This is proof that they (Israeli rightists--an adverb I keep hearing on the radio) are not genocidal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bravo! Israel left this one alive!
This is proof that they (Israeli rightists--an adverb I keep hearing on the radio) are not genocidal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
GAZA: More facts omitted from the media conscience
I came across this article via pulsemedia.org.
Time's short so I have cropped out the rhetoric and just present a summary of facts:
"[...]on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website[:]
Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict,
Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side.
the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade.
The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at
The law is very clear.
July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled
Time's short so I have cropped out the rhetoric and just present a summary of facts:
"[...]on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website[:]
- Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles."
- According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March.
Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict,
- both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border.
Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side.
- The vote this past year was 164-to-7.
- Every year since 1989—in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3
- All twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border.
- The Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border.
- Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border.
- The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem.
the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade.
- Long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the blockade.
- The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described what was going on in Gaza [during the ceasefire] as a destruction of a civilization.
The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at
- Camp David,
- then under the Clinton parameters,
- and then in Taba,
The law is very clear.
July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled
- Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza.
- They have no title to Jerusalem.
- Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory.
- the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.
GAZA: Whose fault is it really? Statistics show!
The original report is published here.
Study conducted by: Nancy Kanwisher (MIT, professor), Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki (Tel Aviv University, professor)
Introduction:
"The mainstream media in the US and Israel places the blame squarely on Hamas. Indeed, a massive barrage of Palestinian rockets were fired into Israel in November and December, and ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this account leaves out crucial facts."
Methods and Materials
The authors asked two questions:
1) How did the current ceasefire broke into the current violence?
2) What are the historical precedences for disruption of ceasefire?
1) Who started the current war?
This figure shows the number of palestinian rockets fired in each month of 2008. This figure shows an escalation of rockets fired from Palestine in November. On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.
2) Which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations?
In the above figure, "conflict pauses" is defined as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side. Horizontal axis: durations of conflict pause.Vertical axis: the percentage of times from the Second Intifada. Black: when Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians; Gray: the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis; White: the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day. Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.
Their analysis shows:
79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian,
8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks
13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day.
This means that Israel is overwhelmingly in charge of escalating violence.
In addition:
Israel unilaterally interrupted 24/25 (96%) periods of peace lasting more than a week.
Israel unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.
This means that Israel's been more likely to interrupt longer peace periods, without provocation.
Conclusion
Study conducted by: Nancy Kanwisher (MIT, professor), Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki (Tel Aviv University, professor)
Introduction:
"The mainstream media in the US and Israel places the blame squarely on Hamas. Indeed, a massive barrage of Palestinian rockets were fired into Israel in November and December, and ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this account leaves out crucial facts."
Methods and Materials
The authors asked two questions:
1) How did the current ceasefire broke into the current violence?
Studied # of Palestinian rockets fired in 2008, and looked for the time point at which the rocket attack began.
2) What are the historical precedences for disruption of ceasefire?
Tallied the data from September 2000 to October 2008 and analyzed the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians by Israelis, and killings of Israelis by Palestinians, in the Second Intifada, based on the data from the widely-respected Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem.Results and Discussion
1) Who started the current war?
This figure shows the number of palestinian rockets fired in each month of 2008. This figure shows an escalation of rockets fired from Palestine in November. On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.2) Which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations?
In the above figure, "conflict pauses" is defined as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side. Horizontal axis: durations of conflict pause.Vertical axis: the percentage of times from the Second Intifada. Black: when Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians; Gray: the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis; White: the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day. Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.
Their analysis shows:
79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian,
8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks
13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day.
This means that Israel is overwhelmingly in charge of escalating violence.
In addition:
Israel unilaterally interrupted 24/25 (96%) periods of peace lasting more than a week.
Israel unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.
This means that Israel's been more likely to interrupt longer peace periods, without provocation.
Conclusion
A systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.
The lessons from these data are clear:
First, Hamas can indeed control the rockets, when it is in their interest. The data shows that ceasefires can work, reducing the violence to nearly zero for months at a time. (Thus nulling the myth that Hamas is under Syrian and Iranian influence.)
Second, if Israel wants to reduce rocket fire from Gaza, it should cherish and preserve the peace when it starts to break out, not be the first to kill.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Bush Stopped Israel from Bombing Iran!!
Is it the fear of international indictment for war crime that is making Cheney say things like Israel didn't have permission from the US to attack Gaza or that NYT is coming up with report of interviews conducted over the past 15 months to say: "Bush saved Iran from Israel"!
Read on ...
New Yourk Times : U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site
By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON — President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.
[...]
Israel’s effort to obtain the weapons, refueling capacity and permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran grew out of its disbelief and anger at an American intelligence assessment completed in late 2007 that concluded that Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier.
There were two specific objectives: to slow progress at Natanz and other known and suspected nuclear facilities, and keep the pressure on a little-known Iranian professor named Mohsen Fakrizadeh, a scientist described in classified portions of American intelligence reports as deeply involved in an effort to design a nuclear warhead for Iran.
[...]
Read on ...
New Yourk Times : U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site
By DAVID E. SANGER
[...]
The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.
This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months with current and former American officials, outside experts, international nuclear inspectors and European and Israeli officials. None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.
Several details of the covert effort have been omitted from this account, at the request of senior United States intelligence and administration officials, to avoid harming continuing operations.
The interviews also suggest that while Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran’s facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.
Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive covert operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show, having concluded that the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies were failing to slow the uranium enrichment efforts. Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.The covert American program, started in early 2008, includes renewed American efforts to penetrate Iran’s nuclear supply chain abroad, along with new efforts, some of them experimental, to undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies. It is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon.
Knowledge of the program has been closely held, yet inside the Bush administration some officials are skeptical about its chances of success, arguing that past efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program have been detected by the Iranians and have only delayed, not derailed, their drive to unlock the secrets of uranium enrichment.
[...]
Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama must decide whether the covert actions begun by Mr. Bush are worth the risks of disrupting what he has pledged will be a more active diplomatic effort to engage with Iran.
[...]Israel’s effort to obtain the weapons, refueling capacity and permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran grew out of its disbelief and anger at an American intelligence assessment completed in late 2007 that concluded that Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier.
That conclusion also stunned Mr. Bush’s national security team — and Mr. Bush himself, who was deeply suspicious of the conclusion, according to officials who discussed it with him.
[...]Attack Planning
Early in 2008, the Israeli government signaled that it might be preparing to take matters into its own hands. In a series of meetings, Israeli officials asked Washington for a new generation of powerful bunker-busters, far more capable of blowing up a deep underground plant than anything in Israel’s arsenal of conventional weapons. They asked for refueling equipment that would allow their aircraft to reach Iran and return to Israel. And they asked for the right to fly over Iraq.
Mr. Bush deflected the first two requests, pushing the issue off, but “we said ‘hell no’ to the overflights,” one of his top aides said. At the White House and the Pentagon, there was widespread concern that a political uproar in Iraq about the use of its American-controlled airspace could result in the expulsion of American forces from the country.
The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, declined several requests over the past four weeks to be interviewed about Israel’s efforts to obtain the weapons from Washington, saying through aides that he was too busy.
Last June, the Israelis conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that appeared to be a dry run for an attack on the enrichment plant at Natanz. When the exercise was analyzed at the Pentagon, officials concluded that the distances flown almost exactly equaled the distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear site.
“This really spooked a lot of people,” one White House official said. White House officials discussed the possibility that the Israelis would fly over Iraq without American permission. In that case, would the American military be ordered to shoot them down? If the United States did not interfere to stop an Israeli attack, would the Bush administration be accused of being complicit in it?
Admiral Mullen, traveling to Israel in early July on a previously scheduled trip, questioned Israeli officials about their intentions. His Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, argued that an aerial attack could set Iran’s program back by two or three years, according to officials familiar with the exchange. The American estimates at the time were far more conservative.
Yet by the time Admiral Mullen made his visit, Israeli officials appear to have concluded that without American help, they were not yet capable of hitting the site effectively enough to strike a decisive blow against the Iranian program.
The United States did give Israel one item on its shopping list: high-powered radar, called the X-Band, to detect any Iranian missile launchings. It was the only element in the Israeli request that could be used solely for defense, not offense.
Mr. Gates’s spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said last week that Mr. Gates — whom Mr. Obama is retaining as defense secretary — believed that “a potential strike on the Iranian facilities is not something that we or anyone else should be pursuing at this time.”A New Covert Push
[...]There were two specific objectives: to slow progress at Natanz and other known and suspected nuclear facilities, and keep the pressure on a little-known Iranian professor named Mohsen Fakrizadeh, a scientist described in classified portions of American intelligence reports as deeply involved in an effort to design a nuclear warhead for Iran.
[...]
In the end, success or failure may come down to how much pressure can be brought to bear on Mr. Fakrizadeh, whom the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate identifies, in its classified sections, as the manager of Project 110 and Project 111. According to a presentation by the chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, those were the names for two Iranian efforts that appeared to be dedicated to designing a warhead and making it work with an Iranian missile. Iranian officials say the projects are a fiction, made up by the United States.
[...]
The exact status of Mr. Fakrizadeh’s projects today is unclear. While the National Intelligence Estimate reported that activity on Projects 110 and 111 had been halted, the fear among intelligence agencies is that if the weapons design projects are turned back on, will they know?To make the New Year Happy:
Jewish Women Occupy Israeli Consulate in Toronto, Canada!
A Palestinian woman blocks an Israeli soldier's shot on protesting youth.
Boycott Israeli Goods
Call for UN resolution 337
Sing a Song
Encourage the MainStreamMedia's baby steps
(If it was Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, or Cuba acting in not quite as savage "self-defense", would the world have tolerated the onslaught for this long?!! What the HELL are we doing with our complicit silence? I am particularly ashamed of Canada's stance! But then again, we have a government that was about to be overthrown while they prorogued the parliament, cheating us of our democratic coalition ... people of earth, Canada is not a democracy at this moment!)
A Palestinian woman blocks an Israeli soldier's shot on protesting youth.
Boycott Israeli Goods
Call for UN resolution 337
Sing a Song
Encourage the MainStreamMedia's baby steps
(If it was Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, or Cuba acting in not quite as savage "self-defense", would the world have tolerated the onslaught for this long?!! What the HELL are we doing with our complicit silence? I am particularly ashamed of Canada's stance! But then again, we have a government that was about to be overthrown while they prorogued the parliament, cheating us of our democratic coalition ... people of earth, Canada is not a democracy at this moment!)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Gaza Cartoon Contest
By Wahyu Kokkang, Indonesia
By Abdolzahra Salehi, Iran
Iran's Cartoon House is holding the International Gaza Cartoon Contest (by email) and displaying the cartoons on its web site in support of the people of Palestine. (source:payvand)
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Gaza ...
What kind of a 'culture', that thrives on self-pity for historical subjugation, can do the same to other people and look in the eye of the history with self-righteousness?! The Jews are proud of their 'culture' and heritage ... so why don't they speak up, collectively, against the crimes against humanity conducted in their name??! There are a few though ...
A philosophical question: If the "an eye for an eye" holds--which it does in Judaism, would it be okey if Palestinians killed 285 Israelis in rocket attacks?! Or is an Israeli or an American eye more expensive and proportionate to the price of weapons they possess?!!
9-11'ish smoke ... in Gaza ...Merry Christmas;
and Happy Hannuka, the festival of light!
See Gene's ACTION ALERT!
and Anne's list of when/whom/what to Protest/Lobby/Boycott
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Education Jihad
These pictures taken in a village in the province of Fars (where Persepolis is).
These women (some younger, some old) are learning to read and write.
At the onset, Iran's revolutionary "Islamic Republic" prioritized three objectives (despite the Iran-Iraq imposed war)
Jihad-e Sazandegi (Development Jihad)
Jihad-e Keshavarzi ( Agriculture Jihad)
Jihad-e Amoozeshi (Educational Jihad)--which closed the university doors to 'cleanse' it ideologically, but also dispatched numerous literacy camps across the most rural areas in Iran !
These initiatives were in fact set in place by Shah's regime as facilitators of "modernization". Whereas the Shah has Sepahe Danesh (army of knowledge), Behdasht (health), Keshavarzi (agriculture) even Tarvije khane dari (house keeping), the Islamists replaced the word "Sepah" (army) with Jihad (which literally means 'trying hard', but connotes undeniable duty to God).
I wish to argue that Iran would not have reached the so called Shah-desired "Golden Gates of Modernization", unless under auspices of an "Islamic republic"! Iran is a traditional country which is not fanatic, but is deeply conservative.
I often ponder about my childhood memories of traveling with my mother to rural places where she would be setting up this or that "Sepah". My mother had studied Economics and she worked for the Department of Agriculture. Her job kept her away from home very often! She always boasted bout how she would be going to places where men didn't dare to go. And she took me along some times. I cannot say I am fond of memories of those uncomfortable Land Rover rides that would take me with mother to these dry and 'ugly' villages where I could not play with kids. Even if they were 'groomed' (precondition for me to be allowed to play--out of fear of contracting an illness), I didn't understand their language often! (Not everyone in Iran speaks Persian).
At that time, young men and women had to do a compulsory service in these various "Sepahs". Naturally girls would join these armies. I don't know the details of recruitment but if mother wasn't asleep now I would have asked her (i will add as I learn more from her or Father). From what I recall, there was a large number of 'city' girls, who were often disgruntled about having to "serve". I don't know why but my parents had a habit of taking me to work with them! It wasn't because they didn't have baby sitters as my Grandmother lived with us and she always had two workers in the house (young women from villages who would not eat with us, who would not know how to read and write, and whom my sweet little Papa drove to their houses on the weekends--and now i am refreshing my memories of how YOUNG I was when i learned what poverty looked like ...).
For me it was fun to go to Mother's office; as I got a lot of attention from these young colorful women whom I wished to grow up to look like. But, even at that young age I always wondered why there were SO MANY of them cluttering the corridors and roaming aimlessly ... whatever kind of a job was that?! I would fantasize that they were orphans and that my mother was housing them! (But it was Aunt who ran the orphanage and not Mother, and I knew that these women had to do with the "economy" which was mother's specialty!)
When revolution came, those 'pretty girls' disappeared. Their green shirts, curled hair, 70's Jeans turned into vague memories of Mother and Aunt talking about how X who would not be wearing but a mini skirt, had now turned into a vigilante, reminding my mother to cover her hair--which of course she (and Aunt) refused to do, as they refused to do a lot of other things to CONFORM into what they weren't--thus mother was fired and forced to retire at the age of 43 (but with only a fraction of her pension, as a PUNISHMENT for her non-Islamicism)! Aunt tried hard to get herself fired too, but she didn't succeed. So she just quit--having the luxury of being married to a surgeon ...
With urbanites like mother gone (or 'cleansed', as was the word for getting rid of non-revolutionaries), these modernizing functions fell in the hands of those whom at the beginning "we" (i.e. the non-revolutionary Taghooties) considered incompetent villagers! These villagers, however, were there for a cause ... were there to educate their own people, with whom they shared a far greater affinity. As sensitive as my 'royal' mother was to the 'cause' for her peasants (or someone else's), she would not have been authentic enough to be effective. Feudal arrogance is one of those personality traits that oozes out; it alienates. That arrogance is not replaced with the arrogance of the clergy--which is even more pompous than the feudal one--but because it operated under the umbrella of "godliness" it is not as alienating. (Keep in mind that in Iran there is often a large overlap between the Clergy and the Feudal!)
This is why when I see pictures like these, my heart fills with hope for a future that will not need another bloody revolution to 'set things right'. Way to go ...
These women (some younger, some old) are learning to read and write.
At the onset, Iran's revolutionary "Islamic Republic" prioritized three objectives (despite the Iran-Iraq imposed war)
Jihad-e Sazandegi (Development Jihad)
Jihad-e Keshavarzi ( Agriculture Jihad)
Jihad-e Amoozeshi (Educational Jihad)--which closed the university doors to 'cleanse' it ideologically, but also dispatched numerous literacy camps across the most rural areas in Iran !
These initiatives were in fact set in place by Shah's regime as facilitators of "modernization". Whereas the Shah has Sepahe Danesh (army of knowledge), Behdasht (health), Keshavarzi (agriculture) even Tarvije khane dari (house keeping), the Islamists replaced the word "Sepah" (army) with Jihad (which literally means 'trying hard', but connotes undeniable duty to God).
I wish to argue that Iran would not have reached the so called Shah-desired "Golden Gates of Modernization", unless under auspices of an "Islamic republic"! Iran is a traditional country which is not fanatic, but is deeply conservative.
I often ponder about my childhood memories of traveling with my mother to rural places where she would be setting up this or that "Sepah". My mother had studied Economics and she worked for the Department of Agriculture. Her job kept her away from home very often! She always boasted bout how she would be going to places where men didn't dare to go. And she took me along some times. I cannot say I am fond of memories of those uncomfortable Land Rover rides that would take me with mother to these dry and 'ugly' villages where I could not play with kids. Even if they were 'groomed' (precondition for me to be allowed to play--out of fear of contracting an illness), I didn't understand their language often! (Not everyone in Iran speaks Persian).
At that time, young men and women had to do a compulsory service in these various "Sepahs". Naturally girls would join these armies. I don't know the details of recruitment but if mother wasn't asleep now I would have asked her (i will add as I learn more from her or Father). From what I recall, there was a large number of 'city' girls, who were often disgruntled about having to "serve". I don't know why but my parents had a habit of taking me to work with them! It wasn't because they didn't have baby sitters as my Grandmother lived with us and she always had two workers in the house (young women from villages who would not eat with us, who would not know how to read and write, and whom my sweet little Papa drove to their houses on the weekends--and now i am refreshing my memories of how YOUNG I was when i learned what poverty looked like ...).
For me it was fun to go to Mother's office; as I got a lot of attention from these young colorful women whom I wished to grow up to look like. But, even at that young age I always wondered why there were SO MANY of them cluttering the corridors and roaming aimlessly ... whatever kind of a job was that?! I would fantasize that they were orphans and that my mother was housing them! (But it was Aunt who ran the orphanage and not Mother, and I knew that these women had to do with the "economy" which was mother's specialty!)
When revolution came, those 'pretty girls' disappeared. Their green shirts, curled hair, 70's Jeans turned into vague memories of Mother and Aunt talking about how X who would not be wearing but a mini skirt, had now turned into a vigilante, reminding my mother to cover her hair--which of course she (and Aunt) refused to do, as they refused to do a lot of other things to CONFORM into what they weren't--thus mother was fired and forced to retire at the age of 43 (but with only a fraction of her pension, as a PUNISHMENT for her non-Islamicism)! Aunt tried hard to get herself fired too, but she didn't succeed. So she just quit--having the luxury of being married to a surgeon ...
With urbanites like mother gone (or 'cleansed', as was the word for getting rid of non-revolutionaries), these modernizing functions fell in the hands of those whom at the beginning "we" (i.e. the non-revolutionary Taghooties) considered incompetent villagers! These villagers, however, were there for a cause ... were there to educate their own people, with whom they shared a far greater affinity. As sensitive as my 'royal' mother was to the 'cause' for her peasants (or someone else's), she would not have been authentic enough to be effective. Feudal arrogance is one of those personality traits that oozes out; it alienates. That arrogance is not replaced with the arrogance of the clergy--which is even more pompous than the feudal one--but because it operated under the umbrella of "godliness" it is not as alienating. (Keep in mind that in Iran there is often a large overlap between the Clergy and the Feudal!)
This is why when I see pictures like these, my heart fills with hope for a future that will not need another bloody revolution to 'set things right'. Way to go ...
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Wedding: Iranian Style
I am not much of a "wedding" person!
Like many Iranian girls, my parents were in rush to get me married when I was 21! I married an exceptional man; whom I barely knew; but on whom I had a crush since I was a kid. A man of charisma, courage and great intelligence; and 'proper heritage', which was the only condition set by my family.
But I had a condition of my own:
That I shall not have a wedding; and that I should remain 'free'.
Many years have passed; and I am still married, the man is getting more charismatic, more courageous and his intelligence and good name are always there, and I am almost unimaginably free!
To me the whole wedding ceremony is appalling; the dress, the rituals, the gifts, the kisses, the dissatisfactions, the gossip, the so called "romance on display". I could not go through with THAT. To my mother's disbelief, that her first child would be married off like a homeless, through her tears, and with nothing in my marriage contract but an "apple", to be given to me by my to-be husband, should the marriage not work, I left my Papa's house! Almost two decades later; I am still proud of what I did!
I invite you to share with me your opinions and your stories. We are all anonymous here, so I am curious to hear what people really think about the significance of marriage and particularly the 'wedding' ceremony in their lives, in the society, in the aesthetics of culture, in folk tradition and etc ...
I like to hear your stories!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? No Way!!!
Remember when Hillary promised to OBLITERATE IRAN? Well her's a memory refresher:
LA Times:
Watch a video of how she "evolved" into being an obliterating hothead on The Nation
And also read The intemperate candidate
LA Times:
The statement triggered alarm bells in the Persian Gulf, which would likely suffer the consequences of any war between Iran and the U.S. In a harshly worded editorial, the Saudi-based daily Arab News trashed Clinton's comment today as insane:
This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day.
The paper generally stays true to the line of the Saudi government, which is a key U.S. ally. But criticism of the remark also came from even friendlier quarters.
In the United Kingdom, which has been a steadfast U.S. ally in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as on the issue of Iran, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a ranking British diplomat, criticized Clinton's remark as gratuitous:
While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequence of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is not probably prudent ... in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country.
Watch a video of how she "evolved" into being an obliterating hothead on The Nation
And also read The intemperate candidate
Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran--which doesn't have nuclear weapons--on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to "totally obliterate them," in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn't the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Bill Maher: If you wanna make Religulous, then stop being a fanatic yourself!
I went to see Religulous last night. I like it when people poke fun at religion or at any other kind of Dogma. When you live in Canada, you develop a deep appreciation for political satire. Let's face it; it was two little comedians from Canada's little France that delivered the final shot to the miserably losing campaign of Sarah Palin who thought she was being congratulated by France's Sarkozy.
Now, returning to Religulous. What particularly pissed me off was the vulgar, self-righteous, and almost "religious" attitude of Bill Maher. Without offering any solid scientific evidence of his own, he poked fun at the pseudoscientoreligious illusions of others--whom he flatly called "crazies".
What was of particular interest to me was how like a fanatic IDIOT, he walked out on the Rabbi who was disputing the media-blown mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's "Israel Wiping". He did not even allow the orthodox rabbi finish his explanation of what the meaning of "wipe Israel off the map" was ... Bill Maher just got up in anger, saying "that's enough, I am out of here" walked off ... Interestingly, NONE of the 'religious' figures he interviewed behaved in such an utterly intolerant manner ... NONE of them walked off the set, DESPITE being cut off in mid sentence, being called "crazy" by Maher!
Well Mr Maher; you yourself seem to be subscribing to some zealot ideology!
You made fun of Jews, Muslims and Christians. I laughed occasionally.
You edited scenes of explosions and Palestinians chantings to make a case about how religion is the cause of destruction on earth. But, your documentary is SERIOUSLY ill-informed. You did not let the British Arabs or the Israeli Jews explain to you the difference between "political protest" and religious Disney theme show!
The fact that you treated the Jesus of Columbia (who fills his pockets) and the Peace-bearing Rabbi (who thinks Zionism is WRONG) as the same kind of lunatics, that you treated the innovations of the Jews who were trying to invent their ways around sabbat with the same disdain that you treated the Floridan Dancing Jesus company (whatever that zoo was); that you reduced the Palestinian/Iraqi plight to Islamist fanaticism; that you did not even make an intelligent argument in defense of evolution, in defense of homosexuality, in defense of freedom of speech, in defense of culture, in defense of diversity, in defense of respect, in defense of peace, and instead resorted to vulgar arrogance of cutting people off and beating your own boring nonsensical drum, is just a minor reflection on your shallow Hollywoodian brain!
I think, if you have that individual who had looked at the patterns of religious-brain activations take a look at yours; he will find the SAME kind of neural activity in your head. I am sure all that sex and drug you kept bragging about has not spared your brain cells.
Wanna bet?
The fanaticism of the so-called liberals disgusts me even more than that of Rush Limbaugh!
Now, returning to Religulous. What particularly pissed me off was the vulgar, self-righteous, and almost "religious" attitude of Bill Maher. Without offering any solid scientific evidence of his own, he poked fun at the pseudoscientoreligious illusions of others--whom he flatly called "crazies".
What was of particular interest to me was how like a fanatic IDIOT, he walked out on the Rabbi who was disputing the media-blown mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's "Israel Wiping". He did not even allow the orthodox rabbi finish his explanation of what the meaning of "wipe Israel off the map" was ... Bill Maher just got up in anger, saying "that's enough, I am out of here" walked off ... Interestingly, NONE of the 'religious' figures he interviewed behaved in such an utterly intolerant manner ... NONE of them walked off the set, DESPITE being cut off in mid sentence, being called "crazy" by Maher!
Well Mr Maher; you yourself seem to be subscribing to some zealot ideology!
You made fun of Jews, Muslims and Christians. I laughed occasionally.
You edited scenes of explosions and Palestinians chantings to make a case about how religion is the cause of destruction on earth. But, your documentary is SERIOUSLY ill-informed. You did not let the British Arabs or the Israeli Jews explain to you the difference between "political protest" and religious Disney theme show!
The fact that you treated the Jesus of Columbia (who fills his pockets) and the Peace-bearing Rabbi (who thinks Zionism is WRONG) as the same kind of lunatics, that you treated the innovations of the Jews who were trying to invent their ways around sabbat with the same disdain that you treated the Floridan Dancing Jesus company (whatever that zoo was); that you reduced the Palestinian/Iraqi plight to Islamist fanaticism; that you did not even make an intelligent argument in defense of evolution, in defense of homosexuality, in defense of freedom of speech, in defense of culture, in defense of diversity, in defense of respect, in defense of peace, and instead resorted to vulgar arrogance of cutting people off and beating your own boring nonsensical drum, is just a minor reflection on your shallow Hollywoodian brain!
I think, if you have that individual who had looked at the patterns of religious-brain activations take a look at yours; he will find the SAME kind of neural activity in your head. I am sure all that sex and drug you kept bragging about has not spared your brain cells.
Wanna bet?
The fanaticism of the so-called liberals disgusts me even more than that of Rush Limbaugh!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Fabrication of Nuclear Weapons Evidence Against Iran
Gareth Porter reports :
Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated!
Well that is not a surprise is it? I mean, weren't the evidence about Saddam's WMD fabricated?
Here's the Borpter's story: I reproduce it entirely with my own emphasis.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained evidence suggesting that documents which have been described as technical studies for a secret Iranian nuclear weapons-related research program may have been fabricated.
The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source -- most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents.
The new evidence of possible fraud has increased pressure within the IAEA secretariat to distance the agency from the laptop documents, according to a Vienna-based diplomatic source close to the IAEA, who spoke to RAW STORY on condition of anonymity.
The laptop documents include what the IAEA has described in a published report as technical drawings of efforts to redesign the nosecone of the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile “to accommodate a nuclear warhead.” The documents are also said to include studies on the use of a high explosive detonation system, drawings of a shaft apparently to be used for nuclear tests, and studies on a bench-scale uranium conversion facility.
These technical papers, along with some correspondence related to the alleged secret Iranian program -- referred to by the IAEA as “alleged studies” -- have been the primary basis during 2008 for the insistence by the US-led international coalition pushing for sanctions against Iran that the Iranian case must be kept going in the United Nations Security Council.
Handwritten Notes
At the center of the internal IAEA struggle is an Iranian firm named Kimia Maadan, which is portrayed in the documents as responsible for studies on a uranium conversion facility, called the “green salt” project, as part of the alleged nuclear weapons program under the Iranian Ministry of Defense.
According to a February 2006 Washington Post article, the United States and its allies believe that Kimia Maadan is a front for the Iranian military.
One of the communications included in the laptop documents – a letter allegedly sent to Kimia Maadan from an unnamed Iranian engineering firm in May 2003 – is at the center of the authenticity argument.
This letter is described in the May 26, 2008 IAEA report as “a one page annotated letter of May 2003 in Farsi.” According to a US source who has been briefed on the matter, the letter has handwritten notes on it which refer to studies on the redesign of a missile reentry vehicle.
Last January, however, Iran turned over to the IAEA a copy of the same May 2003 letter with no handwritten notes on it. This was confirmed by the director of the IAEA Safeguards Department, Olli Heinonen, during a February briefing for member states. Heinonen referred to “correspondence” related to Kimia Maadan that is “identical to that provided by Iran, with the addition of handwritten notes.”
Notes on the Heinonen briefing, compiled by unnamed diplomats who attended it, were posted on the website of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The copy of the letter without the handwritten notes was part of a larger collection of documentation concerning Kimia Maadan provided to IAEA by Iran in response to a request for an explanation of that firm’s role in the management of the Iranian Gchine uranium mine.
After the IAEA received the copy of the letter without notes from Iran, some officials began pushing for an acknowledgment by the Agency that there were serious questions about the whether the laptop documents were fabricated, according to the Vienna-based source close to the IAEA.
“There was an effort to point out that the Agency isn’t in a position to authenticate the documents,” said the source.
Heinonen and other IAEA Safeguards Department officials have continued, however, to defend the credibility of the document in question.
According to an American source briefed on the dispute, the defenders of the authenticity of the version of the letter with the handwritten notes say that the appearance of the clean copy can be attributed to Kimia Maadan making multiple copies of the original which have been circulated to various staff members.
Only an Ore-processing Plant
Further evidence damaging to the credibility of the letter and the handwritten notes was provided to the atomic energy watchdog last January by the Iranian government. According to Iran, Kimia Maadan was not working for the Defense Ministry but for the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).
The new Iranian documentation, described in the February 22, 2008 IAEA report, proved to IAEA’s satisfaction that the Kimia Maadan Company had been created in May 2000 solely to carry out a project to design, procure and install equipment for an ore processing plant.
The documents also showed that the core staff of Kimia Maadan was able to undertake the work on ore processing only because the nuclear agency had provided it with the technical drawings and reports as the basis for the contract.
“Information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the agency,” the IAEA concluded.
Marie Harff, a spokesperson for the CIA, declined to comment.
Additional Doubts About the Letter
Other questions surround the letter with the handwritten notes. The subject of the letter was Kimia Maadan's inquiry to the engineering firm about procurement of a programmable logic control (PLC) system, according to the IAEA's May 26 report.
A PLC system is one of many types of technology that the United States has long sought to deny to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Iran had informed the IAEA even before 2006 that Kimia Maadan had assisted the AEOI in getting around that denial strategy by procuring various technologies for the planned uranium conversion facility at Esfahan.
Given that Kimia Maadan’s role in procurement for the conversion facility was both unrelated to its technical work for the AEOI and part of a covert effort to get around U.S. restrictions, it seems unlikely that they would have made multiple copies of the letter. Even if multiple copies were made, the firm would certainly have taken normal security precautions for a document of that type, marking each copy with a number or name.
A security procedure of that kind would have identified any missing copies. However, this was not the case with the 2003 letter. The United States, as its reason for refusing to provide a copy of the document to Iran, has argued that it would allow Iranian security personnel to identify the person who wrote the notes from their handwriting, according to the US source who has been briefed on the matter.
Another problem with the handwritten letter is the absence of any logical link between the subject of the letter and the alleged work on redesign of the missile. PLC systems, which are used for automation of industrial processes, such as control of machinery on factory assembly lines, would have been irrelevant to the technical studies on redesigning the Shahab-3 missile.
Other Documents Also Under Suspicion
Other documents from the laptop collection, allegedly showing that Kimia Maadan was working closely with the team trying to redesigning the Shahab-3 missile, have also come under suspicion of fraud.
The IAEA’s May 2008 report describes a flowsheet under Kimia Maadan’s name, showing a “process for bench scale conversion of uranium oxide” to UF4 (uranium tetraflouride), also known as “green salt.” The project number shown in the disputed documents for the “green salt” subproject is 5.13.
However, Heinonen stated that the number given to the Gchine subproject was 5.15. According to the documents obtained by the IAEA from Iran last January, this was the number of the uranium ore processing project that was assigned in 1999 by the civilian AEOI, not by the Iranian Defense Ministry. This would mean that the author of the document used the project number 5.13 for the “green salt” subproject based on their knowledge of the AEOI numbering system and not on a military designation.
In his February 25 briefing, Heinonen additionally referred to an alleged letter sent by Kimia Maadan – as manager of three subprojects – to the “missile re-entry vehicle” project, asking for a “technical opinion” on the plans for equipment for a proposed “green salt” conversion facility.
However, it is difficult to understand why the team working on redesigning the missile would be asked for a “technical opinion” on equipment for a uranium conversion facility.
A spokesperson for the State Department’s Office of Arms Control and International Security, which is responsible for IAEA affairs, said in an e-mail that specialists in the office “aren’t able to comment” on the subject of the intelligence documents now being considered by the IAEA.
The IAEA also declined to comment.
Toward a Showdown on the Contradictions
As the contradictions between the new Iranian evidence and the laptop documents relating to Kimia Maadan became apparent, some IAEA officials argued that the Agency should distance itself from what they now suspect are forgeries. Despite that argument, the May 2008 report contained no reference to the issue.
The next IAEA report, due out in mid-November, will include the first response by the Agency to a confidential 117-page Iranian critique of the laptop documents, according to the Vienna-based source.
In the past, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has shown an ability to face off with the United States when evidence has been called into doubt. The infamous “Niger forgeries” – documents that purported to show an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the purchase of uranium oxide – were used by the White House as part of its case for war against Iraq.
In response, ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council in December 2002, over three months before the US launched the Iraq War, warning that he believed the documents were forgeries and should not be cited as evidence of Iraqi intention to obtain nuclear weapons.
When ElBaradei received no response from the Bush administration, he went public to debunk the Niger forgeries. In a speech at the United Nations in March 2003, he declared that the IAEA, after “thorough analysis,” had concluded that the documents alleging the purchase of uranium by Iraqi from Niger “are in fact not authentic.”
The anomalies that have been revealed by the Iranian documents obtained from Iran last January may not be as obvious as the ones that made it clear the Niger documents were fabrications. Nevertheless, they appear to be red flags for IAEA analysts concerned with the issue.
Suspicion has surrounded the “alleged studies” documents from the beginning, because the United States has refused to say who brought the collection to US intelligence four years ago.
Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian who has authored numerous foreign policy analyses and is the author of the book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. In a 2006 article in the American Prospect, he revealed Iran's spurned diplomatic outreach to the Bush Administration in 2003.
Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated!
Well that is not a surprise is it? I mean, weren't the evidence about Saddam's WMD fabricated?
Here's the Borpter's story: I reproduce it entirely with my own emphasis.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained evidence suggesting that documents which have been described as technical studies for a secret Iranian nuclear weapons-related research program may have been fabricated.
The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source -- most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents.
The new evidence of possible fraud has increased pressure within the IAEA secretariat to distance the agency from the laptop documents, according to a Vienna-based diplomatic source close to the IAEA, who spoke to RAW STORY on condition of anonymity.
The laptop documents include what the IAEA has described in a published report as technical drawings of efforts to redesign the nosecone of the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile “to accommodate a nuclear warhead.” The documents are also said to include studies on the use of a high explosive detonation system, drawings of a shaft apparently to be used for nuclear tests, and studies on a bench-scale uranium conversion facility.
These technical papers, along with some correspondence related to the alleged secret Iranian program -- referred to by the IAEA as “alleged studies” -- have been the primary basis during 2008 for the insistence by the US-led international coalition pushing for sanctions against Iran that the Iranian case must be kept going in the United Nations Security Council.
Handwritten Notes
At the center of the internal IAEA struggle is an Iranian firm named Kimia Maadan, which is portrayed in the documents as responsible for studies on a uranium conversion facility, called the “green salt” project, as part of the alleged nuclear weapons program under the Iranian Ministry of Defense.
According to a February 2006 Washington Post article, the United States and its allies believe that Kimia Maadan is a front for the Iranian military.
One of the communications included in the laptop documents – a letter allegedly sent to Kimia Maadan from an unnamed Iranian engineering firm in May 2003 – is at the center of the authenticity argument.
This letter is described in the May 26, 2008 IAEA report as “a one page annotated letter of May 2003 in Farsi.” According to a US source who has been briefed on the matter, the letter has handwritten notes on it which refer to studies on the redesign of a missile reentry vehicle.
Last January, however, Iran turned over to the IAEA a copy of the same May 2003 letter with no handwritten notes on it. This was confirmed by the director of the IAEA Safeguards Department, Olli Heinonen, during a February briefing for member states. Heinonen referred to “correspondence” related to Kimia Maadan that is “identical to that provided by Iran, with the addition of handwritten notes.”
Notes on the Heinonen briefing, compiled by unnamed diplomats who attended it, were posted on the website of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
The copy of the letter without the handwritten notes was part of a larger collection of documentation concerning Kimia Maadan provided to IAEA by Iran in response to a request for an explanation of that firm’s role in the management of the Iranian Gchine uranium mine.
After the IAEA received the copy of the letter without notes from Iran, some officials began pushing for an acknowledgment by the Agency that there were serious questions about the whether the laptop documents were fabricated, according to the Vienna-based source close to the IAEA.
“There was an effort to point out that the Agency isn’t in a position to authenticate the documents,” said the source.
Heinonen and other IAEA Safeguards Department officials have continued, however, to defend the credibility of the document in question.
According to an American source briefed on the dispute, the defenders of the authenticity of the version of the letter with the handwritten notes say that the appearance of the clean copy can be attributed to Kimia Maadan making multiple copies of the original which have been circulated to various staff members.
Only an Ore-processing Plant
Further evidence damaging to the credibility of the letter and the handwritten notes was provided to the atomic energy watchdog last January by the Iranian government. According to Iran, Kimia Maadan was not working for the Defense Ministry but for the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).
The new Iranian documentation, described in the February 22, 2008 IAEA report, proved to IAEA’s satisfaction that the Kimia Maadan Company had been created in May 2000 solely to carry out a project to design, procure and install equipment for an ore processing plant.
The documents also showed that the core staff of Kimia Maadan was able to undertake the work on ore processing only because the nuclear agency had provided it with the technical drawings and reports as the basis for the contract.
“Information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the agency,” the IAEA concluded.
Marie Harff, a spokesperson for the CIA, declined to comment.
Additional Doubts About the Letter
Other questions surround the letter with the handwritten notes. The subject of the letter was Kimia Maadan's inquiry to the engineering firm about procurement of a programmable logic control (PLC) system, according to the IAEA's May 26 report.
A PLC system is one of many types of technology that the United States has long sought to deny to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Iran had informed the IAEA even before 2006 that Kimia Maadan had assisted the AEOI in getting around that denial strategy by procuring various technologies for the planned uranium conversion facility at Esfahan.
Given that Kimia Maadan’s role in procurement for the conversion facility was both unrelated to its technical work for the AEOI and part of a covert effort to get around U.S. restrictions, it seems unlikely that they would have made multiple copies of the letter. Even if multiple copies were made, the firm would certainly have taken normal security precautions for a document of that type, marking each copy with a number or name.
A security procedure of that kind would have identified any missing copies. However, this was not the case with the 2003 letter. The United States, as its reason for refusing to provide a copy of the document to Iran, has argued that it would allow Iranian security personnel to identify the person who wrote the notes from their handwriting, according to the US source who has been briefed on the matter.
Another problem with the handwritten letter is the absence of any logical link between the subject of the letter and the alleged work on redesign of the missile. PLC systems, which are used for automation of industrial processes, such as control of machinery on factory assembly lines, would have been irrelevant to the technical studies on redesigning the Shahab-3 missile.
Other Documents Also Under Suspicion
Other documents from the laptop collection, allegedly showing that Kimia Maadan was working closely with the team trying to redesigning the Shahab-3 missile, have also come under suspicion of fraud.
The IAEA’s May 2008 report describes a flowsheet under Kimia Maadan’s name, showing a “process for bench scale conversion of uranium oxide” to UF4 (uranium tetraflouride), also known as “green salt.” The project number shown in the disputed documents for the “green salt” subproject is 5.13.
However, Heinonen stated that the number given to the Gchine subproject was 5.15. According to the documents obtained by the IAEA from Iran last January, this was the number of the uranium ore processing project that was assigned in 1999 by the civilian AEOI, not by the Iranian Defense Ministry. This would mean that the author of the document used the project number 5.13 for the “green salt” subproject based on their knowledge of the AEOI numbering system and not on a military designation.
In his February 25 briefing, Heinonen additionally referred to an alleged letter sent by Kimia Maadan – as manager of three subprojects – to the “missile re-entry vehicle” project, asking for a “technical opinion” on the plans for equipment for a proposed “green salt” conversion facility.
However, it is difficult to understand why the team working on redesigning the missile would be asked for a “technical opinion” on equipment for a uranium conversion facility.
A spokesperson for the State Department’s Office of Arms Control and International Security, which is responsible for IAEA affairs, said in an e-mail that specialists in the office “aren’t able to comment” on the subject of the intelligence documents now being considered by the IAEA.
The IAEA also declined to comment.
Toward a Showdown on the Contradictions
As the contradictions between the new Iranian evidence and the laptop documents relating to Kimia Maadan became apparent, some IAEA officials argued that the Agency should distance itself from what they now suspect are forgeries. Despite that argument, the May 2008 report contained no reference to the issue.
The next IAEA report, due out in mid-November, will include the first response by the Agency to a confidential 117-page Iranian critique of the laptop documents, according to the Vienna-based source.
In the past, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has shown an ability to face off with the United States when evidence has been called into doubt. The infamous “Niger forgeries” – documents that purported to show an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the purchase of uranium oxide – were used by the White House as part of its case for war against Iraq.
In response, ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council in December 2002, over three months before the US launched the Iraq War, warning that he believed the documents were forgeries and should not be cited as evidence of Iraqi intention to obtain nuclear weapons.
When ElBaradei received no response from the Bush administration, he went public to debunk the Niger forgeries. In a speech at the United Nations in March 2003, he declared that the IAEA, after “thorough analysis,” had concluded that the documents alleging the purchase of uranium by Iraqi from Niger “are in fact not authentic.”
The anomalies that have been revealed by the Iranian documents obtained from Iran last January may not be as obvious as the ones that made it clear the Niger documents were fabrications. Nevertheless, they appear to be red flags for IAEA analysts concerned with the issue.
Suspicion has surrounded the “alleged studies” documents from the beginning, because the United States has refused to say who brought the collection to US intelligence four years ago.
Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian who has authored numerous foreign policy analyses and is the author of the book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. In a 2006 article in the American Prospect, he revealed Iran's spurned diplomatic outreach to the Bush Administration in 2003.
Is Obama Just Window Dressing Zionism?
Kam Zarrabi raises alarm about the selection of Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross in Obama's administration:
Ever since his selection as Obama's Chief of Staff, dissident and anti-war web sites have been flushing out Emanuel's family background, personal history and political record, alarmed that he is among the most hawkish pro Israel activists in the US Congress, has Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli army. The Arab world, meantime, is now dismayed that hopes for a more compassionate or at least a more balanced new American administration under Barack Hussein Obama have been quite premature. Some observers and critics go as far as claiming that an Obama administration will prove to be more pro Israel than the Zionist-Neocon run Bush administration.
What has been equally alarming is the great likelihood that another zealot Zionist and pro Israel activist, Dennis Ross, will be Obama's advisor and front man in dealing with the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian issues.
No one could deny that Mr. Obama's appointees with regard to his foreign policy objectives in the Middle East have extreme pro Israel profiles and track record. At the same time, setting prejudice aside, neither Dennis Ross nor Rahm Emanuel could be classified as political ignoramuses bent on wreaking havoc for the sake of some blind passion for the Jewish state; they must know as much as the best of us, and perhaps more.
So, what is it that we critics know and Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross must also know?
read more ...
Ever since his selection as Obama's Chief of Staff, dissident and anti-war web sites have been flushing out Emanuel's family background, personal history and political record, alarmed that he is among the most hawkish pro Israel activists in the US Congress, has Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli army. The Arab world, meantime, is now dismayed that hopes for a more compassionate or at least a more balanced new American administration under Barack Hussein Obama have been quite premature. Some observers and critics go as far as claiming that an Obama administration will prove to be more pro Israel than the Zionist-Neocon run Bush administration.
What has been equally alarming is the great likelihood that another zealot Zionist and pro Israel activist, Dennis Ross, will be Obama's advisor and front man in dealing with the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian issues.
No one could deny that Mr. Obama's appointees with regard to his foreign policy objectives in the Middle East have extreme pro Israel profiles and track record. At the same time, setting prejudice aside, neither Dennis Ross nor Rahm Emanuel could be classified as political ignoramuses bent on wreaking havoc for the sake of some blind passion for the Jewish state; they must know as much as the best of us, and perhaps more.
So, what is it that we critics know and Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross must also know?
- The power and influence of the Israel lobby over any American administration, whether Democrat or Republican, cannot be denied, over exaggerated, ignored or neutralized anytime soon.
- Sentiment for Israel is so deeply entrenched within the American consciousness that any open criticism of Israel or its policies is viewed with suspicions of bigotry and anti-Semitism.
- Being a Moslem or showing any sympathy toward the Islamic world, especially by any politician seeking a position or attempting to implement national policies is tantamount to political suicide.
- Israel can, if its leaders so choose, rationalize and ultimately legitimize any act of aggression, as it has numerous times, in the name of self-defense, all with impunity from international condemnations, as long as it can find sanctuary under the protection of the United States.
- Any Israeli aggression in the Middle East will automatically implicate and involve the United States; the Israeli leadership is counting on that, and the American administration is fully aware of all the ramifications thereto.
read more ...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Jane Stillwater's Travel Report from Iran
My Friend, Coffee Messiah pointed me to a wonderful travel-log by Jane Stillwater who has just returned from Iran ... Look it up! (Jane, sorry for borrowing some of your pictures without your permission. Firstly, because I think you look fabulous against the Iranian background; and second because I wanted to give you a bit of advertisement, learning that the army didn't embed you in Iraq on account of your blog's low readership. You have a lovely blog!)
Here's what the Times of said about her last year:
April 11, 2007
With flak jacket and blog, a hippy grandmother seeks truth in Baghdad.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Anaar: Pomegranate
Anaar is considered a "heavenly fruit" in Iran and often symbolizes the autumn. Tehran is hosting an Anaar Festival, celebrating the season and focusing on the medical, mythical, poetic and artistic significance of Anaar in Persian culture.
For those in Iran: the festival is hosted at the "Nature Cultural center", second Tehran-Pars Sq., Phone: (Code: 011-98-21)77-35-4735.
When my husband heard about this post, he (whose memory leaves me in AWE) started reciting a beautiful poem about "Anaar" by Manuchehri Damghani, 11 century AD, who's known for painterly-poems about the nature. But my language abilities are not sophisticated enough to do justice to the poem. Instead, to share the festive spirit of the season, I have borrowed these pictures from internet.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
America: Congratulations!
"tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope."
This is your greatest contribution to the world: This nuclear attack on the core of your history!
You have redeemed yourself of the charge of racism; and in doing so, you have also broken the chains of self-hate for the children of the lesser god: the one who are not "white"!
This is the revolution of hope against cynicism.
I wish for you to make it work.
What I like most in your new president is his self-confidence together with his humility. His ego is as big as his ideals; which are inclusive of your nation and also of the world. Thus, while encompassing the ego of America they also divest it of the erosive American arrogance which has been plaguing the world for the past half century.
Because you are such a young, agile and flexible nation; and because you proved how sick of Bushism you are, and because Obama won I love you all this morning!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Milad Tower
Borj-e Milad (aka Milad Tower, Persian: برج میلاد ) (Persian: birth) is the tallest tower in Iran. Built in between the Shahrak-e Gharb and Gisha districts of Tehran, it stands 435 m (1,427 ft) high from base to tip of the antenna. The head consists of a large pod with 12 floors, the roof of which is at 315 m (1,033 ft). Below this is a staircase and elevators to reach the area. Milad tower is the fourth tallest tower in the world after the CN Tower in Toronto, Ostankino Tower in Moscow, and the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai. It is also currently 12th tallest freestanding structure in the world.
Milad tower is part of The Tehran International Trade and Convention Center. Scheduled for completion in late 2009, the project includes the Milad telecommunication tower offering restaurants at the top with spectacular views of Tehran, a five-star hotel, a convention center, a world trade center, and an IT park (to be completed by March 2007). The complex seeks to respond to the needs of business in the globalized world of the 21st century by offering facilities combining trade, information, communication, convention and accommodation all in one place.
The complex features a parking area of 27,000 square meters, a large computer and telecommunication unit, a cultural and scientific unit, a commercial transaction center, a temporary showroom for exhibiting products, a specialized library, an exhibition hall and an administrative unit. Milad Tower has an octagonal base, symbolizing traditional Persian architecture
Sources:
Wikipedia
Construction contractors
virtual tour
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Do You Like Music?
Then visit Ostaad Hassan Kassai's almost magical performance on the Ney--a Persian wind instrument. It consists of a straw (ney) with finger-holes. Ney has a unique sound (hear for yourself by listening to Master Kassai play it), signifying solitude and melancholy.
If you like that, you can buy some CDs here, on Music Box.
If you like that, you can buy some CDs here, on Music Box.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Israel Gets Real on Iran
Tony Karon:
The distinction between the apocalyptic rhetoric Israeli leaders use publicly in relation to Iran, and the more pragmatic view they hold among themselves on how to deal with Tehran and its nuclear program, has long been clear to anyone paying very close attention. In short, it’s clear that many of Israel’s key leaders don’t believe Iran is a suicidal ideologically-crazed regime that would risk destroying itself in order to destroy Israel, and therefore that even a nuclear-armed Iran would not be an “existential threat” to Israel, although clearly it would present a major strategic challenge by fundamentally reordering the balance of military force in the region. And of late, some of them have begun a gingerly but very clear retreat from the idea that Israel will have to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities if no one else does — President Shimon Peres has said as much, publicly, and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has echoed that position.
(Read more)
The distinction between the apocalyptic rhetoric Israeli leaders use publicly in relation to Iran, and the more pragmatic view they hold among themselves on how to deal with Tehran and its nuclear program, has long been clear to anyone paying very close attention. In short, it’s clear that many of Israel’s key leaders don’t believe Iran is a suicidal ideologically-crazed regime that would risk destroying itself in order to destroy Israel, and therefore that even a nuclear-armed Iran would not be an “existential threat” to Israel, although clearly it would present a major strategic challenge by fundamentally reordering the balance of military force in the region. And of late, some of them have begun a gingerly but very clear retreat from the idea that Israel will have to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities if no one else does — President Shimon Peres has said as much, publicly, and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has echoed that position.
(Read more)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Eye Candy!
Okey she is not my favorite actor. In fact she acts quite miserably!
(sorry for not posting anything meaningful yet; I will soon!)
(sorry for not posting anything meaningful yet; I will soon!)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)