|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:10 am Post subject: Iran's president suspected in killings overseas |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Jul. 2, 2005. 08:46 AM
Iran's president-elect suspected of links to 1989 Vienna killings
Three Kurds were shot dead in apartment
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=112
ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria — Austrian authorities have classified documents suggesting that Iran's president-elect may have played a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of an Iranian Kurdish leader and two associates in Vienna, a newspaper reported today.
Austria's Interior Ministry and the public prosecutor's office are investigating alleged evidence pointing to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's possible involvement in the attack, the daily Der Standard reported.
Officials were not immediately available to comment on the report today.
The allegations against Ahmadinejad come as some of the Americans who were taken captive in Iran in 1979 implicate the newly elected leader in the hostage crisis. Radical Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
In Austria, Green Party leader Peter Pilz told the newspaper he wants a warrant issued for the arrest of Ahmadinejad, who he alleged "stands under strong suspicion of having been involved.''
Pilz accused the hard-liner of planning the murders of Kurdish resistance leader Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou and two of his colleagues, all of whom were shot in the head at a Vienna apartment by Iranian commandos on July 13, 1989. A fourth victim survived the attack and was able to crawl out of the apartment and alert Austrian authorities.
Pilz told Der Standard his source was an unidentified Iranian journalist living in France, who he said also claimed to have evidence that former Iranian President Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani gave the order to have Ghassemlou killed. He did not elaborate.
He said Ahmadinejad, then a high-ranking member of Iran's elite revolutionary guard, allegedly traveled to the Austrian capital a few days before the slayings to deliver the murder weapons to the commandos who carried out the attack. Austrian authorities have said the gunmen apparently entered the alpine country with Iranian diplomatic passports.
Pilz said the journalist was contacted in 2001 by one of the alleged gunmen, described as a former revolutionary guard who has since died in a drowning accident.
"The descriptions of the informant contained details of the scene (of the slayings) which could only have come from someone who was there," Pilz said. He said the gunman's account, which included "very convincing" evidence implicating Ahmadinejad, was turned over at the time to Austria's federal counterterrorism agency.
Prague's Pravo newspaper reported similar allegations on Friday, quoting Hossein Jazdan Panah, an exiled Kurdish opposition member, as saying Ahmadinejad "was in charge of hit operations abroad" at the time of the Vienna killings.
Ghassemlou, the gunmen's principle target, was secretary-general of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan. His delegation had been in Vienna for secret talks with envoys from the Tehran regime.
The gunmen managed to slip out of Austria after the attack and were never arrested.
Pilz's Green Party pressed unsuccessfully in 1997 for the creation of a special parliamentary inquiry to look into a possible cover-up by Austrian officials, who it believes bowed to pressure from Iran's government and allowed the commandos to leave Austria, allegedly providing them a police escort to Vienna's international airport. Those allegations have never been proven.
On Friday, the United States said it would not be surprised if Ahmadinejad turns out to have been a main participant in the holding of American hostages in Tehran a quarter-century ago, although the Bush administration cautioned that it was still trying to determine the facts.
Five former U.S. hostages who saw Ahmadinejad in photographs or on television said they believe he was among the hostage-takers. One said he was interrogated by Ahmadinejad.
"I don't think it should be surprising to anyone if it turns out to be true," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in Washington. "This is a regime run by an unelected few that only allowed its hand-picked candidates to run in an election that was well short of free and fair.''
AP-ES-07-02-05 0623EDT |
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
guangho
Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Location: a spot full of deception, stupidity, and public micturation and thus unfit for longterm residency
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| if every single country in the middle east had free and open elections, ninety percent of them would vote for Islamofascist governments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the new Iranian president is the slime that we suspect him to be, our problems with that country just got infinitely more complicated.
One thing, however, is clear: Iran CAN'T go nuclear. More than ever, it must be stopped at ANY price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
>.  Newsflash: AmeriKa's current "leader" is an impeachable War Criminal & serves, even if only symbolically, as the head of a global crime syndicate directly responsible now for hundreds of thousands of deliberate deaths.
Assuming Iran's President-elect stands guilty as accused, his heinous crimes are hardly of the scale murdering thugs such as Bush, Cheney ... or Kissinger have over their illustrious careers so skillfully executed.
If you want to point fingers at people with blood on their hands, start by more carefully scrutinizing the killers a little closer to home.
Then again, if the accusations you suggest are true, maybe that's reason enough to move on from Iraq & start bombing the hell out of Iran  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
>. Newsflash: AmeriKa's current "leader" is an impeachable War Criminal & serves, even if only symbolically, as the head of a global crime syndicate directly responsible now for hundreds of thousands of deliberate deaths.
Assuming Iran's President-elect stands guilty as accused, his heinous crimes are hardly of the scale murdering thugs such as Bush, Cheney ... or Kissinger have over their illustrious careers so skillfully executed.
If you want to point fingers at people with blood on their hands, start by more carefully scrutinizing the killers a little closer to home.
Then again, if the accusations you suggest are true, maybe that's reason enough to move on from Iraq & start bombing the hell out of Iran |
This is not a competition between war criminals. They must all pay for their crimes against humanity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
>. Newsflash: AmeriKa's current "leader" is an impeachable War Criminal & serves, even if only symbolically, as the head of a global crime syndicate directly responsible now for hundreds of thousands of deliberate deaths.
Assuming Iran's President-elect stands guilty as accused, his heinous crimes are hardly of the scale murdering thugs such as Bush, Cheney ... or Kissinger have over their illustrious careers so skillfully executed.
If you want to point fingers at people with blood on their hands, start by more carefully scrutinizing the killers a little closer to home.
Then again, if the accusations you suggest are true, maybe that's reason enough to move on from Iraq & start bombing the hell out of Iran |
A guy who uses the Pro Klan American Free Press and Holocaust deniers like Jeff Rense calls the US "AmeriKa".
Furthermore taking down Saddam saved lives. Saddam killed 300,000 and would have killed many more if not taken down.
| Quote: |
Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a figure much higher than previously believed, a new study suggests.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shi'ite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality also extended into the capital.
The survey asked 1178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime, with 6.6 per cent saying yes.
The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population of 6.39 million people, and average household size of 6.9 people, to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule.
Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
The US-led occupation authority in Iraq has said at least 300,000 people were buried in mass graves in Iraq.
Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million people were executed. |
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/09/1070732211173.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
But nobody expects all the mass graves to be exhumed, and nobody expects to ever know the full number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime.
And Khomeni was a mass killer too.
| Quote: |
Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran'
By Christina Lamb, Diplomatic Correspondent
(Filed: 04/02/2001)
CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre - a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals.
Gruesome details are contained in the memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, one of the founders of the Islamic regime. He was once considered Khomeini's anointed successor, but was deposed for his outspokenness, and is now under house arrest in the holy city of Qom.
. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/04/wiran04.xml
The actions saved many more lives than were lost. Lives saved because of US actions count to.
And the stategic situation in the mideast was a threat to the US.
If the Bathists , the followers of Khomeni and the followers of Bin Laden don't want to give up their war then they US is justified in doing anything to force them to.
Those kind of political entities are the reason for the terror because it is their nature to teach hate and incite violence. They are illegitimate and they have no right to exist. And when the US targets them all the US is doing is praciticing self defense cause those political entities refuse to give up their war. The US has nothing to apologize for when it goes after them.
Anyway in my opinion the most important info in this article isn't about the Iranian president but about Austria- more evidence that old Europe isn't a reliable security partner. They have time and time again decided to respond to terror by appeasement. .
They would have let Saddam go free just like they let the terrorists go free.
On another subject
Jeff Rense is a fascist bigot - so are his supporters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Anyway in my opinion the most important info in this article isn't about the Iranian president but about Austria- more evidence that old Europe isn't a reliable security partner. They have time and time again decided to respond to terror by appeasement. . |
You mean you have bought the propaganda about "old Europe" vs "new Europe" spread by the Bush gang to enhance the idea about their "coalition of the willing"? Damn, I am surprised to hear that.
Anyway, in a few years, the U.S. may be the "old Europe" of the world, as coalitions with China, and her allies tidy up the world.
And, by the way, speaking of "reliable partners", time and again the U.S. has betrayed its allies. Oh, one of whom was Saddam, by the way. Maybe we can make use of this new president of Iran, and use him against Iraq- it would be a perfect conclusion to the cycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You mean you have bought the propaganda about "old Europe" vs "new Europe" spread by the Bush gang to enhance the idea about their "coalition of the willing"? Damn, I am surprised to hear that. |
Well the fact is that East Europe is a lot more friendly to the US than old Europe.
| Quote: |
Anyway, in a few years, the U.S. may be the "old Europe" of the world, as coalitions with China, and her allies tidy up the world. |
Well France and Germany and the rest of old Europe resent the US so much that they might very well side with China. We shall see.
| Quote: |
And, by the way, speaking of "reliable partners", time and again the U.S. has betrayed its allies. Oh, one of whom was Saddam, by the way. Maybe we can make use of this new president of Iran, and use him against Iraq- it would be a perfect conclusion to the cycle. |
The US support Saddam against cause he was fighting against another mass killer Ayatollah Khomeni.
The same way the US supported Stalin against Hitler.
The US had a legitmate reason , on the other hand Europe appeases mideast fascists is because
1) oil contracts and business - to make money
2) they are looking to define themselves as not the US and so they are friendly to nations that hate the US.
There is a big difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Furthermore taking down Saddam saved lives. Saddam killed 300,000 and would have killed many more if not taken down. |
I'm assuming you sincerely believe this. You're also likely aware the same rationalization was used for the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The ends always justify the means, eh Joo ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Furthermore taking down Saddam saved lives. Saddam killed 300,000 and would have killed many more if not taken down. |
I'm assuming you sincerely believe this. You're also likely aware the same rationalization was used for the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The ends always justify the means, eh Joo ??? |
Often they do
As for Hiroshima
It ended the war.
| Quote: |
Blood on Our Hands?
By Nicholas D. Kristof
The New York Times
Tuesday 05 August 2003
Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of one of the most morally contentious events of the 20th century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. And after 58 years, there's an emerging consensus: we Americans have blood on our hands.
There has been a chorus here and abroad that the U.S. has little moral standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because we were the first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?"
The traditional American position, that our intention in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was to end the war early and save lives, has been poked full of holes. Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary (except to establish American primacy in the postwar order) because, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without the atomic bombs.
Yet this emerging consensus is, I think, profoundly mistaken.
While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.
"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.
Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives."
The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."
Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.
"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.
Some argue that the U.S. could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.
But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb � on Tokyo.
One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news � but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and were able to prevail.
It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
