Iranian Alert -- August 3, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

To find all the links to all 55 threads since the protests started, go to:

Join Us at the Iranian Alert -- August 3, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

Live Thread Ping List | 8.3.2003 | DoctorZin

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

Iran: The biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East

01/08/2003 RSF
21 journalists held, making Iran the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East

Amid continuing clamour about the death of photojournalist Zahra Kazemi while in custody at the start of July, Reporters Without Borders today voiced concern about the imprisonment of a total of 21 journalists in very harsh conditions in Iran, many of them in a wave of arrests in the past few weeks.

Secretary-general Robert Ménard said at least 14 journalists have been arrested in the space of a month, and in most cases the families have received no word about those detained. "Those lucky enough to have been freed have talked of very harsh conditions of detention, psychological pressure and mistreatment," Ménard said.

He stressed that the organisation is very worried about the fact that half of the detained journalists are being held by aides of Tehran state prosecutor Said Mortazavi and by revolutionary guards in the same centre where Kazemi, a photographer with Canadian and Iranian citizenship, received the blows to the head that caused her death.

The latest to be detained include Abolgasem Golbaf, editor of the monthly Gozarech, who was arrested on 20 July for "propaganda against the regime and publishing incorrect information." Three members of the newspaper’s staff, illustrator Arash Noporchian and journalists Mohammad-Amin Golbaf and Nader Karimi, were also arrested on 26 July and were then freed two or three days later.

Hossein Bastani, Vahid Pour-Ostad and Said Razavi Faghi, three members of the editorial staff of the reformist daily Yass-e No, and Chahram Mohamadi-Nia, editor of the weekly Vaght, were summoned for questioning by the Tehran public prosecutor on 11 and 12 July and were then imprisoned. Yass-e No had published a note on 10 July explaining that it had prepared a detailed report on the 9 July demonstrations but had received orders from the intelligence ministry not to publish it.

Accused of publishing "an improper photo and article," Mohamadi-Nia was jailed after failing to pay bail of 100 million rials (about 11,000 euros). Bastani, Pour-Ostad and Mohamadi-Nia were released between 16 and 20 July, but Faghi is still being held, as is freelance journalist Arash Salehi, who was arrested on a Tehran street.

Iraj Jamshidi, the editor of the economic daily Asia, was arrested together with his wife, managing editor Saghi Baghernia, on 6 July for "publicity against the regime" after publishing a photograph of People’s Mujahideen leader Maryam Rajavi the day before. Baghernia was released on bail the following day, but Jamshidi was put in Evin prison in Tehran and was then moved to an undisclosed location. Ismail Jamshidi, editor of Gardon (a monthly that has been closed by the authorities), was detained 7 July. Since then, there has been no word of him.

Ensafali Hedayat, a journalist in Salam, was released on 12 July after spending 27 days in solitary confinement in the main prison of Tabriz. In a letter to President Mohammad Khatami, he said he was beaten by senior police officials while detained. He said he was lucky not to have suffered the same fate as Zahra Kazemi.

The relatives and lawyers of four journalists thought to be detained by revolutionary guards - Taghi Rahmani of Omid-e-Zangan (detained on 14 June), Reza Alijani of Iran-e-Farda (detained on 14 June), Hoda Saber of Iran-e-Farda (detained on 14 June) and freelancer Amir Teirani (detained on 16 June) - have received no word of them since the moment of their detention.

Abas Abdi of Salam (who was arrested on 4 November 2002 and is being held in solitary confinement) Ali-Reza Jabari of Adineh (arrested on 17 March) and Siamak Pourzand (arrested on 30 March) described the illnesses, mistreatment and psychological pressure to which they are subjected in letters recently published in the Iranian press.

Reporters Without Borders

http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=4153

Iran: The biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East

01/08/2003 RSF
21 journalists held, making Iran the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/957322/posts?page=3#3

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

"Judson Cox Asks: What If Islam Should Win?"

Posted by Marv Essary
Sunday, August 03, 2003

Judson Cox, a freelance writer from North Carolina, describes what America--and other countries--would be like if Islam were to prevail in its conquests. He writes that ''Islam wishes to stamp out every social advance mankind has made since at least the 1200s.'' This articles is condensed from an article on the ConservativeMonitor.com website.

For decades, experts warned us of the dangers that Islamic terrorist presented to the United States. We watched as the Ayatollah rose to power in Iran, taking American hostages. We saw Palestinians target Americans and Israelis abroad. We saw our embassies and barracks bombed, and were shocked by the first attack on the World Trade Center. However, we ignored the threat.

Even when Osama bin Laden appeared on ''Sixty Minutes'' and told us in no uncertain terms that he planned to destroy America, barely an eyebrow was raised among politicians and the populace. Then, the morning came when Osama's threats came to life. Hijacked planes were flown into first one World Trade Tower, then the other, then the Pentagon, and then a field in Pennsylvania. Over three thousand innocent Americans lay dead, and we were shocked into recognizing a threat should have been obvious.

For a brief moment, politics and the digital distractions of modern life took a back seat to confronting a very real danger; suddenly we were vulnerable. For a brief moment, Americans of all reasonable ideologies united for the sake of our very survival. Unfortunately, in the time between that horrifying morning and this placid day, much of our resolve seems to have dissipated.

Most of those who share my political ideology and religion, still see the threat of Islamic fascism for what it is. We see a culture bent on destroying our nation, and eradicating Christianity and Judaism (as well as all other religions except Islam). However, most of us do not fully comprehend the implications of the ideology our enemy follows. We still see the conflict in the terms of those that have come before.

The left confuses the threat of Islamic fascism with the familiar ideology of communism. The fallacy of multiculturalism prevents them from recognizing Islamic fascism as the threat that it is. The left ignores the stated objectives of our enemy, and assigns root causes to their hatred. Leftists assume that the hatred of the Islamic fascist for America stems from economic disparity and our support of Israel. Out of habit, Leftists blame America for the animosity of our enemy.

In previous wars against nazism and communism, many on the left were sympathetic to our enemy. The left represents the academics of our culture, the artists, intellectuals, and the otherwise self perceived elite. This elite sees itself as above loyalty to any nation, and has no vested interest in seeing Americanism prevail. Indeed, in our previous struggles, leftist sympathies were quite to the contrary: many embraced the ideologies of our enemies for reasons of personal gain.

The left found common ground with the ideologies of our enemies because communism and nazism purported to raise the intellectual and the artist to levels of higher economic standing and greater social acclaim. It would be Herbert Marcuse and Ed Asner who held the economic position of Bill Gates, and the leadership position of our president.

Having adopted the relativist world view, the left cannot differentiate between ideologies; all cultures, religions and ideologies are assumed to be equally valid. For this reason, the left cannot condemn our enemy, but demonizes our attorney general for his attempts at preventing terrorists from establishing beach heads within our nation. The leftists see Islamic fascism as merely another academic pursuit; they defend college professors who raise funds for terrorist groups, and who openly wish for America's defeat. They believe that as intellectual elites, their role is to increase understanding between our enemy and ourselves.

Faced with an uncompromising enemy, the urge to compromise is tantamount to surrender. When a terrorist attempts to murder innocent American civilians, the Left sends the ACLU to defend him. When our leaders attempt to prevent an Islamic State from amassing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to destroy America, the left compares our president to Hitler. To the left, America's leaders are liars with evil intensions, and her enemies are noble and just. When viewed in this light, it becomes obvious why the left refuses to recognize that it has a dog in this fight.

Leftists see Americanism as a detestable evil, and assume that when it is destroyed, they will be held up as the only blameless and righteous members of the ''Great Satan.'' They assume that they will be celebrated as peace makers and moral leaders. Insulated in their ivory towers, think tanks, and foundations, and blinded by the footlights of the stage, they assume that their lives will continue unaffected regardless of who prevails.

It is time for the left to recognize our enemy. Islamic fascism is not merely a political ideology, or a spiritual hobby that one can put on and disregard like ever changing fashion styles. If our enemy prevails, all of our lives will be unimaginably altered. Consider the consequences if America were to fall under a Taliban government. Yes, Christianity and Judaism would be outlawed. The left may disregard that, but they will not be immune. Atheism, Agnosticism, Richard Gere's beloved Buddhism, and Tom Cruise's Scientology would all be outlawed. Indeed, all that the left holds dear would come to a swift and violent end.

Environmentalism would be outlawed as a form of Gaism. Women's rights would cease to exist. Women would not be allowed to attend school, work, or drive cars. Not only would fashion shows be replaced with burkas, but Hillary Clinton would be out of a job. The gay pride parades that the left so enjoys would be stopped, as would the much touted gay marriage movement. Tolerance would be an unthinkable heresy. Homosexuals would be executed in as painful a manner as possible.

Capital punishment would not only be the norm for murderers, but innocent rape victims would be executed as well. Movies and the theater would be outlawed. Sports and entertainment television would be banned. Dancing and non-religious music would be forbidden. Even the academic elite would not be able to find refuge in the university. Philosophy, art, literature, sociology, psychology, etc., would all be banned. The books on which our academics are based would all be outlawed. The works of the Greeks and Romans would be banned for polytheism. The plays of Shakespeare and the poems of Wordsworth, would be burned for containing Christian and pagan imagery. To possess a book, by Darwin, Freud, or Marx (the trinity on which most universities base their academics) would be illegal. To posses such a book would be punished by maiming, and to teach from it would warrant death. The Internet would be outlawed due to the difficulty of controlling the content. Libraries and schools would be burned, and the press would cease to have any freedom. Even slavery would be re-established, as non-Muslims are viewed as less than human.

If we are to withstand such enemies, we must understand that they mean to absolutely destroy all of western civilization. They would wipe out the religious and the secular, our hedonistic excesses, and our precious freedoms. To think otherwise is not only to ignore their stated aims, but to deny the reality of their successes.

The Islamic fascists have proven, repeatedly, that they are capable of establishing such a government, and forcing the adherence of their subjects. Witness Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran under the Ayatollah, and to varying degrees Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and every Islamic nation on earth. This is truly a struggle between western civilization and barbarism, in which a pre-enlightenment ideology seeks to plunge the entire world into the dark ages. Islam wishes to stamp out every social advance mankind has made since at least the 1200s.

We have a choice to make. Will we have the resolve, as a culture and a nation to recognize our enemy and fight it, or will we surrender to primitive barbarians because we have become too enlightened to believe anything is worth fighting for?

http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3714

What If Islam Should Win?"

Posted by Marv Essary
Sunday, August 03, 2003

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/957322/posts?page=5#5

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

Khomeini's Grandson turns against Iran Regime

Ayatollah Khomeini'sBaghdad-based grandson said he was after overthrowing the regime his grandfather founded in Iran in 1979. “At the moment, Iran is ruled by a religious dictatorship, which is the harshest form of suppression,” Hossein Khomeini, a mid-ranking cleric, told the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad. “The Iranian people are frustrated with what has taken place in the name of religion,” he said. “Our most important demand is to have a secular state.” Asked if he thought that the US could bring freedom to Iran, Mr. Khomeini said, “If it is only America that can bring freedom to us, let them do so.” This is the first time a close relative of Ayatollah Khomeini lashes out at the Islamic state explicitly. (Ardavan Niknam)

http://www.radiofarda.com/transcripts/topstory/2003/08/20030802_0130_1628_2036_EN.asp

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

Richard Armitage on Iran's Role in Iraq

August 01, 2003
Fox News
On the Record

This is a partial transcript from On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, July 14, 2003. Some of the text has been edited for clarity, not content.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Tonight: Another soldier murdered in Iraq, No. 32 since May 1, when President Bush declared the major hostilities over, this as President Bush faces questions about his intelligence team and the war against Saddam. And new troubles with Iran. I asked Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage what kind of problems Iran creates for us, if any, in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Iran has interest in seeing that the Shia population of Iraq basically adhere to a line that comes from Iran. I don't think, ultimately, they'll be successful, but it's a bit of competition that we're engaged in right now.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is Iran actually going over into the border and not adhering to the Iraqi-Iranian border and trying to stir up Shi'ite Muslims there?

ARMITAGE: Well, there are two issues. One is the encroachment on the border, and that has happened in recent days. Now, to be true -- or to be truthful, the border is rather amorphous, but the Iranians have encroached upon it. The activities inside Iraq that are stirred up by Iranian money and Iranian clerics is another and a separate issue.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is that something that the State Department is heavily focused on, or is that more of a military issue, at this point, or both?

ARMITAGE: Well, I'd say both. Paul Bremer in Baghdad is very concerned with the encroachment of Iranians both on the border and their influence in the south. We have State Department officers who work in the south to try to, one, understand the depth of that Iranian involvement, and two, to try to blunt it where we can.

VAN SUSTEREN: In Iran today -- or at least, in the last few weeks -- there have been student demonstrations and it's pro-democracy. It's sort of interesting because 20 years ago or 30 years ago, it was students who created the Islamic Republic, who are now trying to stop this pro-democracy demonstration. What is our role, if any, on helping the pro-democracy movement?

ARMITAGE: I think, as a general matter, clearly, the United States globally supports the development of democracy and the democratic yearnings of all people. In this particular family spat, as Secretary Powell calls it, we probably ought to stay out of it and try to create the conditions that would allow democracy to flourish but not interject ourselves in something the dimensions of which we may not fully understand.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of -- and there's a Canadian journalist who was beaten to death in the last couple of days in Iran. Any of our business?

ARMITAGE: Well, yes, it's a great violation of human rights. Of course, it's our business. It's our nation's business. But I'm saying I don't think any of us understand fully the parameters of what's going on in Iran, and we ought to approach it gingerly.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about the nuclear program that we're -- I assume we're suspicious that Iran is creating one?

ARMITAGE: We're very suspicious. We've been very active with the international community and the IAEA. We have to stop that program. The development of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to carry them would be a very destabilizing effect, should Iran be able to accomplish that.

VAN SUSTEREN: Iran says they're doing it for energy, but they've got a lot of oil, haven't they.

ARMITAGE: Oh, they've got a lot of oil, and I think a peaceful use of nuclear energy is one thing, but I think we have good reason to wonder if there aren't covert programs and programs which we haven't seen to develop fissionable material for weapons. And it's a huge concern of the United States.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there a time problem? I mean, at what point should we really be worried about Iran?

ARMITAGE: Well, I would say about a year ago. This is not something that's not right around the corner. We've been worried for some time. We've been working with the international community, and it's our view and my view that we're making some progress, particularly with our European friends, who seem to share this concern.

VAN SUSTEREN: And what's our status in Iraq? How do you assess how we're doing in Iraq?

ARMITAGE: I think it's mixed. Each day is better than the last, but the security situation stays very neuralgic. We unfortunately lost another serviceman today and had several wounded. So it's a day-to-day thing. But Jerry Bremer feels that each day we make progress. I think we made progress yesterday when we stood up the interim governing council. And this puts an Iraqi face to what will be ultimately Iraqi decisions, and that's a step in the right direction.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you expect that other countries will be giving us some support in Iraq, in terms of forces?

ARMITAGE: Oh, yes, sure. I certainly do. The Poles are moving in. We've had several others. El Salvador recently announced that they were willing to take a niche capability and sort of relief us of some of our duties in that regard. So it's moving forward with some -- apace.

VAN SUSTEREN: You say mixed. What are the good points and what are the bad points?

ARMITAGE: Well, the good point are Iraqis are free of Saddam Hussein. The region is not afraid of weapons of mass destruction. People aren't afraid of a midnight knock on their door from the Mukhabarat of Saddam Hussein. The bad news is that there are still pockets of resistance and there's still violence occurring. There's still difficulties in some areas in providing goods and services. And it's a matter of priority for the coalition provisional authority to be able to provide these.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of the controversy that's been going on the last couple days about the statement that the president had in his State of the Union that there -- that Saddam was getting some uranium from Africa, and that that made it into the State of the Union, and apparently, the intelligence community in this country, up until that point, said it was not true?

ARMITAGE: I think Secretary Powell said the other day it's overblown, overdrawn and overwrought. There's quite a frenzy about it, and it's a pretty small item. We didn't go to war because of some report about Uranium in Niger. I think at least political Washington is quite shocked that someone like George Tenet, our excellent director of the Central Intelligence Agency, would stand up and actually accept responsibility for this. And they don't know how to deal with it, and so they're gumming it to death.

VAN SUSTEREN: How does a mistake like that happen? Is it the bureaucracy?

ARMITAGE: I think that's exactly -- it's a mistake. It's not good. It was a bad thing, but it was a mistake. And it just happened. Someone took their eye off the ball. George Tenet accepted responsibility, and it's a really stand-up thing to do.

VAN SUSTEREN: Liberia -- your thoughts. What's going to happen in Liberia?

ARMITAGE: Well, Kofi Annan this afternoon spoke with Secretary Powell, and latterly with President Bush about the situation. I think there's a great anticipation that we will participate in some manner. It would be a great disappointment in Liberia and elsewhere if we didn't. The exact form and shape of that participation, whether it's military or humanitarian or what, is going to await the outcome of those discussions and some assessment teams which are in the area now.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, someone sitting in the Midwest watching TV tonight has the question, Why would we spend the money and risk lives in Liberia? What's in it for us?

ARMITAGE: Well, first of all, a philosophical -- if you're a fan of John Donne's, there's no man is an island. We're all part of a whole, and any man's suffering would diminish us. And there's plenty of suffering to go around in Liberia. But historically, we do have a role in Liberia. It was established as a home for freed slaves, and we've had very close ties there. So it's time for us to step up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: More with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Back with more of our interview with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. How does the State Department decide to send American troops to a certain area when there are many regions with similar problems?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARMITAGE: I don't think there is a set criteria. Each situation is sui generis. In this case, we have some historic ties to Liberia. Also, the French have stood up in Cote d'Ivoire, the British in Sierra Leone. It's generally seen as our time to stand up in an area of historic interest to us in Liberia. Beyond that, I think that although we say we don't want to be the policeman of the world and et cetera, when 911 is dialed, it's the United States that has to answer the call.

VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned France. What sort of relationship -- I mean, how would you describe our relationship it today?

ARMITAGE: Well, it was quite neuralgic a couple of months ago. I think we're a little better off now. President Chirac, President Bush had a pretty good discussion at the G-8. And I don't think any of us have forgotten the recent unpleasantness, but we're going to get past it because we've got great interest, and our two peoples have a lot of work to do in the world.

VAN SUSTEREN: Does Liberia focus or play into this at all, in terms of helping the relationship or hurting it?

ARMITAGE: No, I don't think Liberia, per se. The French have stood up in Cote d'Ivoire to try to dampen down the violence there. And I think they set a good example, and we're going to probably do something like that in Liberia, but the final decision hasn't been made.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let's jump across to North Korea.

ARMITAGE: Sure.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, what about North Korea?

ARMITAGE: A bad situation. What about it?

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, what are we going to do about it, if anything?

ARMITAGE: Well, we're go to let diplomacy play out. We've been delighted with activities of China. They've taken a very robust leadership, and indeed leadership role in trying to bring the North Koreans to the table with the United States and with South Korea and Japan, as well as China. This is a noteworthy development and one that we want to encourage, but we're not in a hurry.

VAN SUSTEREN: But -- you say we're not in a hurry, but some people have said that North Korea is going to become the Wal-Mart of weapons of mass destruction.

ARMITAGE: Yes, I probably said that.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, maybe it's you I'm quoting. Wasn't that a good source? I mean, and it seems like there must be some timeline, where we better get -- we better make -- fish or cut bait on something.

ARMITAGE: You know, it's very bad policy for any U.S. official to put our government, our country in a cul-de-sac by having some artificial timeline. However, your basic premise that the North Koreans could be a proliferator and proliferate fissile material and weapons of mass destruction is a very real one. Hence, that's why the president announced in Poland a couple of months ago his proliferation security initiative, which has at its heart the ability of the international community to reach out and stop proliferation when it's seen either by air or at sea.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you satisfied that we can gather enough intelligence so we know exactly what North Korea is up to or is not up to?

ARMITAGE: I don't know that we'll ever know with 100 percent clarity what anyone is up to, but I noted that we gathered enough intelligence to be able to stop a North Korea ship several months ago on the way to Yemen with Scud missiles after they'd taken great pains to disguise both the cargo and the destination. So I think we're not as good as we need to be, but we're better than the North Koreans probably think we are.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, it makes a big difference -- or at least, I think so -- whether we get them before they can make these weapons or whether we get them after they have the ability to make these weapons.

ARMITAGE: Oh, of course.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do we know where they are in this continuum of making weapons of mass destruction?

ARMITAGE: We have a view on where they are. It's gained from intelligence, and we won't discuss it. But why don't we just take them at their word? They say they're reprocessing the spent fuel rods at Yongbyon, and generally, that's seen as in six or eight months giving them enough fissile material for a weapon or two.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of all of those countries -- Iran, Iraq -- I'll leave France out of it -- Liberia and North Korea, which one of those countries, you know, has the potential to keep you up at night?

ARMITAGE: For different reasons, they all keep all of us up at night. But North Korea and Iran are the ones that have the biggest potential to be more global in scope. And Liberia is, of course, a regional problem. But as I say, we have historical relations with them, and we need to step up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93579,00.html

Richard Armitage on Iran's Role in Iraq
August 01, 2003
Fox News
On the Record

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/957322/posts?page=8#8

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

"Judson Cox Asks: What If Islam Should Win?"

A couple of problems I(among other here) have with Judson Cox's premises.
1 It assumes that Islam is practiced the same in Morocco as in Bangladesh.
2 That all Muslims think the same.
3"We see a culture bent on destroying our nation, and eradicating Christianity and Judaism (as well as all other religions except Islam)."
If this were true I'd like to ask the writer why there were so many Jews living in Bagdhad, Damaascus. Why Jews were such a large part of the vairous goverments in Moorish Spain, Why so many Jews when kicked out of Christian Spain in 1492 went to live with the Ottoman Turks.
Why there are still Christians sects living in much of the middle east?

I would recomend the writer look here
The Evil Isn't Islam
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
July 30, 2002
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/437
For a start.

Thanks for the link to Daniel Pipes article.

Thanks for the pings

Israel not seen as preparing for attack on Iran
Report Section
Aug 3, 2003

ABU DHABI - Arab strategists do not see Israel as preparing for an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Strategists from such countries as Egypt and Jordan have concluded that Israel will rely on the United States to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. They said the U.S. military presence in neighboring Iraq provides Washington with unrivaled capability in destroying suspected Iranian weapons sites.

Many of the strategists dismissed Iran's nuclear program. They said Iran need larger facilities and remains far from nuclear weapons capability.

"Iran's nuclear reactor is too small to produce weapons," Sayed Ali Al Mungi, a physics professor at Egypt's at Ain Shams University and regarded as a leading nuclear strategist. "Yet Israel sees Iran as a direct threat. But I don't think Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran as it did to Iraq in 1981."

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1531.shtml

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

Good morning bump!

Nice interview with Armitage.

Thank you for all of your posts.

That was an excellent interview !

I haven't did the big ping recently, probably time to do so!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Here is something about Khomeini's Grandson:

Khomeini's Grandson Slaps Iran's Radicals, Leaves Qom to Najaf

Date : 7/29/03 Time : 11:46:07 AM

The grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, was reported Tuesday to have left the nation's holy city of Qom to live permanently in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf, apparently snubbing the radical clerics of current spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Grandson Hussein Khomeini, 46, is living at present at the Najaf house in which his grandfather lived for 13 years before returning to Tehran upon the overthrow of Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlavi in 1979, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper reported.

Hussein is the elder son of Khomeini's elder son Mustafa, who died of a heart attack a year before the Islamic revolution in Iran. Saddam Hussein had ordered Khomeini's house in Najaf closed since the outbreak of the 1980-1988 was with Iran. The house was reopened for Hussein Khomeini.

source www.jormall.com/main-pages/mag_index.cfm?cat=MiddleEast&artid=68

here is a historical extract about him from earlier times source http://www.ait-cec.com/jebhe8mesg/4090.html

"Mr. Ayat, who was one of the leaders of the Islamic Republican Party conspired to undermine the war effort against Iraq, so President Bani Sadr would not get the credit and become even more popular. The tape of the meeting of the Islamic Republican Party in which Ayat said that Pasdaran should not try to be effective and that the ammunition for the armed forces should be withheld... was apparently revealed to the public by Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson. If I recall correctly, his name is Hussein Khomeini, the son of Khomeini's eldest son Mojtaba who died about a year before the revolution in Iraq. Hussein Khomeini had taped the conversatin and gave it to Bani Sadr. Hussein was sentenced to death; he was held in prison until a few years ago. He has apparently been released on the condition not to get involved in politics. He was attacked by a group of Hezbollahi thugs when he was giving a talk in a Mashhad moque a few days before Bani Sadr was overthrown."

source http://www.ait-cec.com/jebhe8mesg/4090.html here is another from Nov 2002:

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/11/16/international1742EST0575.DTL

Khomeini's grandson, Hojjatoleslam Hassan Khomeini, a midlevel cleric who usually keeps a low profile and is in charge of his grandfather's shrine outside Tehran, joined students in their demand that the sentence be reversed, IRNA reported.

On Friday, Hassan Khomeini visited Aghajari's family to express his regret over the sentence, the Farsi-language daily Iran reported Saturday. It said Khomeini expressed hope that the judiciary will soon "solve the problem and make the right decision."

Hassan Khomeini rarely makes public statements, and his position is not considered to be influential."

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/11/16/international1742EST0575.DTL

and from IRNA:

Imam Khomeini's grandson rues death verdict for Aghajari:

Tehran, Nov 16, IRNA -- Hassan Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Revolution late Imam Khomeini's grandson, has expressed regret over a court's sentencing of outspoken university professor Hashem Aghajari to death, press said Saturday.

"During a meeting with Aghajari's family Friday night, Hojjatoleslam Hassan Khomeini expressed regret over the death verdict and cited it as disproportionate for a war disabled with a revolutionary record," the Persian daily Iran said.

"He also hoped that the Judiciary will soon tackle the problems caused by making an appropriate decision," the paper added."

http://www.irna.ir/en/tnews/021116123550.etn02.shtml

He has some ballast:August 2, 2001 Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson visits Cuba

"CUBA'S decision to resist and win and its prestige in the world is something that cannot be bought at any price," was one of the messages that Hojjatoleslam Hajj Seyes Hassan Khomeini left for the Cuban people a few hours before ending his six-day stay in Havana at the invitation of President Fidel Castro.

Grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—leader and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran—the distinguished guest accompanied Fidel and more than 1.2 million Havana residents on the 26th of July march to the U.S. Interest Office located in the Cuban capital, in response to U.S. aggression against the island.

Hojjatoleslam Hajj Seyed Hassan Khomeini was one of the Cuban president's hosts when the latter visited that Arab nation in May, and accompanied Castro to the house where his grandfather Iman Khomeini lived, where Fidel placed a wreath at the grave of the late political and religious leader.

As a result of this visit and others with the Khomeini family, Fidel invited him to Cuba.

http://www.granma.cu/INGLES/julio5/30ayat-i.html 1998: Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson Hasan Khomeini, defended his grandfather's legacy by demanding recognition of the principle of velayat-i faqih (rule of the religious leader); for him, it is fundamental to obey the faqih, and anyone who opposes him "will be taken care of by the Revolution." (Speech on the ninth anniversary of Khomeini's death, Iranian television, June 4, 1998)

source http://www.meforum.org/article/427

Here is something from 1998 that I anticipate that he do not subscribe to nowadays

: Tehran - With the rift widening between supporters and foes of Iran's president, the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urged Iranians toward unity on Thursday's anniversary of Khomeini's death.

Speaking to a crowd at the religious leader's gold-domed shrine outside the capital, Hassan Khomeini called President Mohammad Khatami the best proponent of his grandfather's teachings.

"Today, Khatami is the man who is providing the best assistance for the thoughts of Imam Khomeini and the current leadership of the country," the young Khomeini said. "Khatami is establishing the pillars of the thinking of the Imam in the society."

While appearing to voice support for the president, the younger Khomeini, also invoked a familiar theme of the Islamic revolution that Khatami has tried to soften: anti-Americanism.

"Whoever talks about relations with the U.S. government ... is far from the thinking of the Imam (Ayatollah Khomeini)." Invoking the words of his late grandfather, Hassan Khomeini declared: "Relations with the United States are as (impossible as) relations between the wolf and the lamb."

That brought the crowd to its feet in the revolution's battle cry of "death to America."

The crowd appeared to number in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands that came in previous years."

source: http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/boi/09150605_98.html

here is a picture of him http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/stand_up.htm

They said the U.S. military presence in neighboring Iraq provides Washington with unrivaled capability in destroying suspected Iranian weapons sites.

I find it hard to beleive that Israel would have such comfort in relying on the U.S. to prevent such an attack. I have no doubt that Israel WILL do what is necassary to protect their people and as shown in the past have the ability to determine when it is needed and how to stiffle such a concern.

"ABU DHABI - Arab strategists do not see Israel as preparing for an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Strategists from such countries as Egypt and Jordan have concluded that Israel will rely on the United States to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program."

This is quite a collection of countries.

Still reading these threads nearly daily DocterZIn, your efforts are well appreciated.

can you put me on your ping list?