Iran having the capacity for an A-bomb within a year, we will probably have tough sledding there for the next decade. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Iran [News]
>From a website run by Anonymous (the group): http://iran.whyweprotest.net/news-current-events/1966-green-brief-6-niteowl.html The Green Brief #6 - NiteOwl Please retweet this link. I'm Josh Shahryar AKA NiteOwl - iran_translator on twitter - and I've been immersed in tweets from Iran for the past several hours. I have tried to be extremely careful in choosing my tweet sources and have tried maximally to avoid listening to media banter. What I have compiled below is what I can confirm through my tweets to have happened in the past day and in the past week in Iran. Remember, this is all from tweets. There is NOTHING included here that is not from a reliable tweet. No news media outlets have been used in the compilation of this short brief as I would like to call it. These are the important happenings that I can positively confirm from Monday, June 22 in Iran. (If I cannot positively confirm, I have indicated that I can't.) 1. Protests were held throughout Tehran today. The main protest was held at 7 Tir Square where 3-5 thousand people gathered to remember and mourn Neda - the protester killed on Saturday. However, soon hundreds of IRG, police, Basij and plainclothesmen gathered and violently tried to disperse the protesters. It took hours to disperse all the protesters. The security forces used batons and fired tear gas shells as well as firing weapons in the air. Dozens of people were injured, including many women. Helicopters were flying over Tehran for the second day. There were also reports of helicopters firing tear gas shells at people - they have not been fully confirmed. 2. There was also a gathering of about 1,000 people in Valiasr Avenue, meeting security forces who sparked a confrontation. It was not as violent as the one on 7 Tir, but many people were injured there as well. There was a huge rally held by Ahmadinejad's supporters at Valiasr for his victory speech. The participants were mostly people from the provinces, children and older Iranians. There were also a large number of government employees. 3. News of protests around the country was not relayed through tweets much today; however, sources confirmed that at least some rallies and protests were held in Tabriz where protesters met with violent attacks by the security forces. Later in the night as people chanted Allah o Akbar from the rooftops, there were reports of clashes in northern and western Tehran between protesters and security forces. Chants of Allah o Akbar also echoed across the country. Candles were lit throughout the country in memory of protesters that have been killed so far. The number of confirmed deaths stands close to 50 now and there have been more than a thousand injured. 4. Sources claim that the government is considering expelling some diplomatic missions because they've helped protesters or are accused of masterminding the unrest. The government earlier in the day alleged that the US had paid 400 million dollars to people in order to organize unrest in Iran. They also blamed the UK and Germany - saying the latter was coaxed into taking action by Israel - how Israel manages to coax other countries was beyond our sources. The Guardian Council has now announced that there were 3 million extra votes cast. Other information is unreliable at this point or various sources exist. 5. The government is actively trying to suppress news from getting out. BBC and Al-Arabiya's correspondents were told to get out in 24 hours, twitter sites are being hacked, people are being tricked into getting out late at night by others chanting in the streets who are actually Basijis and the spread of spam and propaganda on twitter. The government has also established dozens of sites with pictures of protesters, asking people to identify them. At least two of these sites that were based abroad have been taken down by hackers sympathetic to Iranians today. 6. There are sporadic reports coming in from Qom at this point. Sources claim that Rafsanjani who was in Qom has had meetings with clerics inside Qom. It has been also reported - but not confirmed - for the past three days that Ayatollah Montazeri has declared a three days' mourning period. It likely is a hoax because it has not been confirmed by anyone. What can be confirmed is that the Council of Combatant Clerics - which includes in its members Rafsanjani and Nateq Noori - have backed the protesters. 7. Hamzeh Ghalebi, head of Mousavi's youth headquarters and Reza Homaye, another reformist and backer of Mousavi, have been arrested. There have been arrests of numerous other reformists and backers of Mousavi, Karoubi, Noori and Rafsanjani. The total number of people that have been arrested is still anyone's guess. Reports indicate somewhere between five and ten thousand. 8. Tuesday has be
RE: Iran
On 6/22/2009 7:36:48 PM, Dan M (dsummersmi...@comcast.net) wrote: > > > > Things do not look overly promising for the protesters, but if they > manage > > to make it through tomorrow without their heads being cracked Iranian > > public sentiment may swing decisively in their direction. It really > > depends on how hard the Supreme Ayatollah swings back at them. > > > > We should see by morning. > > Well, it's the next day, and I don't see any resolution. I think that > the > splits in the leadership are promising, though small. But.the best > organized force is the Revolutionary Guard, and they appear to be > fanatical. > I'd guess, if push came to shove, they wouldn't mind killing > thousands to > keep orderand I don't see anyone standing up to them in a fight. > I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Reports from inside Iran say the Guard is split and mostly inactive. The Army is similarly. The police have been ineffective because they won't shoot their own countrymen. That is why most of the violence has been committed by Basiji and Arab imports (such as Hezbollah and some Afghan Taliban with possibly some Russians thrown in according to rumor) Many of the people committing violence are non-Farsi speakers and that is a solid indictment of the gravity of the situation. The Council of Experts is split and the Ayatollahs seem to be waiting for Khamenei to commit an irrevocable fuckup before they move. Many Mullahs are going to the protests themselves and making pronouncements on behalf of the protestors. A Revolutionary Guard General was arrested for refusing to fire on protestors. Rafsanjani's daughter was arrested for attending a protest. The longer this continues the better it gets for the protestors I think. The general trend seems to be favoring them. Amedinajad is pretty much irrelevant ATM. It really hinges on Khamenei and what he does, which I expect will be screwup because he really isn't much more than a hack/wonk in the overall picture and I don't think he is skilled enough to wiggle out of the crack he has gotten himself into. A national strike is being called (starting today). How that goes will determine the course and success of this revolt. xponent #IranElection Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Iran
>Whatever the final outcome Ahmadinejad's position has to have been severely weakened. >As he's a nut case, this is a very good thing. OK, I'll agree that his position with some factions within the ruling elite has been lowered. The real question, of course, it what is the position of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He backed Ahmadinejad strongly, and issued a clear threat of violence against any protesters. The Revolutionary Guard and the associated paramilitary (brown shirts) appear eager for violence. So, the risk of Ahmadinejad doing something against Iran's interests is probably lower, but I think he was always on a leash. My prediction is that, after a few more demonstrations of a few hundred people get knocked down with scores dead, the struggle will go underground. Thirty years from now, there will significant changes, but before then I think that Iran will have a score or so of nuclear weapons, without even the command and control that Pakistan has over its nukes. Pakistan is looking a bit better now than 2 months ago, but it is still very dangerous. One thing that I read that is very disturbing to me is that it is near impossible to predict the future of Iran, even for those who devoted their life to studying Iran, even for those who are ruling Iran. Once they have the capacity to eliminate Israel in half and hour (probably 5 years from now), I fear that after that, an Ayatollah who wishes to hasten the return of the Mahdi will be come Supreme Ayatollahor that a faction of the National Guard that does will gain command and control of, say, 3 nuclear missilescause that's all it would take to virtually eliminate Israel. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Iran
Dan wrote: > > > > Things do not look overly promising for the protesters, but if they > manage > > to make it through tomorrow without their heads being cracked Iranian > > public sentiment may swing decisively in their direction. It really > > depends on how hard the Supreme Ayatollah swings back at them. > > > > We should see by morning. > > Well, it's the next day, and I don't see any resolution. I think that the > splits in the leadership are promising, though small. But.the best > organized force is the Revolutionary Guard, and they appear to be > fanatical. > I'd guess, if push came to shove, they wouldn't mind killing thousands to > keep orderand I don't see anyone standing up to them in a fight. > > Whatever the final outcome Ahmadinejad's position has to have been > severely weakened. As he's a nut case, this is a very good thing. > Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Iran
> > Things do not look overly promising for the protesters, but if they manage > to make it through tomorrow without their heads being cracked Iranian > public sentiment may swing decisively in their direction. It really > depends on how hard the Supreme Ayatollah swings back at them. > > We should see by morning. Well, it's the next day, and I don't see any resolution. I think that the splits in the leadership are promising, though small. But.the best organized force is the Revolutionary Guard, and they appear to be fanatical. I'd guess, if push came to shove, they wouldn't mind killing thousands to keep orderand I don't see anyone standing up to them in a fight. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Iran
My My it has been a busy week.
I've twittered in support of Iranian democracy.
DDOSed Iranian government websites.(ended up quitting that since it was bad for
their network and hence causing problems for the people I wanted to help).
Tried to give helpful suggestions. (I'm probably one of the very first people
to change my location to Tehran
-3:30)
Taunted IRG network security thugs ("Is it true that the IRG is the worlds
largest all homosexual army?")(ya gotta hit em where it hurts emThey are
such punks)
And generally tried to keep up with the news from over there.
Things do not look overly promising for the protesters, but if they manage to
make it through tomorrow without their heads being cracked Iranian public
sentiment may swing decisively in their direction. It really depends on how
hard the Supreme Ayatollah swings back at them.
We should see by morning.
xponent
AnonIran Maru
rob
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: US Rejected Offer From Iran
At 12:00 PM 1/18/2007 -0800, John wrote: >Washington 'snubbed Iran offer' > >Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was >rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight >programme. snip >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm >-- >I haven't seen this mentioned on any US media outlets yet. If this >turns out to be true I'm so angry words fail me. This would be, by >far, the biggest blunder of this administration. Bigger than going into >Iraq in the first place. The article goes onto mention that pretty much >everything Iran was offering is what we are "demanding" now. Sheesh. > >Are these guys completely incompetent or are they going out of their way >to make sure the Middle East is f*cked up for years and years to come??? It's hard to tell how serious they are about bringing on the Rapture. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Rejected Offer From Iran
Washington 'snubbed Iran offer' Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion. Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility. But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm -- I haven't seen this mentioned on any US media outlets yet. If this turns out to be true I'm so angry words fail me. This would be, by far, the biggest blunder of this administration. Bigger than going into Iraq in the first place. The article goes onto mention that pretty much everything Iran was offering is what we are "demanding" now. Sheesh. Are these guys completely incompetent or are they going out of their way to make sure the Middle East is f*cked up for years and years to come??? - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iran Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > > And why do reports about Iran's nuclear program [any of them, from > those > > which claim disaster looms a few months ahead to those which claim > that > > nuclear capability is nearly a decade away]cause such a lot > of alarm? > > Our intelligence said that the DPRK was a nearly a decade away too. Yeah well, your intelligence also said strange things Iraq's capabilities. It has been a couple of years since I took the pronouncements of the US intelligence agencies seriously. Not because you guys suck, but because it is hard to know what political agenda is moulding the public pronouncements. > In any event, Iran still doesn't recognize Israel's right to > exist, So? That doesn't mean that Iran is going to bomb Israel, even if it does get the bomb. > regularly leads rallies chanting "Death to America", So what? With an arsenal as big as yours, you guys really ought not be worried about people chanting slogans, especially when the chanters are not even on the same continent as you. > and on top of all that, would have questionable institutional control over any nuclear bombs > that it would produce. This is interesting. What do you base this on? > Other than that, though, I'm not worried. That's nice. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iran Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And why do reports about Iran's nuclear program [any of them, from those > which claim disaster looms a few months ahead to those which claim that > nuclear capability is nearly a decade away]cause such a lot of alarm? Our intelligence said that the DPRK was a nearly a decade away too. In any event, Iran still doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, has previously tried to hold the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf hostage, regularly leads rallies chanting "Death to America", and on top of all that, would have questionable institutional control over any nuclear bombs that it would produce. Other than that, though, I'm not worried. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iran to hang teenage girl who fought back against rapists
> Religious fanaticism is a poison. Well, I consider *every* kinf od fanaticism a poison. It means absense of reason, which is one thing which justifies the word "sapiens" after the word "homo". > > find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming > > feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions > > of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of > > Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What > > has > > been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and > > the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the > > earth." > > --Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Short > > I rather doubt that that the Iranians in question are Christian. IMHO, a lot of Chritians have learnt from the past mistakes of Christianity. Other religions refuse to learn from the kmistakes of others and prefer to do the mistakes again themselves. However, this is perfectly human behavior. We see it in politics and on the job every single day. Still, that's not an excuse. - Klaus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iran to hang teenage girl who fought back against rapists
On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:27 AM, The Fool wrote: <<http://feministing.com/archives/002691.html>> Iran to hang teenage girl who fought back against rapists This is pretty horrible stuff. A teenage girl in Iran has been sentenced to death by hanging after she admitted that she accidentally killed a man who was trying to rape her and her niece. Religious fanaticism is a poison. "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." --Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Short I rather doubt that that the Iranians in question are Christian. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iran to hang teenage girl who fought back against rapists
<<http://feministing.com/archives/002691.html>> Iran to hang teenage girl who fought back against rapists This is pretty horrible stuff. A teenage girl in Iran has been sentenced to death by hanging after she admitted that she accidentally killed a man who was trying to rape her and her niece. -- "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." --Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Short ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Nuclear Iran
> From: Dan Minette > Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 2:39 PM > > > > The Security Council was the five major powers of the Allies > > after WWII. > > France was in there as a gift from the US. At the time, only > > the US had > > nuclear weapons. Also, at that time, the only significant > > military forces > > were those of the US and the USSR. > > > > >Gee, its lucky the Germans and Japanese waited around till America > >joined the war isnt it, or they would have overrun all of Europe, > >England, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia/Oceania, given that > >the miserable British Commonwealth (and other allied)forces had just > >been sitting around having picnics. > > Well, one of the countries that I mentioned, the Soviet > Union, had 90% of > the German forces allied against it on D-day. The assault on > the Soviet > Union was, to our good fortune, bungled horridly. The war in > Europe from > this assault in June 1941 until D-Day was, with modest > exceptions like the > campaign in Italy, focus on the eastern front and the bombing > campaign. > > Britain stood for a number of reasons during that time: including FDR > stretching US law beyond recognition supplying Great > Britain...including > having US destroyers fight German U-boats before declaring > war, Hitler's > lack of comfort with sea battles, and Britain's tenacity. If > the British > Army was a major force, one would think they would have been > able to slow > Hitler's attack in France. > > Finally, the greatest advantage the US had in WWII, and it's main > contribution to the war in Europe, was it's tremendous > industrial capacity. > I remember reading "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Spear, and his > recounting the day he knew Germany could not win. He was > given their best > estimate of US fighter plane production. He said "this must > be some kind > of mistake, it says 10,000 a month, when they must have meant 10,000 a > year." The answer was "No Herr Spear, it's 10,000/month. > > At that time the US oil production was as high as it needed > to be. The > only reason for gasoline rationing was to conserve rubber. > Once the US > went into war mode, it was actually able to fight a two front > war, with > it's industrial base secure to produce weapons without worry > of attack. > > Saying this has nothing to do with the courage or the tenacity of > Commonwealth forces. It only has to do with evaluating the > strength of > forces and industrial capacity that supplies those forces. > > My point was that, after WWII, the two great military powers > were the US > and USSR. It had nothing to do with the bravery of the > Commonwealth forces > or people...which I certainly respect. > All fair points. And I don't disagree, it was more the use of the word significant. Or rather the idea that the forces of UK/Aus/Can/NZ/Ind/etc should be by inference classified as "insignificant". Not sure how the French got in actually, given the whole Vichy thing and the like. Bloody lucky I'd say. The Security Council is a bit of a disaster I think and needs major overhaul. But then I like the idea of a world government. Eternal Elections Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Nuclear Iran
> From: Robert Seeberger > Sent: Monday, 16 January 2006 11:33 AM > > It may be that the ease with which the US swatted Iraq down surprised > much of the developing world (especially after the fiasco in > Sudan and > other similar events where the US was attacked) and the idea that the > US was a "paper tiger" has been replaced with concerns about > attracting undue US attention. (Lets call this TUSIBAETBWA the US is > bad ass enough to be worried about) > > > > Of course, the fact that Iran removed the seals tells me all I need > > to > > know - they don't want to pursue their nuclear program within the > > confines of UN monitoring, therefore they are up to no good... > > > > I agree. > I have no expertise in this area and am really just guessing about > motives and movement. I'm wondering if Andrew or Ritu have any > interesting comments on the subject. It is almost always quite > instructive to hear from people distinctly outside the American pool > of opinion. (Not that Russell is mistaken for an American) > > Whilst I do not support the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it strikes me as being a bit like the climate change issue. We have our nuclear weapons and our mature industrial base and now we are running around telling everyone else that they cant have the same things cos it is too dangerous for the good of the world. It may well be too dangerous, but it is very easy to take that stance from up on top. When the nuclear powers start putting theirs away, I can see other countries finding a lot easier to go along with the idea that more countries getting them is a bad idea. I cant see that happening for some time (In fact I think we probably do need some nuclear weapons, buried away in a silo somewhere for disaster movie type reasons). I am not saying I support Iran's or North Korea's or anyone else's quest for nuclear weapons, but I can definitely see why they would want them and why being told they cant even research them strikes them as a bit rich. I used the gun control analogy before. If I tried to deny a good ole boy from Texas his right to 3 shotguns, two pistols and a semi-automatic, he would protest his right to defend himself. What is the difference (scale aside). Its odd that the US fights for this right inside its borders and pressures, bombs and invades countries outside its borders for essentially pursuing the same right on a national scale. Call it power politics, call it Realpolitik, whatever, just don't try and argue it from some high moral grounds. Chipotle Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > I think too North Korea plays into this somewhat. > They had nukes, were part of the Axis of Evil, and were not invaded. > Iraq didn't and was. > I don't think this was missed by everyone, and now it may be seen as > desireable to possess nukes as a hedge against invasion by more > powerful nations. But, that was known for a long time beforehand...and there were many object lessons. A strong power is given leeway to operate in its own sphere of influence as it will. For example, there was no real thought of supporting Hungery in 1956: the Soviet Union was just too powerful. Clinton allowed North Korea to keep enough plutonium to make 1-2 bombs, even though he was pretty sure they had yet to build real weapons, because they had the conventional power to kill 100,000+ people in Seoul before they were overwhelmed. It is well established that the US will think twice about acting militarily against a nation that has the power to respond by killing tens of thousands of people...even if they are not US citizens. It's a lessen that should have been learned 50 years ago. If you look at Gulf War II, a nation that was 1 year or so away from an A-bomb (Lybia) gave up their weapons soon after it was over. Another country continued to develop programs that could lead to nuclear weapons. I'm not sure that we should neglect the retoric of the leader of Iran when he discusses eliminating Israel. It would take only about 3 weak A-bombs to eliminate Israel as a viable entity (Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem.) Although Israel has a viable second strike capacity, I'm not sure that the leader of Iran really understands what that means. I hope he does. Every time there is proliferation, we roll the dice one more time. I find it discouraging that some countries, China and Russia, are playing this for a short term advantage. It's almost as though they are counting on the US to ensure that the world will be OK. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
- Original Message - From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:58 PM Subject: RE: Nuclear Iran > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 1:21 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > > > - Original Message - > From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > > > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > >We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like > > >position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an > > >inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would > be a sign > > >that such is indeed on the way. > > > > > > > > But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when > it was set up, > > it was the "Nuclear Club", and it used that MAD-like > position to control > > proliferation (though not as successfully as they might have hoped). > > The Security Council was the five major powers of the Allies > after WWII. > France was in there as a gift from the US. At the time, only > the US had > nuclear weapons. Also, at that time, the only significant > military forces > were those of the US and the USSR. > >Gee, its lucky the Germans and Japanese waited around till America >joined the war isnt it, or they would have overrun all of Europe, >England, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia/Oceania, given that >the miserable British Commonwealth (and other allied)forces had just >been sitting around having picnics. Well, one of the countries that I mentioned, the Soviet Union, had 90% of the German forces allied against it on D-day. The assault on the Soviet Union was, to our good fortune, bungled horridly. The war in Europe from this assault in June 1941 until D-Day was, with modest exceptions like the campaign in Italy, focus on the eastern front and the bombing campaign. Britain stood for a number of reasons during that time: including FDR stretching US law beyond recognition supplying Great Britain...including having US destroyers fight German U-boats before declaring war, Hitler's lack of comfort with sea battles, and Britain's tenacity. If the British Army was a major force, one would think they would have been able to slow Hitler's attack in France. Finally, the greatest advantage the US had in WWII, and it's main contribution to the war in Europe, was it's tremendous industrial capacity. I remember reading "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Spear, and his recounting the day he knew Germany could not win. He was given their best estimate of US fighter plane production. He said "this must be some kind of mistake, it says 10,000 a month, when they must have meant 10,000 a year." The answer was "No Herr Spear, it's 10,000/month. At that time the US oil production was as high as it needed to be. The only reason for gasoline rationing was to conserve rubber. Once the US went into war mode, it was actually able to fight a two front war, with it's industrial base secure to produce weapons without worry of attack. Saying this has nothing to do with the courage or the tenacity of Commonwealth forces. It only has to do with evaluating the strength of forces and industrial capacity that supplies those forces. My point was that, after WWII, the two great military powers were the US and USSR. It had nothing to do with the bravery of the Commonwealth forces or people...which I certainly respect. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Nuclear Iran
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 1:21 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > > > - Original Message - > From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > > > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > >We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like > > >position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an > > >inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would > be a sign > > >that such is indeed on the way. > > > > > > > > But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when > it was set up, > > it was the "Nuclear Club", and it used that MAD-like > position to control > > proliferation (though not as successfully as they might have hoped). > > The Security Council was the five major powers of the Allies > after WWII. > France was in there as a gift from the US. At the time, only > the US had > nuclear weapons. Also, at that time, the only significant > military forces > were those of the US and the USSR. > Gee, its lucky the Germans and Japanese waited around till America joined the war isnt it, or they would have overrun all of Europe, England, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia/Oceania, given that the miserable British Commonwealth (and other allied)forces had just been sitting around having picnics. Size Isn't Everything Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
- Original Message - From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: Nuclear Iran > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > >We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like > >position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an > >inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would be a sign > >that such is indeed on the way. > > > > > But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when it was set up, > it was the "Nuclear Club", and it used that MAD-like position to control > proliferation (though not as successfully as they might have hoped). The Security Council was the five major powers of the Allies after WWII. France was in there as a gift from the US. At the time, only the US had nuclear weapons. Also, at that time, the only significant military forces were those of the US and the USSR. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Nuclear Iran
Robert Seeberger wrote: > I would describe it as "sub-formal". The Security Council is > substatially mired down in other concerns that is less than optimally > effective as it might be. IMO the terms should be clear to all: "You > won't or else.you shall not use such weapons or else.you will > not make threats concerning use of such weapons or else". The threat > is much too dire for an understanding of anything less. See the prolem here, as far as I can make out, is this: the only nations which are actually in the position to issue such ultimatums are also the countries who have no moral standing to do so. It is *very* hard to convince people that nukes suck and ought to be avoided when you are backed by a huge nuclear arsenal and are in no hurry to disarm yourselves. "Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a convincing argument. > > Isn't that why Iran is so dead-set against being referred to the > > Security Council for removing the seals? > > I think Iran is set on building influence and power. I hypothesize > that Iran is one of those nations with an ancient and storied > past and > that many there feel their nation has an inherent right to be a > "Playa" both regionally and on the world stage. It seems to me that > such memes are often enough a part of a (non-economic) conservatism > that sometimes involves a distinct nationalism/fascism but almost > always plays well in the home park. These memes always play well in the home park. Think 'manifest destiny' and 'shining city on the hill'. > I think too North Korea plays into this somewhat. > They had nukes, were part of the Axis of Evil, and were not > invaded. Iraq didn't and was. I don't think this was missed > by everyone, and now it may be seen as > desireable to possess nukes as a hedge against invasion by more > powerful nations. Yep, I made that point in my response to your first mail in this thread [don't go checking the mail - I never got around to sending it]. > It may be that the ease with which the US swatted Iraq down surprised > much of the developing world Uh, no. Think of the size and condition of Iraq's army and you'll see why no one was surprised. > I agree. > I have no expertise in this area and am really just guessing about > motives and movement. I'm wondering if Andrew or Ritu have any > interesting comments on the subject. It is almost always quite > instructive to hear from people distinctly outside the American pool > of opinion. (Not that Russell is mistaken for an American) Ah well, I'll try and finish the first mail then and send it. It is the one I mentally call 'Fat in the fire'. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
At 04:35 PM Monday 1/16/2006, Robert J. Chassell wrote: But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when it was set up, it was the "Nuclear Club" ... No, when the Security Council was set up, it consisted of the five victorious countries that could make modern weapons (i.e., non-nuclear 1940s weapons) in reasonably large quantities. (China probably could not build weapons such as large artillery but was independent and populous; the US, Soviet Union, Britain, and France could.) The two other `munitioning areas', as I have heard them called, were Germany and Japan. They lost WWII. Only later did the Security Council come to be made up of the `official' nuclear weapons' states. There was more proliferation but those other countries did not get to become permanent members of the Security Council. My hunch is that the major reason nowadays that countries decide to invest in nuclear weapons is to brandish them as an `equalizer', like the Colt revolver was said to be for women in the 19th century. In WWII, Iran was occupied by Britain and the Soviet Union. Later, it was attacked by Iraq. And that is only in living memory. Were it to possess nuclear weapons, the Iranian government probably thinks the US or other foreign power would be less likely to attack. Moreover, the Iranian government probably figures that nuclear weapons, besides being dramatic, will continue after Iran ceases to be an oil exporter, which it says will be in 20 years or less. (And peaceful nuclear energy makes sense, too, if you take Iran government announcements of its oil depletion seriously.) Control of energy is Iran's current deterrent: by cutting or halting exports it can brings down China, Europe, and, since oil is fungible, the US. Iran would also hurt itself, so it does not want to do this. Also, it is not clear that the current US administration sees an eventual US economic collapse as harmful to itself and its supporters, many of whom own oil and coal that would gain in value. Ending on an unpleasant note: one possible reason given for the `Great Silence' (as David Brin called it in http://skew.ot.com/three/random/silence.html ) is that a world kills or seriously injures itself shortly -- within centuries -- after its intelligent species becomes able to build nuclear weapons. Asimov put it a little more colorfully in his story entitled "Silly Asses." --Ronn! :) "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?" -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when it was set up, it was the "Nuclear Club" ... No, when the Security Council was set up, it consisted of the five victorious countries that could make modern weapons (i.e., non-nuclear 1940s weapons) in reasonably large quantities. (China probably could not build weapons such as large artillery but was independent and populous; the US, Soviet Union, Britain, and France could.) The two other `munitioning areas', as I have heard them called, were Germany and Japan. They lost WWII. Only later did the Security Council come to be made up of the `official' nuclear weapons' states. There was more proliferation but those other countries did not get to become permanent members of the Security Council. My hunch is that the major reason nowadays that countries decide to invest in nuclear weapons is to brandish them as an `equalizer', like the Colt revolver was said to be for women in the 19th century. In WWII, Iran was occupied by Britain and the Soviet Union. Later, it was attacked by Iraq. And that is only in living memory. Were it to possess nuclear weapons, the Iranian government probably thinks the US or other foreign power would be less likely to attack. Moreover, the Iranian government probably figures that nuclear weapons, besides being dramatic, will continue after Iran ceases to be an oil exporter, which it says will be in 20 years or less. (And peaceful nuclear energy makes sense, too, if you take Iran government announcements of its oil depletion seriously.) Control of energy is Iran's current deterrent: by cutting or halting exports it can brings down China, Europe, and, since oil is fungible, the US. Iran would also hurt itself, so it does not want to do this. Also, it is not clear that the current US administration sees an eventual US economic collapse as harmful to itself and its supporters, many of whom own oil and coal that would gain in value. Ending on an unpleasant note: one possible reason given for the `Great Silence' (as David Brin called it in http://skew.ot.com/three/random/silence.html ) is that a world kills or seriously injures itself shortly -- within centuries -- after its intelligent species becomes able to build nuclear weapons. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
Russell Chapman wrote: > Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like >> position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an >> inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would be a >> sign >> that such is indeed on the way. >> >> > But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when it was set > up, it was the "Nuclear Club", and it used that MAD-like position to > control proliferation (though not as successfully as they might have > hoped). I would describe it as "sub-formal". The Security Council is substatially mired down in other concerns that is less than optimally effective as it might be. IMO the terms should be clear to all: "You won't or else.you shall not use such weapons or else.you will not make threats concerning use of such weapons or else". The threat is much too dire for an understanding of anything less. My opinion may sound initially to be extreme, but the eventuality of nuclear proliferation is some number fewer cities and I would call that even more extreme. The flip side of this coin is another concern of mine, the question of sovreignty. I think it important that sovreignty be otherwise insured > Isn't that why Iran is so dead-set against being referred to > the Security Council for removing the seals? I think Iran is set on building influence and power. I hypothesize that Iran is one of those nations with an ancient and storied past and that many there feel their nation has an inherent right to be a "Playa" both regionally and on the world stage. It seems to me that such memes are often enough a part of a (non-economic) conservatism that sometimes involves a distinct nationalism/fascism but almost always plays well in the home park. I think too North Korea plays into this somewhat. They had nukes, were part of the Axis of Evil, and were not invaded. Iraq didn't and was. I don't think this was missed by everyone, and now it may be seen as desireable to possess nukes as a hedge against invasion by more powerful nations. It may be that the ease with which the US swatted Iraq down surprised much of the developing world (especially after the fiasco in Sudan and other similar events where the US was attacked) and the idea that the US was a "paper tiger" has been replaced with concerns about attracting undue US attention. (Lets call this TUSIBAETBWA the US is bad ass enough to be worried about) > > Of course, the fact that Iran removed the seals tells me all I need > to > know - they don't want to pursue their nuclear program within the > confines of UN monitoring, therefore they are up to no good... > I agree. I have no expertise in this area and am really just guessing about motives and movement. I'm wondering if Andrew or Ritu have any interesting comments on the subject. It is almost always quite instructive to hear from people distinctly outside the American pool of opinion. (Not that Russell is mistaken for an American) xponent Axis Of Divergence Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
Robert Seeberger wrote: We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would be a sign that such is indeed on the way. But isn't that what the Security Council is? I mean, when it was set up, it was the "Nuclear Club", and it used that MAD-like position to control proliferation (though not as successfully as they might have hoped). Isn't that why Iran is so dead-set against being referred to the Security Council for removing the seals? Of course, the fact that Iran removed the seals tells me all I need to know - they don't want to pursue their nuclear program within the confines of UN monitoring, therefore they are up to no good... Cheers Russell C. --- This email (including any attachments) is confidential and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this email does not bind the School and does not necessarily constitute the opinion of the School. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender. --- <<<>>> ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear Iran
Andrew Paul wrote: > So does Iran have the right to pursue nuclear research or not? > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1547674.htm For all Ahmadinejad's extremist bluster, I don't see Iran even trying to make a case that they *need* nuclear power. As a net exporter of oil they have all the time in the world to make a case that will mollify all international bodies. So why the antagonistic stance? It appears to me that the only answer (AFAICT) is that they are actually pursuing weapons superiority as part of a program aimed at regional dominance. With Iraq potentially democritizing and perhaps gaining strong US backing in the near future it is likely to be seen that a more potent defense/offense position is in their national interest. There are many very good reasons for the international community to hold to the anti-proliferation stance that has been held for a good long while. It is good for *everyones* security and acts as a hedge against devolving events that could have worldwide ramifications. I know that many of us find it strange that the lessons of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are not universally compelling or even that the lesson of Iraq is not heeded with more personal (in the sense of a State) immediacy. I would state: The pursuit of nuclear weapons is a danger to a State a regime and a people, and full and open international cooperation with regards to a state run nuclear program is a basic requirement if a State is to remain fully in the international body of nations. Considering that there *are* options to be explored in the current climate that would not evince a raised eyebrow, Iran's obstinance and rhetoric are not in the least bit convincing. > > If it is purely peaceful? > If it isn't? > We (the international community) can always resort to a MAD-like position to enforce anti-proliferation. (In fact that might be an inevitability) A formalization of the "Nuclear Club" would be a sign that such is indeed on the way. xponent Hoping To Be Wrong Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Nuclear Iran
So does Iran have the right to pursue nuclear research or not? http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1547674.htm If it is purely peaceful? If it isn't? Gunrights Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iran and the US
> "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Moreover, the US war in Iraq has meant that so far > Iran is the primary winner... > > ...What do you think is the likelihood that the US (or > its ally, Israel) > will attack Iran before the US November 2006 elections? Given the increasing (and ridiculous, but quite scary) rhetoric from Iran's president, hostilities of some sort are grimly possible before the 2008 election; before Nov '06 seems far less likely to me, unless an "incident" is manufactured. One-in-five by '08 (I'm feeling pessimistic, having just finished O'Dowd's _Bushworld_ -- I don't care for her much, but the trail of deliberate warmongering traced is appallingly convincing.). > If you were moving more than a billion US dollars > each day > internationally, where would you put that money? Wish I had that dilemma to parse! Debbi We Just Live And Die Here Maru }:/ __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iran and the US
Because of the Russian actions with respect to Ukraine natural gas supplies, the major countries of western Europe may well decide that a natural gas pipeline through Iran makes sense to them as providing an alternative source. Moreover, the US war in Iraq has meant that so far Iran is the primary winner. But President Bush may decide to convert Iran to a non-oil selling country. This action would serve him and his supporters in several ways: * it would cause economic difficulties, perhaps a collapse, in western Europe and China, both perceived by the Bush Administration as enemies. * it would increase the value of coal, coal shales, and tar sands in North America and of oil in Saudi Arabia. Many of these are owned or controlled by Bush's supporters. * previous attacks by the US led to short term gains by President Bush; perhaps such an attack again will lead to 2% or so more votes for Bush supporters next November. Since those opposed will vote against anyhow, such an attack might be perceived (or misperceived) in terms considered important by Bush supporters as costing little domestically. * it would cause a recession in the US as the US became less able to borrow from abroad, thus solving a major long term financial problem. Since many of those who would lose their jobs in such a recession did not vote for Bush or his supporters, such a recession might be perceived (or misperceived) as costing little politically. It is true that few in the current administration appear to be much concerned about the long term. However, with present value discounting, a sufficiently big long term problem can become a short term problem. US borrowing is sufficiently big. Interestingly, so far no one who moves billions of US dollars each day has stated much concern, at least not in public. Such people still move precautionary savings towards the US. But they will act on worries at some point. Note that unless Europe, China, or Japan act radically, even with a global economic setback, the US will continue to be a safer, but not safe, destination for large sums of money. (The radical actions I am thinking of consist of spending this year at least the equivalent of ten billion US dollars on nuclear and other alternative sources of energy or, preferably, spending twenty times as much.) The Iranian government has threatened to stop selling oil if it is attacked -- that is why I spoke of converting Iran `to a non-oil selling country'. That threat is their deterrent. (Since the Iranian government has also said that foreign oil sales will drop to nothing in 15 or 20 years, their interest in gaining an atomic or other such deterrent makes sense to them, although such proliferation would be dangerous to the rest of us.) But will the threat of stopping oil sales succeed against the current US administration? I think it does against western Europe and China. What do you think is the likelihood that the US (or its ally, Israel) will attack Iran before the US November 2006 elections? What is the likelihood that such an attack would cause serious economic difficulties throughout the world, as well as hurting people directly? Who is hurt more? If you were moving more than a billion US dollars each day internationally, where would you put that money? -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: marching toward Iran
On Mar 11, 2005, at 12:56 PM, maru wrote: And who benefits? Well, the oil interests obviously do, though it seems rather foolish and needless (Isn't China's oil demand enough?), and obviously the Wahabists do, since they are Sunni, and Iran governed by Shi'ites. It ain't all about American neo-fascism. That's surely *a* motivating factor, but the elephant in the room is the ultra-right wing Paulino-christians who sincerely believe that the US is a holy scourge on the valley of Megiddo, and that it's about time to bring about rivers of blood in the name of hastening their long-dead god's return. As long as these freaks are permitted to speak without being challenged, we're going to see this outrageously stupid religion-based policy pushed toward fruition. There is no difference between Tim LaHaye and any Iranian Mullah who agitates for attacks on the States. Money's a bad problem. But we have faith-based idiots on both side of the border pushing us toward an all-out conflict. The Paulines' hoped-for Armageddon will not bring about the return of Jesus Christ or anyone else; however, it will incontrovertibly do tremendous damage, cost millions of lives, and likely spell the total ruin of the US. From there it's an easy slide into the last century, with each nation acting like a tribe and attacking anyone on its borders. Let's hear it for the wave of the future: The past. All who push for permanent war are traitors. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: marching toward Iran
d.brin wrote: The building momentum toward an attack upon Iran is terrifying. It is the diametric opposite approach to what I have been urging for three years. It is based on a self-hypnosis incantation-matra that neoconservatives are repeating over and over again. "The mullahs in Iran are teetering. If the people suffer a calamity of attack, they will blame their leadership for the disaster and rebel against the theocracy, instituting democracy in its place." This is, of course, the ultimate culmination of a process that Thucydides shows happening to great Athens, in the years after that early democracy was robbed of its guiding and stabilizing force, Pericles. During the Pelopenesian War, men like Alcibiades arose in the Assembly, arguing for vast and bold and adventurously aggressive projects, risking all for the sake of - well - democracy. Try reading the words of Alcibiades. In the sixties they were echoed by John F. Kennedy, who strutted before the world, announcing "We will pay any price, bear any burden..." To which the Politburo answered: "Really? Well then, how about a land war in Asia?" Today, we are led by Kennedy clones of the far right. (A comparison seldom made, though Gary Trudeau did liken the neocons to Robert MacNamara.) Lacking JFKs vision or kindness, they nevertheless share his overwhelming, hubristic pride and ability to envision nothing but success. Like him, their macho lets them envision only sumo tactics, never judo. (The judo process that worked in Afghanistan had been carefully planned out during the Clinton Administration, duplicating methodologies that worked in the Balkans. The tactics and process in Afghanistan were psychologically different at every level than the blunderbuss clumsiness in Iraq.) Don't get me wrong, our military is magnificent and the Officer Corps is capable - despite undergoing the worst political purge we have ever seen in 20th Century America. They may yet succeed in Iraq and despite the temptations of disliking the neocons, I do hope the intervention succeeds. To me, political hatred is trumped by patriotism and devotion to Civilization. But today, our forces are worn-down and weary. Does anyone even notice that readiness levels have plummeted far below where they were on 9/11? Or indeed, below pre-Pearl Harbor levels? We are LESS ready for a surprise calamity than ever... and now they want to attack Iran. The delusional fantasy that attacking a nation will cause rebellion AGAINST its leadership is utterly bizarre. You'll note that these people aren't even bothering to cite historical examples that such a thing EVER happened in the past, let alone considering the hundreds of counter-examples. Hitler thought that the Soviet Union was a house of cards, held up by Stalin's terror. If he struck, the peoples there would rise up to topple Stalin. There WAS a little of this in subjugated areas like the Ukraine and Baltics, where ethnic resentment was great. But Russia? The result was total consolidation behind Stalin as Great Leader. The Christmas Bombings of Hanoi had a similar motivation and logic to them. They strengthened Ho Chi Minh, both at home and around the world. Shall I go on? None of my examples so far included the factor of RELIGION, which would work in the Mullahs' favor, in Iran. Understress, many people rally around their faith, even if they dislike individual priests. I have long urged the opposite approach... a concerted courtship of the Iranian people, with relentless acts of kindness, spiced by a little honest contrition for having supported the Shah. Take a close look and admit the facts. He is still hated by a vast majority over there. Let's admit we were wrong, then, and get past that.) This judo approach might even feature a Nixon-to-China trip by our president to Tehran. True, a peace and love campaign might not work and even get spurned. SO? The very worst downside of failure would be for America to be seen having tried to be nice. No options, after that, would be closed. In contrast, the worst case failure result of attacking Iran could be utter calamity. The consolidation of the entire Islamic world -- Sunni and Shiite -- behind a fuming, boiling Jihad, led by Mullahs and Sheiks and Tehran and Riyadh. Oh, and disrupted oil production. I wonder who would benefit from that? The important thing is to ask, what really lies beneath this rush toward war with Iran? The same people who have benefited from every policy of this administration since it began. Is that really any suprise? In fact, I'd expect the 'momentum' to accelerate even faster due to recent events which have encouraged the neo-cons (if Krauthammers gloating editorials are any guide); viz. the events happening in Lebanon, the high turnout of Iraqis in the elections, the small-scale S
marching toward Iran
The building momentum toward an attack upon Iran is terrifying. It is the diametric opposite approach to what I have been urging for three years. It is based on a self-hypnosis incantation-matra that neoconservatives are repeating over and over again. "The mullahs in Iran are teetering. If the people suffer a calamity of attack, they will blame their leadership for the disaster and rebel against the theocracy, instituting democracy in its place." This is, of course, the ultimate culmination of a process that Thucydides shows happening to great Athens, in the years after that early democracy was robbed of its guiding and stabilizing force, Pericles. During the Pelopenesian War, men like Alcibiades arose in the Assembly, arguing for vast and bold and adventurously aggressive projects, risking all for the sake of - well - democracy. Try reading the words of Alcibiades. In the sixties they were echoed by John F. Kennedy, who strutted before the world, announcing "We will pay any price, bear any burden..." To which the Politburo answered: "Really? Well then, how about a land war in Asia?" Today, we are led by Kennedy clones of the far right. (A comparison seldom made, though Gary Trudeau did liken the neocons to Robert MacNamara.) Lacking JFKs vision or kindness, they nevertheless share his overwhelming, hubristic pride and ability to envision nothing but success. Like him, their macho lets them envision only sumo tactics, never judo. (The judo process that worked in Afghanistan had been carefully planned out during the Clinton Administration, duplicating methodologies that worked in the Balkans. The tactics and process in Afghanistan were psychologically different at every level than the blunderbuss clumsiness in Iraq.) Don't get me wrong, our military is magnificent and the Officer Corps is capable - despite undergoing the worst political purge we have ever seen in 20th Century America. They may yet succeed in Iraq and despite the temptations of disliking the neocons, I do hope the intervention succeeds. To me, political hatred is trumped by patriotism and devotion to Civilization. But today, our forces are worn-down and weary. Does anyone even notice that readiness levels have plummeted far below where they were on 9/11? Or indeed, below pre-Pearl Harbor levels? We are LESS ready for a surprise calamity than ever... and now they want to attack Iran. The delusional fantasy that attacking a nation will cause rebellion AGAINST its leadership is utterly bizarre. You'll note that these people aren't even bothering to cite historical examples that such a thing EVER happened in the past, let alone considering the hundreds of counter-examples. Hitler thought that the Soviet Union was a house of cards, held up by Stalin's terror. If he struck, the peoples there would rise up to topple Stalin. There WAS a little of this in subjugated areas like the Ukraine and Baltics, where ethnic resentment was great. But Russia? The result was total consolidation behind Stalin as Great Leader. The Christmas Bombings of Hanoi had a similar motivation and logic to them. They strengthened Ho Chi Minh, both at home and around the world. Shall I go on? None of my examples so far included the factor of RELIGION, which would work in the Mullahs' favor, in Iran. Understress, many people rally around their faith, even if they dislike individual priests. I have long urged the opposite approach... a concerted courtship of the Iranian people, with relentless acts of kindness, spiced by a little honest contrition for having supported the Shah. Take a close look and admit the facts. He is still hated by a vast majority over there. Let's admit we were wrong, then, and get past that.) This judo approach might even feature a Nixon-to-China trip by our president to Tehran. True, a peace and love campaign might not work and even get spurned. SO? The very worst downside of failure would be for America to be seen having tried to be nice. No options, after that, would be closed. In contrast, the worst case failure result of attacking Iran could be utter calamity. The consolidation of the entire Islamic world -- Sunni and Shiite -- behind a fuming, boiling Jihad, led by Mullahs and Sheiks and Tehran and Riyadh. Oh, and disrupted oil production. I wonder who would benefit from that? The important thing is to ask, what really lies beneath this rush toward war with Iran? The same people who have benefited from every policy of this administration since it began. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Afghan Cuisine Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > M.Cardamom! It /was/ a little silly after a while.. cardamom, mint, and cilantro in almost everything ^_^ Even the baklava had a hefty dose of cardamom on top.. __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Afghan Cuisine Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
kerri miller wrote: > --- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 01:13 PM 1/19/2005 -0800 kerri miller wrote: >>> Speaking of Afghanistan, I'm going out tonight on a date to an >>> Afghan restaurant. Anyone had the cuisine and care to recommend >>> anything? >> >> The one time I ate at such a restaurant there were only about four >> choices >> on the menu. Just go for whatever looks like the house special. >> ;-) > > I live about 200 feet from Kabul > (http://thestranger.com/2001-09-20/chow.html) and after 2 years, > decided I needed to eat there. > > We started with Ash, a noodle soup with cardamom, followed by > eggplant with cardamom, rice with cardamom, kebabs with cardamom, and > while my date sipped cardamom tea, I dipped into a delightful custard > that was like creme brule without the brule, dusted with, of course, > cardamom. > M.Cardamom! xponent Cardamom Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Afghan Cuisine Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
--- Mauro Diotallevi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:34:37 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 01:13 PM 1/19/2005 -0800 kerri miller wrote: > > >Speaking of Afghanistan, I'm going out tonight on a date to an Afghan > > >restaurant. Anyone had the cuisine and care to recommend anything? > > > > The one time I ate at such a restaurant there were only about four > choices > > on the menu. Just go for whatever looks like the house special. ;-) > > This may be too late to help, but if you are not vegetarian, you can't > go wrong with lamb kebobs. The marinades typically used seem to agree > well with most Westerners, so long as you don't mind the garlic. Just > realize they can be a bit messy. I'm a HUGE fan of lamb, so I make a point of always getting it when I can. I did tonight, and was not disappointed one bit. In the end, the entire thing tasted like Indian with more of what I associate with a desert culture - /more/ spices, less liquids, more dramatic contrasts between flavors (spicy spicy cardamom kebabs with super-sour lemon yogurt dip and a side of cool salted cucumbers, frex) > And be aware that although the nan or naun (flatbread) may look like > the nan you would find at an Indian restaurant, chances are it will > taste quite different. Not better or worse, but different. It was more like a tortilla I thought. Quite nice for handling bits of the kebab :) -k- __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Afghan Cuisine Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:13 PM 1/19/2005 -0800 kerri miller wrote: > >Speaking of Afghanistan, I'm going out tonight on a date to an Afghan > >restaurant. Anyone had the cuisine and care to recommend anything? > > The one time I ate at such a restaurant there were only about four > choices > on the menu. Just go for whatever looks like the house special. ;-) I live about 200 feet from Kabul (http://thestranger.com/2001-09-20/chow.html) and after 2 years, decided I needed to eat there. We started with Ash, a noodle soup with cardamom, followed by eggplant with cardamom, rice with cardamom, kebabs with cardamom, and while my date sipped cardamom tea, I dipped into a delightful custard that was like creme brule without the brule, dusted with, of course, cardamom. -k- __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Afghan Cuisine Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:34:37 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:13 PM 1/19/2005 -0800 kerri miller wrote: > >Speaking of Afghanistan, I'm going out tonight on a date to an Afghan > >restaurant. Anyone had the cuisine and care to recommend anything? > > The one time I ate at such a restaurant there were only about four choices > on the menu. Just go for whatever looks like the house special. ;-) This may be too late to help, but if you are not vegetarian, you can't go wrong with lamb kebobs. The marinades typically used seem to agree well with most Westerners, so long as you don't mind the garlic. Just realize they can be a bit messy. And be aware that although the nan or naun (flatbread) may look like the nan you would find at an Indian restaurant, chances are it will taste quite different. Not better or worse, but different. MD ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Afghan Cuisine Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
At 01:13 PM 1/19/2005 -0800 kerri miller wrote: >Speaking of Afghanistan, I'm going out tonight on a date to an Afghan >restaurant. Anyone had the cuisine and care to recommend anything? The one time I ate at such a restaurant there were only about four choices on the menu. Just go for whatever looks like the house special. ;-) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:58:43 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >That may be, but assuming we have paramilitary or military operatives > on the > > >ground in Iran, and they get caught, remain alive, and are > identifiable, it > > >will make the Gary Powers U2 incident look like a PR nuisance. > > > > > >Nah! Surely sufficient plausible deniability is built into any such > > mission.> > > > > Actually, wouldn't the *more* surprising alternative be if the US > *didn't* > > have spies in Iran? Just like we didn't have spies in Afghanistan? ;) Speaking of Afghanistan, I'm going out tonight on a date to an Afghan restaurant. Anyone had the cuisine and care to recommend anything? -k- __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:58:43 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >That may be, but assuming we have paramilitary or military operatives on the > >ground in Iran, and they get caught, remain alive, and are identifiable, it > >will make the Gary Powers U2 incident look like a PR nuisance. > > > >Nah! Surely sufficient plausible deniability is built into any such > mission.> > > Actually, wouldn't the *more* surprising alternative be if the US *didn't* > have spies in Iran? You are ignoring the points raised on this thread that these are not spies but military person. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
>That may be, but assuming we have paramilitary or military operatives on the >ground in Iran, and they get caught, remain alive, and are identifiable, it >will make the Gary Powers U2 incident look like a PR nuisance. > >Nah! Surely sufficient plausible deniability is built into any such mission.> Actually, wouldn't the *more* surprising alternative be if the US *didn't* have spies in Iran? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
Update: Congress Starting To Push For "Regime Change" In Iran. The Financial Times reports, "Support for 'regime change' in Iran is growing in Congress, encouraging new exiled opposition groups supported by Washington's neoconservatives to spring up in the hope of receiving US funding." http://news.ft.com/cms/s/13504792-68cf-11d9-9183-0e2511c8.html Related: Neocons turn their attention to Iran ...The State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative has sought to identify pro-democracy groups inside Iran for funding, but has not found any. Officials are also aware that any group known to receive US money would be targeted by the regime immediately. Congress says their identities would be kept secret... http://news.ft.com/cms/s/90ab5f5a-68e4-11d9-9183-0e2511c8.html There does seem to be an organized campaign to support more money for Iran dissident groups - see this conservative PR shop article. The majority of Tech Station Central opinion articles support paid campaigns. The problem with Tech is when you were created to be a paid PR shop readers can't tell what are unsolicited opinions and what is part of a paid campaign. The writer has posted conservative opinions not apparently part of a PR campaign on line in various places in the past. http://www.techcentralstation.com/011705A.html ...Iranian Presidential elections are scheduled for June 17. Several hardliners have already announced their candidacies. Iran is poised to continue the dark path it has followed for the last quarter century. Can we really afford to miss this opportunity? Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:56:11 -0700, Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 2005-01-17 20:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Rob sent- > > Simple minded, but I don't see a whole lot here to get worked up > > about. Seems like a few things strung together for a bit of > > sensation... but I don't often get calls for political consultations. > > That may be, but assuming we have paramilitary or military operatives on the > ground in Iran, and they get caught, remain alive, and are identifiable, it > will make the Gary Powers U2 incident look like a PR nuisance. > > Nah! Surely sufficient plausible deniability is built into any such mission. This is part of a number of leaks the last couple weeks that Rumsfeld has won an interagency battle to have the military take the lead in fighting terrorism instead of the CIA. The CIA has always fought these undeclared battles with agents and assets and have much experience in plausible denial. The point of the article is that it is military special forces and not the CIA which opens up a bigger and more dangerous kettle of worms. There has been a tradition to pretty much ignore these agents running around in your country unless you catch them. Even after you catch them this is not that much of an outcry. Having active duty personal from another country's military conducting missions in your territory is a dangerous escalation. A number of spies from China have been caught during the last several years. Again, this is not really treated as a huge deal. What would you think the response should be if we caught an armed Chinese special forces team outside a secret military installation near Washington? Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Monday 2005-01-17 20:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Rob sent- > > > Simple minded, but I don't see a whole lot here to get worked up > about. Seems like a few things strung together for a bit of > sensation... but I don't often get calls for political consultations. That may be, but assuming we have paramilitary or military operatives on the ground in Iran, and they get caught, remain alive, and are identifiable, it will make the Gary Powers U2 incident look like a PR nuisance. Nah! Surely sufficient plausible deniability is built into any such mission. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
Rob sent- >http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1392078,00.html > >American special forces have been on the ground inside Iran scouting >for US air strike targets for suspected nuclear weapons sites, >according to the renowned US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. >In an article in the latest edition of the New Yorker, Hersh, who was >the first to uncover US human rights abuses against Iraqi detainees at >Abu Ghraib prison last year, reports that Pakistan, under a deal with >Washington, has been supplying information on Iranian military sites >and on its nuclear programme, enabling the US to conduct covert ground >and air reconnaissance of Iranian targets, should the escalating row >over Iran's nuclear ambitions come to a head. > >Acting on information from Pakistani scientists knowledgeable about >Iran's nuclear programme, Hersh reported, US commandos have penetrated >territory in eastern Iran seeking to pinpoint underground >installations suspected of being nuclear weapons sites. > >Hersh told CNN yesterday: "I think they really think there's a chance >to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on >the sites. > >"The last thing this government wants to do is to bomb or strafe, or >missile attack, the wrong targets again. We don't want another WMD >flap. We want to be sure we have the right information." > >The New Yorker report said the Americans have been conducting secret >reconnaissance missions over and inside Iran since last summer with a >view to identifying up to 40 possible targets for strikes should the >dispute over Iran turn violent. I guess I am not sure of the "point" of this article. From a simple reality stand point there are SF guys in countries where we are militarily active and those that are not. The above paragraphs hype what these guys do everyday, building relationships with locals and scouting out things that are important. A simplistic explanation of the SF mission, but in a previous part of my life I had friends who "went off" to parts unknown for unknown duration several times a year in their "area of responsibility". At it's basic level I recall someone telling me-partisans aren't built in a day. The writing is "dramatic" with "secret reconnaissance", but I guess it is true that these guys don't publicize their presence. >"This is a war against terrorism and Iraq is just one campaign," Hersh >quotes one former US intelligence official as saying. "The Bush >administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next we're going >to have the Iranian campaign." > >Another unnamed source described as a consultant close to the Pentagon >said: "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy >as much of the military infrastructure as possible." > >That appeared to be a reference to noted "neocons" in Washington, such >as the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, >and others. > >Arguments about Iran's suspected nuclear programme have raged for 20 >months since it was revealed that Tehran had been conducting secret >nuclear activities for 18 years in violation of treaty obligations. Call me cynical, but as much as factions of the admin may consider Iran an area they "want", it would be political suicide for this government to work on additional fronts. This article seems to me to be more like a "misinformation"/"hype"/implied "threat" article in some type of sabre-rattling for the Iranians or IAEA. Smacks more of a pissing contest being aired in public versus news. >The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has had inspectors in >the country throughout the period. While finding much that is suspect, >the inspectors have not found any proof of a clandestine nuclear bomb >programme. > >The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, has infuriated the Bush >administration over his even-handed dealings with Iran, while the >Europeans have been pursuing a parallel diplomatic track that has won >grudging agreement from Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment >activities. > >Hersh reported that the US campaign against Iran is being assisted by >Pakistan under a deal that sees Islamabad provide information in >return for reducing the pressure on Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced >metallurgist who is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and who was >revealed last year to be the head of the biggest international nuclear >smuggling racket uncovered. (snip) Simple minded, but I don't see a whole lot here to get worked up about. Seems like a few things strung together for a bit of sensation... but I don't often get calls for political consultations. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
- Original Message - From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran > > > Is there a second source confirming this? I've always had some doubts about > the Guardian... How could one not agree! > > If true, and the US does undertake strikes against Iran, I predict yet > another political -- and possibly military -- disaster. Such an attack > would again play into the hands of the Jihadists, confirming everything > they're claiming about the US, but also opens the door to the possibility > of Iranian intervention in Iraq... > Basically, this story is making the blog circuit currently (Intentional pun). The Guardians record is pretty hit and miss, so I figured there was a non-zero chance that it is partially true. And since it *might* be true, it is a matter of concern for many of us. I hope it isn't true, but the accusation is newsworthy in any case in the current political climate. xponent A Break From The SS Diet Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:52:29 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This may really get into a CIA - Special Forces dispute where probably > > someone was disparaging the special forces versus using CIA forces. > > Another option is DoD personnel airing out policy differences. > > > > That's the sorta thing I was thinking ofHearsh may have been played a > bit as part of internal politics...of which either example you gave sounds > plausible. IIRC, the claim by the US military was that there were just a > couple of casualties, with a broken ankle on the jump being a showcased > example and no deaths. IMHO, that's the sort of thing that journalists > could double check later...especially when there are embedded journalists. > > My criticism of Hearsh is not that he lies, I have no doubt that he is > convinced of what he reports. It's that he doesn't have a sufficient > filter on his sources to take what he reports unfiltered. So, I respond to > his reporting with both interest and a grain of salt. > > Take today's report. I'll bet a beer that there is some truth and some of > him being played for political reasons underlying his information. So, I'm > guessing he's both right and wrong. That may be a difference between us - I know that the military spokesmen are in a PR position and evaluated on how well they spin the story the way their superiors want. (I was an AF brat.) I find these reports from inside sources leaking information, even if they are leaking for their own purposes, at least as credible and usually more so than what the officials want me to hear. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran > > This may really get into a CIA - Special Forces dispute where probably > someone was disparaging the special forces versus using CIA forces. > Another option is DoD personnel airing out policy differences. > That's the sorta thing I was thinking ofHearsh may have been played a bit as part of internal politics...of which either example you gave sounds plausible. IIRC, the claim by the US military was that there were just a couple of casualties, with a broken ankle on the jump being a showcased example and no deaths. IMHO, that's the sort of thing that journalists could double check later...especially when there are embedded journalists. My criticism of Hearsh is not that he lies, I have no doubt that he is convinced of what he reports. It's that he doesn't have a sufficient filter on his sources to take what he reports unfiltered. So, I respond to his reporting with both interest and a grain of salt. Take today's report. I'll bet a beer that there is some truth and some of him being played for political reasons underlying his information. So, I'm guessing he's both right and wrong. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:47:17 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:24 PM > Subject: Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:54:40 -0600, Dan Minette > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > He does. But, those contacts also use him in internal political games. > > > > > > If so, I wonder why the families still don't know their loved ones are > > > deadthree years later. He reported on massive casualties early in > the > > > war, and we never ever saw them. > > > > I cannot comment on this becuase you have provided no means of > > ascertaining what Hersh actually reported. > > It may be hard to get exactly what I referred to because I saw it on CNN. > It was around the time that the first embedded reporter gave green light > pictures of a small landing by Special Forces near the start of the war. > > This is a related piece: > > http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058474 > > from the New Yorker. My memory of his statment about the number of > casualties may be a bit high, but there was clearly a disagreement between > his comments and the US government's comments on the number of casualties. > > I hope this helps. Hersh said there were 12 US casualties (=wounded). The Army said there were injuries that occurred while landing but no enemy caused casualties. I often see these points boil up into partisan outrage - "see that 'liberal' (95%+ of the time) is lying and doesn't know what he is talking about. This may really get into a CIA - Special Forces dispute where probably someone was disparaging the special forces versus using CIA forces. Another option is DoD personnel airing out policy differences. "Hersh's main contentions: 1) Despite Pentagon claims that the raids met no significant Taliban interference, in fact there was a ferocious firefight at Mullah Omar's complex and 12 Delta Force commandos were wounded, three seriously. Delta was forced to abandon one of its planned objectives, inserting an undercover team into the area. 2) The airport assault was "something less than the Pentagon suggested," producing nothing more than exciting TV footage. The Ranger parachutists featured in that footage were not the first U.S. soldiers to hit the field but came in only after a special Army Pathfinder team had been inserted and had confirmed that the field was cleared of Taliban forces. 3) The problems with both raids stem from the inability of military higher-ups to properly understand special ops missions." Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:54:40 -0600, Dan Minette > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > He does. But, those contacts also use him in internal political games. > > > If so, I wonder why the families still don't know their loved ones are > > deadthree years later. He reported on massive casualties early in the > > war, and we never ever saw them. > > I cannot comment on this becuase you have provided no means of > ascertaining what Hersh actually reported. It may be hard to get exactly what I referred to because I saw it on CNN. It was around the time that the first embedded reporter gave green light pictures of a small landing by Special Forces near the start of the war. This is a related piece: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058474 from the New Yorker. My memory of his statment about the number of casualties may be a bit high, but there was clearly a disagreement between his comments and the US government's comments on the number of casualties. I hope this helps. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:54:40 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > He does. But, those contacts also use him in internal political games. Agreed. > > >If he reported there was a number of American deaths in an Afghan > operation > > count on it. > > If so, I wonder why the families still don't know their loved ones are > deadthree years later. He reported on massive casualties early in the > war, and we never ever saw them. I cannot comment on this becuase you have provided no means of ascertaining what Hersh actually reported. > > FWIW, I maintain an informal running tally on "inside information" > statements by various people. I've seen Hearsh make statements that should > have been verifyable later...but were not verifiedthe predictions just > faded away. I think it strains credibility to think that the US > government could cover up massive losses of American soldiers for more than > a couple of weeks. Can you provide that tally and the original stories? JDG once sent me fruitlessly searching after something he stated a public figure had said many years before and I was never able to verify it. Gary Denton http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:48 AM Subject: Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:47:34 -0600, Dan Minette > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:35:17 -0500, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Is there a second source confirming this? I've always had some doubts > > about > > > > the Guardian... > > > > > > The Guardian is reporting a story in the New Yorker. > > > > One interesting comment on Seymore Hearsh...he is an investigative reporter > > who finds 300% of breaking stories. Sometimes, he is dead on. Other > > times, his willingness to go with a story that has not been properly cross > > confirmed. An example of the latter was a story, early in Afghanistan war, > > about a massive, failed, fatal US effort. I remember seeing him on TV > > describing it. Since it's hard to believe that the death of a number of > > American servicemen could be hidden for 3 years, this provides an example > > of him trusting a source that he shouldn't. > > > > So, a Seymore Hearsh article should be a heads up that something _may_ be > > happening, but not confirmation that something _is_ happening. > > Hersh has great contacts in the CIA, State Dept., and the DoD. He does. But, those contacts also use him in internal political games. >If he reported there was a number of American deaths in an Afghan operation > count on it. If so, I wonder why the families still don't know their loved ones are deadthree years later. He reported on massive casualties early in the war, and we never ever saw them. FWIW, I maintain an informal running tally on "inside information" statements by various people. I've seen Hearsh make statements that should have been verifyable later...but were not verifiedthe predictions just faded away. I think it strains credibility to think that the US government could cover up massive losses of American soldiers for more than a couple of weeks. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:47:34 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:35:17 -0500, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Is there a second source confirming this? I've always had some doubts > about > > > the Guardian... > > > > The Guardian is reporting a story in the New Yorker. > > One interesting comment on Seymore Hearsh...he is an investigative reporter > who finds 300% of breaking stories. Sometimes, he is dead on. Other > times, his willingness to go with a story that has not been properly cross > confirmed. An example of the latter was a story, early in Afghanistan war, > about a massive, failed, fatal US effort. I remember seeing him on TV > describing it. Since it's hard to believe that the death of a number of > American servicemen could be hidden for 3 years, this provides an example > of him trusting a source that he shouldn't. > > So, a Seymore Hearsh article should be a heads up that something _may_ be > happening, but not confirmation that something _is_ happening. Hersh has great contacts in the CIA, State Dept., and the DoD. If he reported there was a number of American deaths in an Afghan operation count on it. The big story is that we are already engaging in military operations in Iran with troops on the ground. What would Bush's reaction be if in addition to satellites and spy plan overflights and intensive spy operations some foreign military power was inserting special forces in the US preparing for military strikes? Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:41:02 +, Martin Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:35:17 -0500, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a second source confirming this? I've always had some doubts about the Guardian... The Guardian is reporting a story in the New Yorker. Which is here: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
- Original Message - From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:35:17 -0500, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there a second source confirming this? I've always had some doubts about > > the Guardian... > > The Guardian is reporting a story in the New Yorker. One interesting comment on Seymore Hearsh...he is an investigative reporter who finds 300% of breaking stories. Sometimes, he is dead on. Other times, his willingness to go with a story that has not been properly cross confirmed. An example of the latter was a story, early in Afghanistan war, about a massive, failed, fatal US effort. I remember seeing him on TV describing it. Since it's hard to believe that the death of a number of American servicemen could be hidden for 3 years, this provides an example of him trusting a source that he shouldn't. So, a Seymore Hearsh article should be a heads up that something _may_ be happening, but not confirmation that something _is_ happening. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:35:17 -0500, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a second source confirming this? I've always had some doubts about > the Guardian... The Guardian is reporting a story in the New Yorker. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
Is there a second source confirming this? I've always had some doubts about the Guardian... If true, and the US does undertake strikes against Iran, I predict yet another political -- and possibly military -- disaster. Such an attack would again play into the hands of the Jihadists, confirming everything they're claiming about the US, but also opens the door to the possibility of Iranian intervention in Iraq... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: UM's PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf. C ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Special forces 'on the ground' in Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1392078,00.html American special forces have been on the ground inside Iran scouting for US air strike targets for suspected nuclear weapons sites, according to the renowned US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. In an article in the latest edition of the New Yorker, Hersh, who was the first to uncover US human rights abuses against Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison last year, reports that Pakistan, under a deal with Washington, has been supplying information on Iranian military sites and on its nuclear programme, enabling the US to conduct covert ground and air reconnaissance of Iranian targets, should the escalating row over Iran's nuclear ambitions come to a head. Acting on information from Pakistani scientists knowledgeable about Iran's nuclear programme, Hersh reported, US commandos have penetrated territory in eastern Iran seeking to pinpoint underground installations suspected of being nuclear weapons sites. Hersh told CNN yesterday: "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites. "The last thing this government wants to do is to bomb or strafe, or missile attack, the wrong targets again. We don't want another WMD flap. We want to be sure we have the right information." The New Yorker report said the Americans have been conducting secret reconnaissance missions over and inside Iran since last summer with a view to identifying up to 40 possible targets for strikes should the dispute over Iran turn violent. "This is a war against terrorism and Iraq is just one campaign," Hersh quotes one former US intelligence official as saying. "The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next we're going to have the Iranian campaign." Another unnamed source described as a consultant close to the Pentagon said: "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible." That appeared to be a reference to noted "neocons" in Washington, such as the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and others. Arguments about Iran's suspected nuclear programme have raged for 20 months since it was revealed that Tehran had been conducting secret nuclear activities for 18 years in violation of treaty obligations. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has had inspectors in the country throughout the period. While finding much that is suspect, the inspectors have not found any proof of a clandestine nuclear bomb programme. The IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, has infuriated the Bush administration over his even-handed dealings with Iran, while the Europeans have been pursuing a parallel diplomatic track that has won grudging agreement from Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment activities. Hersh reported that the US campaign against Iran is being assisted by Pakistan under a deal that sees Islamabad provide information in return for reducing the pressure on Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced metallurgist who is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and who was revealed last year to be the head of the biggest international nuclear smuggling racket uncovered. Since confessing his activities and being placed under house arrest almost a year ago, Mr Khan has been incommunicado. After months of failure to get permission, IAEA inspectors last week gained access to the Parchin military facilities outside Tehran, which the Americans contend has been a centre for Iranian attempts to refine missile technology for nuclear purposes, although experts agree that Iran does not yet have a nuclear capability. A White House aide, Dan Bartlett, sought to weaken Hersh's New Yorker claims. The report, he told CNN, was "riddled with inaccuracies." xponent More Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An attack on Iran?
d.brin quoted: According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Wouldn't any US administration be constantly drawing up plans for all sorts of attacks in all sorts of scenarios? Isn't that how the Taliban were defeated where no-one thought it possible - because the Clinton adminstration had drawn up plans for this attack, well before 9-11-01? It's still creepy, and the idea of targeting mullahs and mosques is against everything the US has been for 200 odd years, but I suspect that plans like this are called for then filed away more or less continually. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
An attack on Iran?
I am passing this on, despite the fact that I doubt the story very much. Madsen is a usually reliable investigative journalist.I discount the likelihood in this case for many reasons, given below. Still, the mere possibility that it's true means we must pay attention. -- www.globalresearch.ca A BUSH PRE-ELECTION STRIKE ON IRAN: WHITE HOUSE INSIDERS REPORT "OCTOBER SURPRISE" IMMINENT by Wayne Madsen - http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs. The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election. - Here is why I doubt it: 1- I doubt polls would show an upsurge in support from such an insane act. 2- The US officer corps would protect us from such idiocy. 3- The intelligence community is livid toward the Bush Administration. They would let us know. 4- Our best forces are already mired in an attrition land war in asia and our reserves are already drawn down to pre-Pearl Harbor levels of readiness. He is why I think it may be plausible: 1- This administration thinks only of political survival and would do anything that might plausibly help. 2- The true masters of the Bush family - the Saudi Royal House - WANT our forces mired while we daily provide grist for Al Jazeera propaganda. Their greatest fear is rapprochement between America and Iran. Such a strike would solidify forever the mullahs' grip on Iran and drive that country into a pan Islamic Jihad that has always been the Saudi's central goal. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fw: Queen become first rockers in Iran
- Original Message - From: "Wonderful, Extraordinary, Beautiful" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: alt.music.yes Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:33 PM Subject: Queen become first rockers in Iran > Queen become first rockers in Iran > > http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=115412644&p=yy54y335x > > 25/08/2004 - 14:52:43 > > Queen have attracted a massive fanbase in Iran after officials granted them > the right to release their tunes in the Islamic republic. > > The seminal group - led by late Freddie Mercury - have made history in the > Muslim country as the first rock act to receive Iran's official seal of > approval. > > Western music has long been strictly censored in Iran, but an album of > Queen's greatest hits was released yesterday and has proved a major > attraction for the musically-deprived rock fans. > > Mercury, who died in 1991, was publicly proud of his Iranian ancestry, and > illegal bootleg albums and singles made Queen one of the most popular bands > in the country. > > Although the album omits a series of Queen ballads, the LP does boast > classics like Bohemian Rhapsody, The Miracle and I Want To Break Free. > > The cassette, costing less than $1 (Euro 0.80), comes complete with > translated > lyrics and an explanatory leaflet. > > Akbar Safari, a salesman at a Tehran book and record store, says: "It is the > first rock album to hit the market legally and people are surprised and > pleased to see it has the lyrics, not just the music." > > -- > No Clowns > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Flying Saucer Fever Grips Iran, Theories Abound
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&u=/nm/20040428/sc_nm/space_iran_ufos_dc_2&printer=1 http://tinyurl.com/yulej Is Iran about to be invaded by little green men or are the Americans racing through the night sky in spaceships to spy on the Islamic Republic? Flying saucer fever has gripped Iran after dozens of sightings in the last few days. Fanciful cartoons of alien spacecraft have adorned the front pages. State television on Wednesday showed a sparkling white disc it said was filmed over Tehran on Tuesday night. More colorful Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) have been spotted beaming out green, red, blue and purple rays over the northern cities of Tabriz and Ardebil and in the Caspian Sea province of Golestan, the official IRNA news agency reported. Newspapers and agencies reported people rushing out into the streets in eight towns on Tuesday night to watch a bright extraterrestrial light dipping in and out of the clouds. An airforce officer in the Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the reformist Vagha-ye Etefaghiyeh daily saying Iran's Supreme National Security Council should investigate whether these visitors from afar had hostile intent. But Sa'dollah Nasiri-Qeydari, head of the Astronomical Society of Iran, told Reuters the stories were unfounded. "In my opinion, flying saucers do not exist," he said, insisting his telescopes would have picked up invaders from outer space. "The people who have seen these things are not experts - farmers, villagers and pilots," he added. He said what people reported was consistent with the planet Venus, whose intense light in its current position would be given different hues by being filtered through the atmosphere. xponent Little Green Americans Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Assorted grumblings + Re: Meteorite hits Iran
Robert Seeberger wrote: http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=431728 A meteorite has hit northern Iran ... snip snip snip ... Iranians are currently mourning at least 30,000 people killed by an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale which struck southeastern Iran on December 26. xponent The End Is Near Maru I can't help but think somebody is trying to tell them something. But that would be nurturing superstition, conspiracy theories and more of those things I as a scientist cannot believe in without actual prove. Ah well, I just really hope the end isn't all that near. Just started a new year and would like to enjoy this one for once. Have had an abundant number of overall crappy years now (well they had their moments but overall they were crappy) and a good one would be nice for a change. This year I would like to go without deaths, illnesses, bodily ailments, diseases, emotional distress, household or DIY disasters or other unexpected troubles that cost time, energy and/or money to straighten out and are all a load of (I was going to say a nasty word but I don't) hot air finding their origin in mistakes/misconceptions/crappy workmanship from others. All I want is just the normal regular family life, my son growing up healthy and happy and a nice comfy paying job. Now is that so much to ask? And to start the year off right, somebody drove his car with their trailer coupling into the side of mine. Grr. I was parked way off the road on a regular spot in front of my moms home half on the side walk. So how the bloody hell anyone can manage to reverse into a parked car that is well out of the way of any traffic is totally beyond me. To think I even moved the car foreward because my mom was scared I could get hit from behind because originally I parked it closer to the corner of the street. Argh. Just my luck. Well I guess I shouldn't complain, at least they came forward to pay for the damage, currently estimated at 1250 EURO excl. and three days without car. Grumble... Happy new year indeed, I believe it when I see it. Sonja :O. GCU: Some good, some bad ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Meteorite hits Iran
http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=431728 A meteorite has hit northern Iran causing minor damage to property but there were no immediate reports of casualties, state radio has said. It said the impact sent locals in panic onto the streets in the northern town of Babol in Mazandaran province. "A meteorite which hit Babol on Friday morning caused only some minor damage to residential units," radio said, without giving further details or citing any source. It said the impact was felt up to one kilometre away. Iranians are currently mourning at least 30,000 people killed by an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale which struck southeastern Iran on December 26. xponent The End Is Near Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iran Fears Quake Toll Could Hit 40,000
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031227/D7VMO0180.html Overwhelmed rescue crews picked through entire city blocks of rubble in search for survivors and bodies a day after an earthquake ruined this southeast Iranian city. With the death toll in the thousands, Iran appealed for international help and promised to waive visas for foreign relief workers. The scope of the tragedy was so vast that a reliable death toll was impossible to pin down so soon after the magnitude 6.5 quake hit Bam early Friday. The Interior Ministry's early estimate on Saturday was 20,000 dead, while two leading rescue officials said the toll could eventually double. "As more bodies are pulled out, we fear that the death toll may reach as high as 40,000. An unbelievable human disaster has occurred," said Akbar Alavi, the governor of the city of Kerman, the provincial capital. The leader of one relief team, Ahmad Najafi, said in one street alone in Bam on Saturday, 200 bodies had been extracted from the rubble in one hour's work. Workers used their bare hands and shovels, while a few bulldozers moved piles of bricks in the search for bodies and survivors. A man with white turban and graying beard dug into and lifted rubble from the remains of his house, where his family was buried. When a hand of his teenage daughter appeared, he fainted and collapsed, and eventually, the bodies of his daughter, wife and two sons were brought out. With hospitals in the area destroyed, military transport planes had to evacuate many wounded for treatment to Kerman, and even to Tehran. "There is not a standing building in the city. Bam has turned into a wasteland. Even if a few buildings are standing, you cannot trust to live in them," Interior Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari told reporters Saturday. One man interrupted Lari as he spoke. "My father is under the rubble," the man said, his face streaked with tears. "I've been asking for help since yesterday, but nobody has come to help me. Please help me. I want my father alive." Lari tried to calm the man down and assigned an aide to see that he got assistance. Authorities had new trouble to deal with Saturday. About 800 convicts escaped from the Bam prison, guard Vahid Masoumpour told The Associated Press. The prison lies outside the city and its walls fractured or collapsed without killing any inmates. Thousands of residents of the city spent Friday night outdoors, sleeping under blankets in temperatures close to freezing. A few hundred slept in tents erected by relief workers, and more tents arrived Saturday. Men and women were seen slapping their own faces and beating their chests in an Islamic ritual of mourning. "This is the Apocalypse. There is nothing but devastation and debris," Mohammed Karimi, in his 30s, said Friday when he brought the bodies of his wife and 4-year-old daughter to the cemetery. The government appealed for international aid and said it would waive visa requirements for foreign relief workers. "The disaster is far too huge for us to meet all of our needs," President Mohammad Khatami said Friday. "However, all the institutions have been mobilized." Many countries responded, and relief crews from across Europe began arriving. A search-and-rescue team from Los Angeles - mostly county firefighters - was getting ready to go as well. Bam's population was 80,000 before the quake, and surrounding villages were also severely damaged. In one of the city's cemeteries, relief workers were digging and a bulldozer was excavating a mass grave. More than 20 corpses were already lying in the mass grave. A cleric and 10 relatives were saying prayers over an individual grave. The quake destroyed much of Bam's historic landmark - a giant medieval fortress complex of towers, domes and walls, all made of mud-brick, overlooking a walled Old City, parts of which date back 2,000 years. Television images showed the highest part of the fort - including its distinctive square tower - crumbled like a sand castle down the side of the hill, though some walls still stood. The quake struck at 5:28 a.m., while many were asleep. The state news agency IRNA put the magnitude at 6.3; the U.S. Geological Survey measured it at 6.5. Survivors were panicked throughout the day by aftershocks, including one that registered a magnitude of 5.3, according to the geophysics institute of Tehran University. The interior minister said 70 percent of residential Bam had been destroyed, and there was no electricity, water or telephone service. Iran's Red Crescent, the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross, said rescue and relief teams had been sent to Bam from numerous provinces. Entire neighborhoods in Bam had collapsed. On one street, only a wall and the trees were standing. People carried away injured, while others sat sobbing next to the blanket-covered corpses of their loved ones. One man held his head
Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson on Iran and Iraq
Holy cow - not at all what I'd have expected the Ayatolla's cleric grandson to say. It gives me a bit more hope for Iran's future. (Funny - I found this article while surfing through a chain of blog links, but it's from a local newspaper from where I grew up.) http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-10/105997525225580.xml Kin of Khomeini turns to U.S. for military help in freeing Iran Late cleric's grandson praises America for liberating Iraq and relieving people's suffering Monday, August 04, 2003 BY BORZOU DARAGAHI SPECIAL TO THE STAR-LEDGER Baghdad, Iraq -- The grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the fiery cleric who launched an anti-American Islamic revolution in Iran that sparked 25 years of unrest in the Gulf region, yesterday condemned Iran's clerical regime and suggested United States military intervention in Iran as a possible path to liberation for his country. "In Iran, the people really need freedom and freedom must come about. Freedom is more important than bread," said Hussein Khomeini. The 45-year-old cleric said that "if there's no way for freedom in Iran other than American intervention, I think the people would accept that. I would accept it, too, because it's in accord with my faith." The young Khomeini -- here ostensibly on a religious pilgrimage to Shi'a holy sites in Najaf, Karbala and Baghdad -- praised the U.S. takeover of Iraq. "I see day-by-day that (Iraq) is on the path to improvement," he said. "I see that there's security, that the people are happy, that they've been released from suffering." The United States has accused the clerical regime in Tehran of harboring terrorists, trying to build nuclear weapons and oppressing its own people. Conservatives in Washington have called for the ouster of the Iranian leadership following American military successes in Afghanistan and Iran. The United States has a long, tangled history with Iran that precedes the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Back then, followers of the young Khomeini's grandfather stormed the American embassy and kept employees hostage for more than a year. These days, the United States accuses Iran of attempting to subvert post-war Iraq by allowing militants to enter the country, broadcasting destabilizing propaganda and using its pull with Shi'a clerics to rouse the Iraqi populace. The newly established Iraqi governing council already has begun meeting with representatives from Tehran. Iranian deputy foreign minister Hussein Sadeghi visited Iraq several days ago, meeting with Iraqi officials, said Adnan Pachachi, Iraq's former foreign minister and a leading member of the nation's 25-member governing council. "We discussed all aspects of relations between the two countries," Pachachi said. Hussein Khomeini crossed the Iranian border into occupied Iraq about a month ago in a visit rife with irony. Iran and Iraq have been regional rivals for decades. Iraq harbored Ayatollah Khomeini after the Shah of Iran kicked him out of the country. During his exile in the Iraqi city of Najaf , Khomeini's grandfather, a high-level cleric, masterminded a revolution that ousted the Shah of Iran and established the world's first modern-day theocracy. Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war from 1980 to 1988 that left 1 million dead and strained relations between the two countries. Nearly 25 years later, the grandson has returned to the country where he resided from 1963 to 1978 and begun speaking out against the legacy of that revolution. A longtime reformist silenced and shut out of Iran's conservative inner circle of power, Khomeini confined his critiques of the Islamic Republic to scholarly rather than political arguments. He said a religious government can only come once the 12th Shi'a prophet Mahdi -- who disappeared in the 9th century -- returns. The young Khomeini argues for the separation of religion and state and criticized "velayet-e-faqih" -- the religious doctrine mandating Iranian Shi'a clerics as God's representative on earth and giving them near-absolute power Although he says he has yet to meet with any American officials, Khomeini's positions might lift the spirits of U.S. officials in Iraq struggling to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi Shi'as, who make up 60 percent of the population. He condemned Saddam Hussein's regime and criticized those countries opposed to the war against Iraq's Ba'athist government as ignorant of the conditions under which Iraqis were suffering. "The people here were subject to crimes unprecedented in world history," he said. He said nationalism has no basis in religious doctrine, and freedom was more important than independence from foreign rule. "Freedom is a basic right. It supersedes
Debate Rages Within Iran
April 4, 2003, 8:30 a.m.
Mullahs Disagreeing
The internal debate about Irans future.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri040403.asp
By Amir Taheri
The most dramatic way a mullah can show anger is by throwing his turban on
the floor. This is what Iran's President Muhammad Khatami, a junior mullah,
did the other day as he stormed out of a meeting of the Expediency Council,
the Islamic Republic's highest decision-making organ.
The council, headed by the wily former president Hashemi Rafsanjani,
continued the session, signaling the fact that Khatami may have become
irrelevant.
According to the official media, the cause of the turban-throwing
shenanigan was a decision by the Expediency Council to double the budget of
the Council of Guardians, a constitutional body through which hard-line
mullahs have vetoed Khatami's timid attempts at reform for the past five
years.
Our sources, however, insist that the turban-throwing scene was prompted by
a heated exchange between Khatami and Rafsajani with regard to Iran's
position toward a U.S.-led change of regime in Iraq. The two men had
clashed on the subject last month at a session of the High Council of
National Defense that failed to produce a common strategy.
Iran's decision-making elite, consisting of some 100 mullahs and their
non-clerical protégés, is divided into two camps with regard to Iraq.
One camp, led by former prime minister Mir-Hussein Mussavi, with Khatami as
figurehead, could be labeled "accommodationist." Its main argument is that
Iran's best interest lies in a partnership with the United States in
toppling the Iraqi regime.
Saeed Hajjarian, Khatami's chief strategist, recently explained the
accommodationist position in a long article.
"Change in Iraq has become inevitable," he wrote. "And it is clear that we
can neither stop nor go against it. We must thus go along with it and seek
two things: a guarantee that the next regime in Baghdad will not be hostile
to Iran, and a guarantee that we are not [Washington's] next target."
Hajjarian asserts that the time to make a deal with the Americans is now
because Washington cannot be sure of how things will turn out in Iraq.
"Once the Americans have won the war and have their man ruling Baghdad,
they would have no need of anyone, least of all we in Iran," Hajjarian wrote.
The accommodationist analysis is shared by a majority of the members of the
Islamic Majlis, the pseudo-parliament whose members are elected by the
people from an official pre-selected list.
Facing the accommodationists is the faction one could call "the
confrontationists," led by Rafsanjani. The "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei,
who lashed out against the U.S. in an address to the Islamic Revolutionary
Guards on March 11, represents the public face of the faction.
Khamenei's chief foreign-policy adviser, former foreign minister Ali-Akbar
Velayati, recently spelled out the confrontationist position in a series of
speeches, interviews, and articles in Iran.
"The American Great Satan will never accept an Islamic system. It is coming
to Iraq to complete its encirclement of our Islamic Republic before it
moves against us. To help the Americans conquer Iraq easily would be
suicidal for our revolution."
Velayati claims that the U.S. has two aims in the Middle East: preventing
the destruction of the "Zionist entity" and control of Arab oil.
Unlike the accommodationists who foresee an easy American victory, the
confrontationists believe that U.S. involvement in Iraq could become "the
beginning of its end."
"Iraq is a swamp," Khamenei said in his address to the guards. "The Great
Satan will get caught in that swamp; and that will speed up its inevitable
collapse." In a recent article Velayati spelled out a strategy aimed at
"confronting the Great Satan in a number of fronts."
Iraq will be one front. Iran has concentrated the so-called Badr Brigade,
named after the Prophet Muhammad's first major military victory, along the
border with Iraq. The brigade is a 10,000-man force of Iraqi Shiite
guerrillas. On March 14 some of the men organized a highly publicized
parade inside Iraqi Kurdistan.
Iran also has a 6,000-man Kurdish force, known as the Hezbollah of
Kurdistan, and positioned astride the border close to Sardasht.
The accommodationist faction supports the so-called Supreme Assembly of the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI) led by Ayatollah Muhammad-Baqer Hakim
Tabatabi, who lives in Teheran.
The confrontationists for their part have close ties with two other Shiite
groups: the Hizb al-Daawah ("Party of the Call") and the Islamic Labor
party, both of which have headquarters in Damascus.
Another front, according to Velayati, will be Afghanistan, where Iran has
forged close ti
Iran Warns U.S. 'Biggest Blow' Is Coming
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/18/105154.shtml The clock is ticking, and the U.S. went up to Threat Level Orange last night as Saddam Hussein's regime declared a worldwide "jihad" against the U.S., Great Britain and the West. Also: The Ayatollah of Iran over the weekend warned the U.S. that the "biggest blow" is coming. Plus: The Associated Press reports that "the highest authority in the Sunni Islamic world on Monday declared that war against Iraq will be a 'new crusade' compelling every Muslim to perform 'jihad.'" President Bush has given Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq. Now U.S. officials worry we now face a dangerous window of vulnerability. Top concerns: a.. A pre-emptive Iraqi attack against U.S. and allied forces and/or Israel using weapons of mass destruction. a.. A terrorist attack by al-Qaeda operatives using chemical, biological or radiological weapons within the U.S. A wave of suicide bomber attacks by terrorist cells trained by or paid for by Iraq. Last week, Iraq sent $260,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in the West Bank and Gaza, including $25,000 to members of the radical Islamic terrorist faction known as Hamas. Over the past two years, the Iraqi regime has paid $35 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In January, Hamas declared "jihad" against the U.S. Saddam Hussein, speaking Monday, threatened: "If it attacks Iraq, [the U.S.] will find Iraqi fighters ready to fight and ready for martyrdom in defense of their country behind every rock, tree and wall. When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world." His words echo those delivered Friday by Iraq's chief Muslim cleric, Abdul-Razzaq Saadi, in a sermon at Baghdad's Mother of All Battles mosque. "It is the duty of Muslims today, Iraqis and others, to threaten American interests wherever they are, to set them on fire and to sink their ships," Saadi declared. "This is jihad in the name of God." "Islamic sharia law says that if an enemy attacks us to seize our religion, money, honor and wealth then jihad becomes a must and a duty." In January, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told a crowd in Gaza: "We call on the Arabs and Muslims to burn the land under the feet of the American invaders, especially our brothers in Saudi Arabia because this war is not against Iraq, it's against the Islamic nation." "If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end," President Bush announced in a powerful and at times chilling speech. "In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible." The threat of terrorist attacks by Iraqi sleeper cells in the U.S. and abroad is a major concern of Washington officials right now. The president noted that a number of Iraqis have been expelled from the U.S. in recent days. The FBI is also monitoring some 50,000 other Iraqis residing in the U.S. "I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports," the president told the nation. "The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America." Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge noted in blunt terms yesterday that "while the March 1 arrest of senior al-Qaeda operative Khalid Shaykh Muhammad [KSM] has put the al-Qaeda senior leadership on the defensive and will be debilitating in the long term, the intelligence community believes that KSMs capture will not necessarily affect operations that are ready or nearly ready for execution." Moreover, Ridge said there are "many recent indications that al-Qaeda's planning includes the use of chemical, biological, and/or radiological materials." A senior U.S. official added: "While al-Qaeda remains the principal concern, we are also concerned Iraqi state agents, Iraqi surrogate groups or ad hoc groups or disgruntled individuals might choose to use the time period as well to launch attacks against the United States or against our coalition partners." Meanwhile, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday warned, "The U.S. may be able to inflict damages to the region in the short term, but resistance of the regional nations will finally inflict the biggest blow to the U.S. and will culminate in the fall of America's superpower image." On Monday, the president, vice president and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice briefed congressional leaders in the Cabinet Room about the Iraqi threat. Included in th
Bin Laden son, al Qaeda terrorists spotted in Iran
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030215-677323.htm U.S. intelligence agencies say Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Sad, is in Iran along with other senior al Qaeda terrorists, as Iranian military forces have been placed on their highest state of alert in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, according to intelligence officials Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan. Officials said it is not clear what relationship Sad has with the Tehran government, which on Thursday denied congressional testimony by CIA Director George J. Tenet that al Qaeda terrorists are in Iran. The new reports are the first time senior al Qaeda terrorists have been identified in Iran. Earlier reports have indicated other al Qaeda fighters have been granted refuge in Iran from neighboring Afghanistan. The intelligence on bin Laden's son comes as the Bush administration has released intelligence indicating Iraq is working with al Qaeda terrorists, including a senior associate of Osama bin Laden who has been in Baghdad since May. A CIA spokesman declined to comment when asked about the intelligence reports about Sad's whereabouts. London's Arabic-language newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, quoting a diplomatic source, reported from Rome on Thursday that Sad was seen in Iran. The newspaper said it is not clear whether other senior al Qaeda are in Iran. U.S. officials confirmed that Sad is among the senior al Qaeda believed to be in Iran after the newspaper report appeared. Sad, 23, is the oldest of Osama bin Laden's 27 children from several wives. He lived with his father in Sudan and Afghanistan, and fled Afghanistan in December 2001. Meanwhile, Iranian military forces are on heightened alert and Tehran leaders fear U.S. military forces will use operations against Iraq as a steppingstone for invading Iran. The Iranian military activities appear similar to Iran's response to the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when Iranian military forces built up in large numbers along the border with Iraq. So far, the Iranian forces have not massed near the Iraqi border, but are expected to do so if U.S. military operations against Iraq occur. Mr. Tenet said at a Senate hearing Tuesday that "we see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq." Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said yesterday that Mr. Tenet's claim was "baseless," state-run Tehran radio reported. "The seriousness of Iran's fight against terrorism, and its expelling those suspected of links to al Qaeda, has always been clear, sincere and transparent," he said. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also said in a Senate hearing in September that the Iranian government is "currently harboring reasonably large numbers of al Qaeda," while keeping the support for the terrorist group from its people. "The al Qaeda are functioning in that country, both transiting and located, and operating," Mr. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Iran's government has denied repeatedly it has any links to al Qaeda. The chief of Iran's armed forces, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Salimi, said in Tehran on Monday that the Iranian army is "on full alert," according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Gen. Salimi said the armed forces are "on guard against any aggressive move by enemies that would threaten the territorial integrity of Islamic Iran." Bush administration officials met privately last month in Europe with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq and seek Tehran's help in supporting Sunni Muslims in a post-Saddam Iraq. The meeting was first reported by The Washington Post Feb. 8. Officials said the initiative was put forth by Richard Haas, the State Department's director of policy planning. Intelligence officials said Iran's support for terrorists, including al Qaeda, in the past was carried out by agents of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Qods Force. The Defense Intelligence Agency in 2000 uncovered information linking al Qaeda to Iran's government. Intelligence from Malaysia showed that two of the September 11 hijackers, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, attended a key meeting of al Qaeda terrorists in Malaysia that year. The two men were the suicide hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. The 2000 intelligence showed they stayed at the Kuala Lumpur residence of Iran's ambassador to Malaysia. The disclosure about the Iran-al Qaeda ties comes as the United States released intelligence indicating links be
Iran Mines Uranium for Nuclear Plant
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20030209_214.html President Mohammad Khatami said on Sunday Iran had mined uranium for nuclear energy, and insisted its nuclear program was solely for civilian use, the official news agency IRNA said. The surprise announcement -- the first time an Iranian leader has acknowledged possession of uranium ore reserves -- may alarm Washington, which accuses the Islamic Republic of harboring secret plans to develop nuclear weapons. "Iran has discovered reserves and extracted uranium...we are determined to use nuclear technology for civilian purposes," IRNA quoted Khatami as saying. He said the uranium had been extracted near the central city of Yazd and processing facilities had been set up in the central cities of Isfahan and Kashan. Iran, which Washington has labelled a member of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, insists its nuclear plans are purely for civilian purposes for its 65 million people. It has invited inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), to verify its nuclear facilities later this month. In another development, state television quoted Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani as saying Iran, for the first time, had developed the capacity to produce composite solid fuels for its missiles. "This solid fuel could be used for any kind of missile," he said after inaugurating a manufacturing plant Sunday. Iran makes middle-range missiles, anti-tank missiles, air- to-surface missiles and surface-to-surface guided missiles that use composite solid fuel. U.S. CRITICAL OF RUSSIAN HELP Washington, Iran's arch-foe, has long been at odds with Russia over its help in building an $800 million nuclear power plant at Iran's southwestern port of Bushehr, which Tehran expects to come on stream at the end of 2003 or early in 2004. U.S. fears over the project were somewhat assuaged by assurances from Moscow that all spent fuel from the plant would be returned to Russia, ensuring that it would not be diverted to a weapons program. But the discovery of its own uranium supplies could, in theory, make Iran independent of Russia for its nuclear fuel needs. Diplomats said Khatami's announcement stemmed from world pressure to come clean about the scope of its nuclear program. "They seem to be making a creeping announcement of what their capabilities are," said one European diplomat. The head of the Iranian parliament's Energy Commission, Hossein Afarideh, told Reuters the extracted uranium, after being processed, could be used as fuel for the Bushehr power plant. Iran has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has said it might build further nuclear power plants to meet its booming electricity demand. xponent Good News/Bad News Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:20:40 -0800 (PST), J.D. Giorgis wrote: >and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human >Rights. File this as Reason #3462 why the UN system >is broken... >"The irony is overwhelming," a U.S. diplomat said. >"The conference chair helps organize the work of the >conference and assists in setting the agenda." I don't think irony makes it broken. It doesn't sound like the chair of the conference carries any clout and it may serve to bring more attention to their atrocities. Excepting them from established administrative procedures will hardly serve to raise their standards. Perhaps the head of the table is the best place for the worst offenders. Its got to be better than stuffing them in a peanut gallery and pointing fingers at them. Why would Beijing get the Olympics? Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
At 08:39 2003-01-30 -0200, Alberto wrote: Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: > >> ...and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human >> Rights. File this as Reason #3462 why the UN system >> is broken... > > Of course with that kind of a logic, we'd actually > have to kick them out. Then we'd be back with our > usual G(n) organisations or a new and improved > League of Nations where you're only allowed to speak > if we agree with you. > Maybe that's what should be done after all. The UN has a great function: prevent a global war. Period. But if we want the UN to be the world g*vernment, then it's stupid to put dictator representatives [instead of people representatives] there. Alberto Monteiro True, and now we're back where we were some months ago. What we'd like is a League of Democratic States but we all know that no one, especially not any "power" (read USA, UK, France...), will agree to give up power to a higher instance. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
- Original Message - From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference > > Nah, that's merely US anti-Brazilian and anti-Cuban propaganda. :-) > When were you on the Copacabana? I thought of those lyrics while strolling on that beach. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
At 18:34 29-01-2003 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: USA to chair the UN polution control program? hmm, well that's kinda funny coming from you Alberto. My strongest memory of my visit to Brazil is >From the Copa, the Copacabana The sewage flows clear to Havana. Nah, that's merely US anti-Brazilian and anti-Cuban propaganda. :-) Jeroen "Political Observations" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
Dan Minette wrote: > >> >> USA to chair the UN polution control program? > > hmm, well that's kinda funny coming from you Alberto. > My strongest memory of my visit to Brazil is > > From the Copa, the Copacabana > The sewage flows clear to Havana. > I told you that it had broken during that time. You seem to bring about a Murphy field around you wherever you go :-P Brazil will chair the UN forest preservation program Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: > >> ...and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human >> Rights. File this as Reason #3462 why the UN system >> is broken... > > Of course with that kind of a logic, we'd actually > have to kick them out. Then we'd be back with our > usual G(n) organisations or a new and improved > League of Nations where you're only allowed to speak > if we agree with you. > Maybe that's what should be done after all. The UN has a great function: prevent a global war. Period. But if we want the UN to be the world g*vernment, then it's stupid to put dictator representatives [instead of people representatives] there. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
- Original Message - From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference > USA to chair the UN polution control program? > hmm, well that's kinda funny coming from you Alberto. My strongest memory of my visit to Brazil is >From the Copa, the Copacabana The sewage flows clear to Havana. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
JDG wrote: > > Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference > and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human > Rights. > Triple Hell!!! How can I pretend to be The Trickster if those idiots can be much more fun than I am? What's next? South Africa to chair the UN AIDS program? Pakistan to chair the UN anti-nuke program? Saudi Arabia to chair the UN Freedom of Religion program? USA to chair the UN polution control program? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
At 12:20 2003-01-29 -0800, John wrote: ...and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human Rights. File this as Reason #3462 why the UN system is broken... JDG Of course with that kind of a logic, we'd actually have to kick them out. Then we'd be back with our usual G(n) organisations or a new and improved League of Nations where you're only allowed to speak if we agree with you. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
At 12:20 29-01-2003 -0800, John Giorgis wrote: ...and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human Rights. File this as Reason #3462 why the UN system is broken... With the Reasons #1 through #3461 being... what exactly? "The irony is overwhelming," a U.S. diplomat said. Yup. As ironic as the US chairing an international environmental convention. Jeroen "Casual Observations" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
...and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human Rights. File this as Reason #3462 why the UN system is broken... JDG Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference >From Richard Roth CNN New York Bureau Wednesday, January 29, 2003 Posted: 6:49 AM EST (1149 GMT) UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq will chair the United Nations' most important disarmament negotiating forum during the panel's May session. At the rules-minded United Nations, it's not a country's status with international weapons inspectors, but the letters in its name that determine which member state chairs the Conference on Disarmament. "The irony is overwhelming," a U.S. diplomat said. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Monday delivered their 60-day report on the status of weapons inspections in Iraq. It was a less-than-glowing summary, with both men saying Baghdad is not cooperating with inspectors and is not being forthcoming on disclosing information about its weapons programs. Iraq will take its turn as the head of the conference, a U.N. spokesman said, because of a "purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order." Therefore, joining Iraq as co-chair for the session in Geneva, Switzerland, will be Iran. The conference chair helps organize the work of the conference and assists in setting the agenda. The May 12-June 27 conference will be the 25th anniversary session since the conference was established in 1979 after a special U.N. General Assembly session. The conference is made up of 66 countries who have been divided in recent years on several issues, including the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The conference and its predecessors have negotiated such major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements as: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them." -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Report: Iran detained one of bin Laden's sons
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/02/binladen.son.ap/index.html Iranian security forces have detained one of Osama bin Laden's sons among several hundred people suspected of links to the al-Qaida terror network, the Financial Times reported on its Web site Saturday. Citing an unidentified Iranian official, the newspaper said Iran had handed bin Laden's son over to authorities in either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. The paper, which does not appear on Sundays, planned to publish the story in its Monday edition, said spokesman Gregory Roth. The newspaper's report could not be independently verified. In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Anne Marks said, "We are aware of the report and are looking into it." Bin Laden has at least 23 children by several wives. One of the oldest, Saad bin Laden, who is about 22, has emerged as an al-Qaida leader and one of America's top two dozen targets in the network. Mohammed and Ahmed bin Laden also support their father's efforts, U.S. officials say. The official quoted by the Financial Times did not identify the son he said was detained. He reportedly said the man was captured with a group of people suspected of having links to al-Qaida as they fled Afghanistan. The paper quoted Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi as saying the group numbered about 250 and that all the suspects had been returned to their home countries. He did not identify any of them. The anonymous official was also quoted as saying he believed bin Laden was dead. U.S. officials have repeatedly said they do not know if the alleged architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America is dead or alive. xponent The Gathering Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
U.S. detects al Qaeda camp in Iran -
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1497639 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
