Whoops We've Done it Again: We're in bed w/ Iran

by **proldic** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:42 pm

October Surprise! The Hostage Rescue Attempt In Iran, April 24-25, 1980 NEW IRANIAN PRESIDENT IDENTIFIED AS HOSTAGE TAKER OF 1979 Is this the new Iranian President? Iranians living in America confirm that this new President WAS there! AP Reports: Former American Hostages Claim Iran's New Leader Held Them Captive Published: June 29, 2005 8:25 PM ET updated Thursday 11:00 AM ET SAVANNAH, Ga. The White House said Thursday it is taking seriously the allegations of some former American hostages who say the believe that Iran's president-elect was one of their captors in the late 1970s. "I think the news reports and statements from several former American hostages raise many questions about his past," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of the Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "We take them very seriously and we are looking into them to better understand the facts." A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect. Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion -- the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors. "This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Ga. "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him." Scott and former hostages David Roeder, William J. Daugherty and Don A. Sharer said on Wednesday they have no doubt Ahmadinejad, 49, was one of the hostage-takers. A fifth ex-hostage, Kevin Hermening, said he reached the same conclusion after looking at photos. Not everyone agrees. Former hostage and retired Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer said he doesn't recognize Ahmadinejad, by face or name, as one of his captors. Several former students among the hostage-takers also said Ahmadinejad did not participate. And a close aide to Ahmadinejad denied the president-elect took part in the seizure of the embassy or in holding Americans hostage. The United States broke off ties with Iran after militant students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days to protest Washington's refusal to hand over Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for trial. The aide, Meisan Rowhani, told the AP from Tehran that Ahmadinejad was asked during recent private meetings if he had a role in the hostage taking. Rowhani said he replied, "No. I believed that if we do that the world will swallow us." Scott and Roeder both said they were sure Ahmadinejad was present while they were interrogated. "I can absolutely guarantee you he was not only one of the hostage-takers, he was present at my personal interrogation," Roeder said in an interview from his home in Pinehurst, N.C. Daugherty, who worked for the CIA in Iran and now lives in Savannah, said a man he's convinced was Ahmadinejad was among a group of ringleaders escorting a Vatican representative during a visit in the early days of the hostage crisis. "It's impossible to forget a guy like that," Daugherty said. "Clearly the way he acted, the fact he gave orders, that he was older, most certainly he was one of the ringleaders." Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran, was declared winner Wednesday of Iran's presidential runoff election, defeating one of Iran's best-known statesmen, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani. The stunning upset put conservatives firmly in control of all branches of power in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Scott, Roeder, Daugherty and Sharer said they have been exchanging e-mails since seeing Ahmadinejad emerge as a serious contender in Iran's elections. "He was extremely cruel," said Sharer, of Bedford, Ind. "He's one of the hard-liners. So that tells you where their government's going to stand for the next four to five years." After seeing recent newspaper photos, Sharer said, "I don't have any doubts" that Ahmadinejad was a hostage-taker. Schaefer, of Peoria, Ariz., didn't recognize Ahmadinejad and said allegations that he had been a hostage-taker don't concern him as much as knowing hard-liners are back in power in Iran. Scott gave a detailed account of the man he recalled as Ahmadinejad, saying he appeared to be a security chief among the hostage-takers. "He kind of stayed in the background most of the time," Scott said. "But he was in on some of the interrogations. And he was in on my interrogation at the time they were working me over." Scott also recalled an incident while he was held in the Evin prison in north Tehran in the summer of 1980. One of the guards, whom Scott called Akbar, would sometimes let Scott and Sharer out to walk the narrow, 20-foot hallway outside their cells, he said. One day, Scott said, the man he believes was Ahmadinejad saw them walking and chastised the guard. "He was the security chief, supposedly," Scott said. "When he found out Akbar had let us out of our cells at all, he chewed out Akbar. I speak Farsi. He said, `These guys are dogs they're pigs, they're animals. They don't deserve to be let out of their cells.'" Scott recalled responding to the man's stare by openly cursing his captor in Farsi. "He looked a little flustered like he didn't know what to do. He just walked out." Roeder said he's sure Ahmadinejad was present during one of his interrogations when the hostage-takers threatened to kidnap his son in the U.S. and "start sending pieces -- toes and fingers of my son -- to my wife." "It was almost like he was checking on the interrogation techniques they were using in a sort of adviser capacity," Roeder said. Hermening, of Mosinee, Wis., the youngest of the hostages, said that after he looked at photos and did research on the Internet, he came to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad was one of his questioners. Hermening had been Marine guard at the embassy, and he recalled the man he believes was Ahmadinejad asking him for the combination to a safe. "His English would have been fairly strong. I couldn't say that about all the guards," Hermening said. "I remember that he was certainly direct, threatening, very unfriendly." Rowhani, the aide to Ahmadinejad, said Ahmadinejad said during the recent meeting that he stopped opposing the embassy seizure after the revolution's leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, expressed support for it. But the president-elect said he never took part. "Definitely he was not among the students who took part in the seizure," said Abbas Abdi, the leader of the hostage-takers. Abdi has since become a leading supporter of reform and sharply opposed Ahmadinejad. "He was not part of us. He played no role in the seizure, let alone being responsible for security" for the students. Another of the hostage-takers, Bijan Abidi, said Ahmadinejad "was not involved. There was no one by that name among the students who took part in the U.S. Embassy seizure." Iranian Paper 'Identifies' Students in Siege Photo July 01, 2005 Times Online Sam Knight and Michael Theodoulou The Bush Administration said today that it is continuing to investigate allegations that the President-elect of Iran was involved in the 1979 attack on the US Embassy in Tehran, even as the photograph that triggered the controversy was further discredited. The White House press secretary told reporters today that President Bush would not be surprised to learn that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elected as the new President of Iran last week, took part in the 444-day siege that ruined American relations with Iran. "We continue to look into it and establish all the facts. I don’t think it should be a surprise to anyone if it turns out to be true," said Scott McClellan this morning, referring to allegations made by five American hostages on Wednesday that they remembered Mr Ahmadinejad as one of their captors. "Given the nature of the regime and his own past, I don’t think it should be surprising," said Mr McClellan, who also repeated American criticisms of the recent Iranian elections, saying that "hand-picked candidates" had been allowed to run and that the elections were "well short of free and fair". The continuing scrutiny of the White House stood in contrast to the increasing doubts surrounding the photograph that first prompted questions into Mr Ahmadinejad's role in the embassy siege. On Tuesday, Iran Focus, a London-based Iranian news agency opposed to the President-elect, circulated a well known Associated Press photograph of the crisis, which began in November 1979, saying that it showed Mr Ahmadinejad holding the arm of an American hostage. But today, an reformist newspaper in Tehran, Shargh, said that the Iranian students shown in the photograph were Ja’afar Zaker, a militant who went on to die in the Iran-Iraq war, and a student known only as Ranjbaran, who was later executed for alleged links to an extreme opposition group. As for the American hostage shown in the photograph, The Times learnt yesterday that he is Jerry J. Miele, who was working at a communications officer at the Embassy in 1979. Reached at his home today in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, Mr Miele, 66, declined to comment on the photograph but said: "I don't have anything to say about the new President of Iran, I don't want to cause any trouble." Even though Mr Ahmadinejad's role in the hostage crisis, let alone the photograph, has been widely disputed, not least by other hostage takers who led the capture of the embassy, more American hostages said on Friday that he could have been among their captors. Barry Rosen, a former press officer at the embassy who now works at Columbia University told Reuters he had no direct memory of Mr Ahmadinejad but supported another former hostage, former Colonel David Roeder, who said yesterday that Mr Ahmadinejad had assisted interrogations of the hostages. "I feel that if Dave says it’s so then it’s so," said Mr Rosen. Yesterday, Mr Roeder and four other hostages said they were sure Mr Ahmadinejad had played a significant role in the embassy siege. A bound and blindfolded American hostage is displayed to a crowd outside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Nov. 9, 1979. The terrorist at right has been identified as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new President of Iran. The man to the above escorting hostage Jerry Miele has been identified as the new president of Iran from this picture taken 25 years ago. Several former hostages have identified him as one of their interrogators, so his connection to the Hostage Crisis is undeniable in my opinion, but is this him in the original hostage taking events? Some have taken this photo and others and compared them to recent pictures of the new president and have drawn the conclusion that it is NOT the same man. Other pictures posted showed a man with a blazer who many others thought was this man, but my Iranian friends all insisted I had the wrong guy. Shown right below is the new presidnet on the left, and the man in the knakis who was identified as the president 25 years ago. The most obvious feature that does not match is the nose. I believe that these new pictures when compared to the old, show two different men. My first impression from the blurred pictures from back then, was that the man in the blazer was the new president. From the original angles, that man in the blazer was the closest in appearance, in facial shape and nose shape. Clearer pics of that same man in the blazer, with his head at a different angle show I was wrong. In the photo above, the media identified the man on the far right, and most of us thought it was the man on the blazer instead, but newer pics show that is not him. This clearer pic of the two original men identified show NEITHER match the new president in facial features. The man in the blazer right behind clearly is not the new president, and neither is the man in the khakis right in front. Some have done a side by side comparison on the ears and nose of the man first identified, and here is that comparison: Two things make me say no, his nose (as mentioned) and the structure of his year. His nose of course, could have changed if it were broken, however the ear is quite different. An Iranian Friend has identified the man partially hidden in this shot My Iranian friend believes that the man whose face is hidden over the right shoulder of Hostage Jerry Miele is the new President. I have another Iranian friend who insists the government's first identification is correct, also! Some have said it does not matter if we caught him at the scene of the crime. It does matter since he insists he wasn't a part of it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iranian President linked to murders Tony Allen-Mills, Washington 04jul05 INTELLIGENCE sources and Iranian opposition figures have accused Iran's new President of being involved in a string of assassinations in the Middle East and Europe in the 1980s and 90s. The claims follow last week's allegations that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad participated in the student takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. According to a report in The Sunday Times of London, Kazem Sami, who was the first Iranian health minister after the 1979 Islamic revolution but fell out with the ayatollahs, was the first of dozens of dissidents to die. He was working in a Tehran clinic in November 1988 when an assailant posing as a patient stabbed him repeatedly. The following July, three gunmen burst into a Vienna flat and opened fire on a meeting of Iranian Kurdish exiles. Among three people killed was Abdul Rahman Qassemlou, the leader of Kurdish opposition to the ayatollahs in Tehran. The murders have never been solved. An Austrian Interior Ministry spokesman said at the weekend that the Austrian Government had documents implicating Mr Ahmadinejad in the Qassemlou assassination. "A dossier concerning Mr Ahmadinejad was submitted to the Federal Counter Terrorism Agency, which handed it over to the public prosecutor's office," Rudolf Gollia said. Vienna's public prosecutor's office was not available for comment. Almost a decade after the Vienna murders, a clandestine group of Iranian militants began plotting the murder of British author Salman Rushdie, the victim of a fatwa sentencing him to death for supposed blasphemy in his book The Satanic Verses. For years there had been only the vaguest allegations of a link between those events. All that has changed with the election of Mr Ahmadinejad, the hardline former mayor of Tehran. Mr Ahmadinejad's surprise victory in last month's poll has unleashed a flood of accusations, innuendo and investigations of his militant pedigree. Iranian opposition websites are buzzing with reports of a leaked document that purportedly proves Mr Ahmadinejad, 49, led a team of would-be assassins that plotted to murder Rushdie. The document remained untraceable last week but a prominent opposition figure, Maryam Rajavi, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, denounced Mr Ahmadinejad as a "terrorist, torturer and executioner". Iranian officials dismissed many of the allegations as "absurd" and motivated by political malice. But a senior Washington official said "a lot of filing cabinets are rattling" as intelligence and law enforcement agencies search for clues to the Iranian strongman's past. There was also concern in Europe that whatever the truth, a process of US-led "demonisation" had begun that would damage European efforts to solve the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Using details provided by US regional specialists, official Iranian websites and previously reliable opposition sources, it proved possible to piece together a sobering account of the new President's ties to ultra-conservative, anti-Western factions. These include a unit long-suspected by US intelligence agencies of directing state-sponsored terrorist activities abroad. With the return to Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolution's spiritual leader, Mr Ahmadinejad became his university's representative in the Student Office for Strengthening Unity, which played a central role in the seizure of the US embassy in 1979. Several former embassy hostages claimed last week that Mr Ahmadinejad was among the students who held them captive for 444 days. But experts using advanced facial recognition technology have established that he is not the man identified on last week's widely distributed photograph of hostages and captors. US officials, however, said they were continuing to investigate his possible role. As Islamic rule intensified in the early 1980s with purges of moderate students, Mr Ahmadinejad joined the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, the ultra-conservative military elite fiercely loyal to the ayatollahs. A senior officer in the IRGC's special "internal security" brigade, Mr Ahmadinejad's duties included the suppression of dissident activity, which, according to his rivals, involved the interrogation, torture and execution of political prisoners. US intelligence sources and Iranian opposition figures believe Mr Ahmadinejad became a key figure in the formation of the IRGC's Qods Force, which has been linked to assassinations in the Middle East and Europe, including the murder of Qassemlou. The Sunday Times, AP, AFP <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15813147^2703,.html">www.theaustralian.news.co...2703,.html</a>

by **marykmusic** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:37 pm

The newspaper sources currently in Iran, being quoted here, are pushing this agenda to help create the American raisson-d'etre to go to war. We all remember the hostage crisis, right? It was awful... huge crowds shown on film from the American Embassy, shouting "Death to America!" in Farsi, stuff like that... I remember what the Story was at that time. Not everybody reads everything I write here, so I'll get into more detail. A dear friend was born in Tehran and lived at or near the Royal Palace; her father was a Member of Parliament as was her grandfather and his father. (I've got pictures of them.) Here's part of her story as she wrote it to me:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>At one point, Iran was becoming a 'threat' to US and European interests. The Pahlavi dynasty and Iran was a CIA-backed nation, and when the King refused to go according to OPEC and oil pricing, things started to go downhill. The Egyptian King [sic] Sadat, a friend of the Shah had also decided to do the same. He was killed by an Islamic fundamentalist (mind-controlled sleeper agent, I think anyway.)<hr></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr>In 1978/79, my memory is not too clear, I remember standing in the driveway of my house in Tehran. I could hear a loud rumbling noise that shook the ground beneath me. Young men wore a white headband wuth a strange red symbol on it that I couldn't understand (in Arabic.) [Note: Arabic is not the language spoken in Iran, formerly known as Persia; Farsi is.] <hr></blockquote> My friend talked about where she and her siblings were sent, and the next part of the story is what was put together later when her family got back together. Compare this with the Sibel Edmonds story in Vanity Fair, another young lady of well-to-do family who was born there and remembers what it was like. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>My elder sister was there during the mass riots. She remembers looking out the window and hearing chants of 'Death to the Shah' being shouted in our language, Farsi. What didn't make sense to her, was that those people who were chanting were NOT Iranians. Their accents were awful and they were foreigners!<hr></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr>I hope you have read David Icke's material, especially his views on problem/solution. [He's not the only one who has written about this.] Such was the case here. The images that were flashed across the TV screens in the US and Europe of the American embassy being stormed was a complete hoax. There were perhaps a hundred or so people who were paid to start this incident and make it look like a real unrest was taking place in Iran, as they stormed the embassy.<hr></blockquote> Like the Cuban revolution, which was supported by the Eisenhauer administration, there was a major shock when the New Boss turned out to be "same as the Old Boss." Or worse. If Cuba had oil, it wouldn't have been relatively left alone all these years. They produced sugar, yeah, but the American tourist dollars that were spent there were a bigger problem. So getting rid of Castro would have created that tourist mecca again, and that simply would never do. The Ayatollah, waiting in the wings, took over Iran and made Iran into an American-hating, religious-fascist state. Now's our chance to get back, right? Doesn't anyone else think that this was planned years ago? And Iran doesn't have a helluva lot of oil, but the pipelines from Azerbaijan and other oil- and natural-gas producing areas need a pipeline through there to deliver that stuff. There's always a reason. Look for Venezuela and Indonesia to be next. --MaryK

by **proldic** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:06 am

How the U.S. & Iran have Cooperated to Sponsor Muslim Terror (And this while loudly denouncing one another in public...) In a speech dated 31 March 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell accused Iran of supporting terrorists. And, said Powell, "Tehran must stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them." An Iranian government spokesman dismissed Powell's remarks, saying, "The anti-Iran overture of the U.S. officials emanated from Washington's failure in its military scenario in Iraq." [1] And an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman added, "The U.S. unwavering support of Israel's state terrorism is a clear proof of U.S. double standards..." [2] ======================================================== Do harsh words mean war? ======================================================== Some critics of the US-British war in Iraq point to this exchange and to other statements, made by certain so-called neoconservatives, associated with the Pentagon. Based on the hostile statements made by the so-called neoconservatives and State Department people on the one side, and by Iranian leaders, on the other side, pundits of the left and right assure us that a) the war in Iraq is directed against Islam, and b) "Iran is next." We have shown that *on the ground* Iran has quietly supported the US invasion. Odd behavior for a government that expects to be "next". [3] But aside from that, the problem with the "Iran-is-next" argument is that harsh statements by top officials may be insincere. They may be intended to divert attention from the real situation, and/or to focus blame on a third party, a scapegoat (such as, for example, Israel). It is even possible for intelligence officials from the US and Iran to meet for the purpose of planning public displays of mutual hostility aimed at diverting public awareness and scapegoating Israel. Does that sound extreme? Read on... ======================================================== Public enemies, private friends ======================================================== Contrary to the mainstream media and supposed critics of US policy alike, Iran and the US have *not* had purely hostile relations since the overthrow of the Shah 24 years ago. Rather, the US and Iran have had a complex relationship which includes attacking each other publicly even while they cooperate covertly to carry out sundry nefarious schemes. That is precisely what happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s. Let us look at the facts. First, what sorts of insults did the US and Iran trade in the early 1990s? Second, how do those compare to the insults they are trading *now*? And third, in the early 1990s, were the US and Iran friends or enemies on the ground in Bosnia? ======================================================== Déjà vu all over again ======================================================== On 31 March 1993, UPI published a dispatch, entitled, "Iran Strongly Rejects 'International Outlaw' Label." [3A] Some of it is quoted below. If you check back to what Powell and the Iranians said a couple of weeks ago, you will see that the 1993 insults were almost identical. [Start 1993 UPI dispatch] Iran reacted sharply Wednesday to remarks by U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher describing the Islamic Republic as an international outlaw and a supporter of terrorism, the Iranian state news agency IRNA said. A Foreign Ministry spokesman in Tehran described Christopher's remarks as ''unfounded, worthless and an indication of confusion in Washington's foreign policy,'' an IRNA dispatch monitored in Athens said. ...[Secretary of State Christopher] also accused Iran of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The Iranian official said...Christopher's statement was ''aimed at diverting world public opinion from Washington's full-scale support for Israeli-sponsored state terrorism and for terrorist activities against those countries which oppose U.S. domination...'' [End 1993 UPI dispatch] Replace 'Warren Christopher' with 'Colin Powell' and 1993 sounds eerily like 2003. ======================================================== Same script, same villain ======================================================== Note that in both cases, the Iranian fundamentalists shift the attack from the US to Israel. The intended message is that the US does bad things, but that that is *because of* Israel. Please also note that the same thing is now being said by many right wing and left wing critics of US policy. Christopher calls Iran a "supporter of terrorism," and the unnamed Iranian official replies that Christopher is only trying to divert people from US support for Israeli actions. Thus the argument ends up focused on...Israel. But in 1993 Iran was not sponsoring terrorism against Israel *only*. It was sponsoring terrorism against Bosnia too. ======================================================== Dutch report: Pentagon secret service directed Iran's Bosnian terror. ======================================================== Last year the Dutch government produced a report on Bosnia compiled based on an extensive study of intelligence documents. Below is an excerpt from a (London) Guardian article summarizing the Dutch report: [4] [Start Guardian excerpt] Now we have the full story of the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamist groups from the Middle East designed to assist the Bosnian Muslims...[Meaning, the Muslim faction led by Alija Izetbegovic, which attacked the Bosnian Serbs, unlike the faction led by the more popular Fikret Abdic, which allied with the Bosnian Serbs - EC] In both Afghanistan and the Gulf, the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia. The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah... Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East...The report stresses that the US was "very closely involved" in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in, but they were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations.... Rather than the CIA, the Pentagon's own secret service was the hidden force behind these operations... When these [weapon] shipments were noticed, Americans pressured UNPROFOR to rewrite reports, and when Norwegian officials protested about the flights, they were reportedly threatened into silence. Meanwhile, the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs. Mossad was especially active and concluded a deal with the Bosnian Serbs at Pale... [End Guardian excerpt] In the above text, author Richard Aldrich puts a remarkable spin on the Dutch report. He argues that the US was pressured into supporting Islamist terror in Bosnia because it had to make good on debts to Islamic terrorists, linked to Iran and Saudi Arabia. That is quite a statement. Look what Aldrich is conceding: that US intelligence had been working closely with Saudi and Iranian-backed terrorists (e.g., the 'Afghan Arabs' and Hizballah) *prior to Bosnia* and that the US did not want to damage those relationships. Aldrich claims that this is why the U.S. helped out in Bosnia - to keep those relationships alive. But in the same article, Aldrich states that, according to the Dutch report, the US *controlled* the Bosnian terror operations: "Rather than the CIA, the Pentagon's own secret service was the hidden force behind these operations..." This makes Aldrich's argument preposterous. It would be one thing to say that the U.S. turned a blind eye to terrorist activities because it didn't want to alienate these terrorists and their backers in Saudi Arabia and Iran. But it is quite a different thing to claim the US took the initiative in organizing and coordinating a massive terrorist assault just to keep terrorist organizations happy. The fact that the Pentagon was the "hidden force behind these operations" shows that the Islamist terrorist assault on Bosnia was important US Establishment *policy*, not some weird fence-mending diplomacy. The kind of spin in the Guardian article is often put forward when U.S. intelligence is caught organizing horrific activities. It is the Bumbling Bear Argument - U.S. intelligence does not *mean* to do bad things - it is naive and clumsy and therefore miscalculates, or foolishly tries to repay old debts, or isn't aware whom it is dealing with, or whatever. (As discussed in "Worst kept secrets of the bumbling bear," the same sort of argument was made when the news broke that the CIA had been created by recruiting *thousands* of war criminals from Nazi intelligence. We were told that CIA Director Allen Dulles was supposedly fooled...poor bear...) [4A] [Article continues after the photos] These soldiers are not Arabs. They are Bosnian Muslims, that is, Slavs whose ancestors converted to Islam during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Before the 1990s, people in Bosnia would have laughed at this sight, thinking these men were going to a costume ball. But nobody was laughing in 1995. The caption reads, "One of the Bosnian Army's Muslim brigades marches through Zenica in a demonstration of strength by 10,000 soldiers." The (London) Times, 11 December 1995. This photograph was published in some Western newspapers, but only once. Indeed, the Western media published very little about the fierce fundamentalism of the Bosnian 'government' or about the money, weapons and thousands of terrorists shipped into Bosnia by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Islamist states. And none mentioned that the Pentagon was coordinating this violent onslaught. Nor did the media tell people that Bosnian Muslims were divided and that a large number of them were allied with the Bosnian Serbs. Deprived of this basic information, bombarded with media reports describing an imaginary secular government in Sarajevo, most people in the West had no understanding of what was happening in Bosnia. They had no basis on which to reject editorials like the one that appeared on 9 May 1993 in The Scotsman. The Scotsman and other Western newspapers mocked the Bosnian Serbs, claiming they suffered from a supposed cultural paranoia concerning Muslims in general and Bosnian Muslim fundamentalist leader Alija Izetbegovic and his followers in particular. The Scotsman wrote with heavy sarcasm: "The essentially secular Muslim credentials of President Alija Izetbegovic are seen as evidence of a plot to establish a fundamentalist Muslim state in Europe...an Islamic fundamentalist conspiracy which, in turn, no doubt, will be joined by Anglo American aggressors." But as the Dutch government report indicates, the Serbs were quite right about the Anglo-American aggressors. And as for Mr. Izetbegovic's "secular credentials," he was openly a passionate devotee of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He believed it was an act of virtue to establish Islamic rule by violence. We have posted some of the thoughts of President Izetbegovic, so you can see for yourself. [8] Were the Serbs paranoid? Keep in mind that the men in the picture above, dressed as holy warriors, were part of Alija Izetbegovic's army... This Reuters photo appeared in The Independent, 11 December 1995, and as far as we can determine, never again. The caption, reads, "Faith in action: A Muslim brigade of the Bosnian Army marching in a military parade in Zenica, central Bosnia." Note that the headbands have Arabic writing. Bosnian Muslims speak Serbo-Croatian, as do Serbs and Croats, not Arabic. By 1995 the Bosnian army, so-called, was largely Islamized by the Mujahideen brought in by Iran and Saudi Arabia in a program coordinated by the Pentagon. ======================================================== Hazardous operations... ======================================================== The Guardian says the Mujahideen shipped into Bosnia "were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations." This is an imprecise formulation. What was the practical function of these Mujahideen? A London Telegraph article reported on the takeover of the Bosnian town of Fojnica by the Mujahideen. The Telegraph reports that the Mujahideen trained and led the Bosnian 'government's' infamous Handzar division. The rank and file consisted of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims who were following the tradition of local Muslims who joined the German Nazi Waffen SS during World War II. The Mujahideen trained other Bosnian troops as well (see pictures above). [5] [Start excerpt from Telegraph article] [6] These are the men of the Handzar division. "We do everything with the knife, and we always fight on the frontline," a Handzar told one UN officer. Up to 6000-strong, the Handzar division glories in a fascist culture. They see themselves as the heirs of the SS Handzar division, formed by Bosnian Muslims in 1943 to fight for the Nazis. Their spiritual model was Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who sided with Hitler... [7] They are trained and led by veterans from Afghanistan and Pakistan, say UN sources. The strong presence of native Albanians is an ominous sign. It could mean the seeds of war are spreading south via Kosovo and into Albania, thence to the Albanians of Macedonia. Pakistani fundamentalists are known to have had a strong hand in providing arms and a small weapons industry for the Bosnian Muslims. Hardline elements of the Bosnian army, like the Handzar, appear to have the backing of an increasingly extreme leadership in Sarajevo... [End excerpt from Telegraph article] The "hazardous operations" of the mujahideen leading these Handzar troops included terrorist attacks on the non-Muslim population of Bosnia. (And remember, it was *Pentagon intelligence* which, according to the Dutch government report, coordinated these "hazardous operations"! ) Describing the work of the mujahideen who dominated the town of Fojnica, the Telegraph reports: [Start excerpt from Telegraph article] "The first political act in this new operation appears to have been the murder of the two monks in the monastery. Last month Brother Nikola Milicevic, 39, and Brother Mato Migic, 56, were surprised by a four-man squad. After an argument, Brother Nikola was shot dead on the spot. His colleague was only wounded, but finished off by a shot in the neck. [6] [End excerpt from Telegraph article] Terrorist attacks such as the execution of the two Christian monks were intended to a) assert mujahideen control and b) exacerbate Christian-Muslim tensions, thus pushing rank-and-file Muslims into the Islamist camp. Thus, the presence of *thousands* of these terrorists had an immense impact on Bosnia, whose total population was at the time only about 4.3 million. [6A] As Francisco Gil-White points out in the article, "Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?" this jibes with the methods advocated by Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic. [8] ======================================================== What are we to make of Warren Christopher? ======================================================== Warren Christopher, US Secretary of State in 1993, seems like a mild-mannered man, almost painfully polite. But don't judge a book by its cover. At the very time that Christopher's government was coordinating Iranian and Saudi terror in Bosnia, he was was engaged in a dramatic battle of words with Iranian leaders over Iranian terrorism! What can we say about Mr. Warren Christopher? We can say that he was lying to divert the world's attention from mass murder and the destruction of a secular society, sponsored and coordinated by Pentagon intelligence. ======================================================== Conclusion ======================================================== [Start quote from Los Angeles Times] Beginning in 1992, as many as 4,000 volunteers from throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Europe came to Bosnia to fight Serbian and Croatian nationalists on behalf of fellow Muslims. They are known as the moujahedeen. A military analyst called them "pretty good fighters and certainly ruthless." [9] [End quote from Los Angeles Times] Perhaps one day the US may come into military conflict with Iran. But one *cannot* deduce this merely from the harsh things that the US and Iran say about one another in public. And if the US does ever come into military conflict with Iran, you can be sure of one thing: it will *not* be because Iran supports Islamist terror. One last thought. As you will recall, in 1993, the Iranians charged that American public condemnations of Iran were aimed at: "...diverting world public opinion from Washington's full-scale support for Israeli-sponsored state terrorism and for terrorist activities against those countries which oppose U.S. domination...'' But as the Dutch report shows, at the very time that an Iranian official uttered these words, the US was in fact providing full-scale support for *Iranian-sponsored* state terrorist activities against the Bosnian Serbs. And it was the Serbs who opposed U.S. domination. And, according to the Dutch report, it was Ukraine, Greece and *Israel* which provided the Bosnian Serbs with arms to resist this attack by *thousands* of mujahideen and the local Islamic fundamentalist troops they led. Some of these mujahideen were from the pro-Iranian Hizballah, which specializes in attacking Israel, and some were battle-hardened from fighting the Reds in Afghanistan. Those would be the infamous 'Afghan Arabs'. But wait. Don't we have a name for the 'Afghan Arabs' whom Iran and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were shipping into Bosnia and whose terrorist actions Pentagon intelligence was coordinating? Why yes, we do. It's Al Qaeda. To the left, Abu Abdel Aziz, leader of mujahideen terrorist/trainers in Bosnia. The photo appeared in Newsweek, 5 October 1992, with an article entitled, ''Help from the Holy Warriors.'' The London Times wrote that "Aziz claimed to have spent six years fighting in Afghanistan, and had also seen service as a 'holy warrior' in the Philippines, Kashmir and Africa." (9 May 1993). And nine years later, the Gulf News had him leading terrorists who kidnapped European and Asian tourists in Philippines. (5 July 2002 ) [1] Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring March 31, 2003, Monday; Headline: Iranian media behaviour 0600 - 1400 gmt, 31 March 03; Source: BBC Monitoring research in English 28 Mar 03; Iranian Radio [2] BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring March 31, 2003, Monday; Headline: Iran rejects Colin Powell's terrorism accusations as baseless; source: IRNA news agency, Tehran, in English 1527 gmt 31 Mar 03; Text of report in English by Iranian news agency IRNA [3] See "Reader Says: 'EC is Wrong; Iran is not Helping the US in Iraq.'" <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/seale.htm">emperors-clothes.com/analysis/seale.htm</a> [3A] United Press International March 31, 1993, Wednesday, BC cycle Section: International Headline: Iran Strongly Rejects ''International Outlaw'' Label Byline: By Ralph Joseph Dateline: Athens, Greece [4] To read the Guardian article, go to "Dutch Report: Us Sponsored Foreign Islamists In Bosnia," at <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/used.htm">emperors-clothes.com/analysis/used.htm</a> [4A] Regarding the significance of the creation of the CIA out of thousands of Nazi war criminals, see "Worst kept secrets of a bumbling bear," at <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/gehlen2.htm">emperors-clothes.com/docs/gehlen2.htm</a> [5] A Bosnian Islamist newspaper commerorates the Bosnian Waffen SS Division knowns as 'Handzar' (Scimitar). See, "Himmler was their Defender!" <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/svijet.htm">emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/svijet.htm</a> [6] Daily Telegraph 29 December 1993; Headline: Albanians and Afghans fight for the heirs to Bosnia's SS past; Byline: Robert Fox; Dateline: Fojnica, Bosnia-Herzegovina [6A] <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031513.htm">www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...031513.htm</a> [7] "'Palestine Is Our Land And The Jews Are Our Dogs' - Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership" by Francisco J. Gil-White <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/Israel.htm#part2">emperors-clothes.com/gilw....htm#part2</a> [8] "Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?: Who is Alija Izetbegovic, the man the US sponsored in Bosnia?" by Francisco Gil-White <a href="http://www.emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija1.htm">www.emperors-clothes.com/...alija1.htm</a> [9] Los Angeles Times October 7, 2001; Section: Part A; Part 1; Page 1; National Desk Headline: Response To Terror; Bosnia Seen As Hospitable Base And Sanctuary For Terrorists; Byline: Craig Pyes, Josh Meyer, William C. Rempel, Times Staff Writers; Dateline: Zenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina by Jared Israel With Francisco Gil-White, Petar Makara, and Nico Varkevisser[Posted 13 April 2003] <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm">emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm</a>

Whoops We've Done it Again: We're in bed w/ Iran

Whoops We've Done it Again: We're in bed w/ Iran

Just another bit of spin to help the new war to start

US & Iran: Enemies In Public, Secret Allies In Terror

Who is online