Opinions - Bnet-Newmedia

Legal mist stokes US-Iran tensions in strait

Derek Lane

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi The recent, and escalating, tension between Iran and the US in the narrow corridor of the Strait of Hormuz has once again drawn attention to the strait's international maritime status, and to the ramifications of this tension as a flashpoint in the Middle East. In a significant raising of the temperature, US President George W Bush on Sunday accused Iran of threatening security around the world by backing militants and urged his Gulf Arab allies to confront "this danger before it is too late". Speaking in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates during his seven-nation tour of the Middle East, Bush said the US is strengthening its "security commitments with our friends in the Gulf" and "rallying friends around the world to confront this danger". He also called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terror". Tension spiked markedly last week when Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speedboats were involved in an "incident" with three US Navy vessels, which claimed they were international waters. Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats. This was followed by the Pentagon's release of a videotape of the encounter, where in response to Iran's request for ship identification, we hear a dispatch from one of the US ships stating the ship's number and adding that "we are in international waters and we intend no harm". Thus there is the issue of the exact whereabouts of the US ships at the time of the standoff with the Iranian boats manned by the IRGC patrolling the area. According to Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgiff, the US ships were "five kilometers outside Iranian territorial waters". Yet, this is disputed by another dispatch from the US ships that states, "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law." Given that the approximately three-kilometer-wide inbound traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran's territorial water, the US Navy's invocation of "transit passage" harking back to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) is hardly surprising. [1] Although the US has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, it has been a strong advocate of its provisions regarding navigational rights, thus explaining the US officers' availing themselves of "international law". [2] It is noteworthy that in May 2006, Bush urged the US Congress to "act favorably on US accession to the convention". But, in light of the legal ramifications of the US-Iran standoff in the Persian Gulf, discussed below, opponents of the UNCLOS may have become emboldened. According to them, the convention "prohibits two functions vital to American security: collecting intelligence and submerged transit of territorial waters". However, irrespective of how Congress acts on the pending legislation on UNCLOS, the fact is that the US cannot have its cake and eat it. That is, rely on it to defend its navigational rights in the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously, disregard the various limitations on those rights imposed by the UNCLOS - and favoring Iran. These include the following: # Per Article 39 of the UNCLOS, pertaining to "duties of ships during transit passage" US ships passaging through the Strait of Hormuz must "proceed without delay" and "refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of states bordering the strait". # Per Article 40, "During transit passage, foreign ships may not carry out any research or survey activity without the prior authorization of the states bordering the straits." And yet, by the US Navy's own admission, it has been conducting sonar activities in the area, to detect submerged vessels. This, in turn, has harmed the Persian Gulf's aquatic mammals. In light of a recent US court ruling limiting the US Navy's sonar activities off the California coast, Iran now has greater political leverage to seek information regarding the activities of US warships transiting through its territorial waters. # Given the US's verbal acrobatics, of trying to depict as "international waters" what is essentially Iran's territorial water in the inbound traffic channel of the Strait of Hormuz, it collides with Article 34 of UNCLOS. This regards the "legal status of waters forming the straits used for international navigation", that strictly stipulates that the regime of passage "shall not affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits". Following the UNCLOS, Iran's territorial water extends 12 nautical miles at the Strait of Hormuz. # The Pentagon videotape of the incident shows a US helicopter hovering above the US ships, which is in clear contradiction of Article 19 of the UNCLOS, which expressly forbids "the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft" during transit passage. # Article 19, elaborating on the meaning of "innocent passage", states that "passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". And that means a prohibition on "any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind" and or "any act of harmful and serious pollution". In other words, US warships transiting through Hormuz must, in effect, act as non-war ships, "temporarily depriving themselves of their armed might". And any "warning shots" fired by US ships at Iranian boats, inspecting the US ships under customary international laws, must be considered an infringement on Iran's rights. This technically warrants a legal backlash in the form of the Iranians temporary suspending the US warships' right of passage. Again, the US could be technically prosecuted by Iran in international forums for conducting questionable activities while in Iranian territorial waters. # Under Article 25 of the UNCLOS, a "coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its of security, including weapons exercise." # Per Article 30, "If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal state may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately." # Pursuant to Article 42 of the UNCLOS, "states bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage" and "foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations." In this connection, Iran's 1993 maritime law echoes Article 20 of the UNCLOS: "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on surface and to show their flag." Yet, disregarding both international law and Iran's laws, the US Navy until now has refused to comply with the requirement of surface passage of its submarines through the Strait of Hormuz. In light of the above, the Strait of Hormuz has now turned into a most fertile source of tension and conflict between Iran and the United States, touching on the larger issue of international law of the sea and the navigational regime through the strait(s). Iran could conceivably use its privileged geographical position to tap into the complex set of rules pertaining to the navigational regime, as a form of (geo) political leverage to wring concessions from the US Navy, and its regional allies, with respect to security and maritime affairs of the Persian Gulf. Note 1. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea strikes a balance between the sovereign rights of coastal states and the right of passage of foreign ships, requiring concessions from both sides. It prohibits passing ships from "any act aimed at collecting information or use and threat of force". 2. The Iranian press have complained of the US's intention to use the man-made, artificial islands by the United Arab Emirates for military purposes, to complement the US's forward base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. They wonder if this has been one of the unstated purposes of Bush's visit to the region, given the brisk operational tempo of the US Navy with regard to Iran. This includes the US's plan to implement the provisions of its multilateral PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) , such as ship interdiction, already exercised with regard to North Korea, with respect to Iran. Yet, the PSI initiative collides head-on with the UNCLOS-based limitations on the US Navy's activities in the semi-landlocked Persian Gulf and, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, discussed in this article. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction. (Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) Source: Asia Times Online

Full Interview With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Derek Lane

Presstitute, Scott Pelley interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran on Thursday. Ahmadinejad talks about his visit to New York, Iran's nuclear program and his views on Israel. TRANSCRIPT SCOTT PELLEY: Do you have a greeting to the American people? MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, I would like to greet the American people and the good nations around the world. Right now we are in the city of Tehran. It's in the afternoon of an autumn day. We're in the open air in a garden. And the air is pleasant. And fall, little by little, is settling in, mixing with the summer breeze, I guess. And I think that right now, you have different time zones obviously and different climates. We have early morning in the U.S. and other time zones perhaps approaching the noon. So once again, greetings to you. I very much hope that nations around the world start their days with peace, friendship, and happiness. PELLEY: Mr. President, do you intend to press your request to visit the World Trade Center site in New York? AHMADINEJAD: Well, it was included in my program, if we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that. PELLEY: But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway? AHMADINEJAD: Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can't do that, I won't insist. PELLEY: Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans. AHMADINEJAD: Why should it be insulting? PELLEY: Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world. AHMADINEJAD: Well, I wouldn't say that what the American government says is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations. Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation. PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans, as if to be mocking the American people. AHMADINEJAD: Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation? PELLEY: Well, the American nation . . . AHMADINEJAD: . . . you are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there. I would like to think that the points of view of the American people is very close to the points of view of the Iranian people. The American people are very much against and opposed what certain American officials are saying and their points of view. And they're also, the way that the people have voted in the American elections is very telling. And we are criticizing such behavior on the part of the American government. We believe that if anyone just allows himself to accuse others, there will be no possibility for peace and friendship. PELLEY: What do you mean the American election is telling? What did you take from it? AHMADINEJAD: What I'm saying is that the American people very clearly have shown that they do not endorse what certain American officials are saying and doing. I remind you of the rallies in Washington a couple of days ago. What were they saying and shouting? Perhaps 70, 80 percent of the American people are against their troops, their sons and daughters being in Iraq and war. And as I said, they're very much against war. And for that matter, the American people are peace-loving people. You shouldn't think that what the American officials are doing and their behavior reflects completely the mood of the American people. And American officials must not make the American people a victim of their wants and wishes. And we make a distinction between the American people and American officials. And the American people are opposed to occupation, the use of force, and also terrorism, the killing of the people of other nations. And this is what we are saying. This is what we believe in. With that in mind, we feel very close to the American people. And I'm sure that this is reciprocal. A couple of days ago, an American scientist, a scholar, wrote to me saying that he has a great love for Iran. And once he passes, he wants to be buried in this country. The two nations are very close to one another. PELLEY: Mr. President, you say that the two nations are very close to one another, but it is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why? AHMADINEJAD: Well, this is what the American officials are saying. Again, American officials wherever around the world that they encounter a problem which they fail to resolve, instead of accepting that, they prefer to accuse others. We basically are very much opposed to any kind of insecurity inside Iraq. Because once we have insecurity in Iraq, the first party, if I can use the word, that will be affected would be Iran. Having said that, we fully oppose occupation and also military attacks. In Iraq we don't need to do that. For that matter, in any part of the world we don't need to do that. When it comes to war, we don't think that war, belligerence, is a good solution for differences of opinion. We have said this in the past to American officials that the Iraqi people very much oppose occupation. And they will not accept this. And experience tells you this. This is a nation with many thousands of years of history. They have stood up to occupiers in the past, and they will stand up again. I'm very sorry that, because of the wrong decisions taken by American officials, Iraqi people are being killed and also American soldiers. It's very regrettable. And, again, I'm saying that why should they be killed? Why should these boys and girls be killed? Why should we have war in Iraq and insecurity? I believe that the people behind the insecurity are those who, from thousands of kilometers away, have brought in troops. First, they said that they want to topple the dictator and find WMDs [weapons of mass destruction]. They didn't find WMDs and there's no dictator there anymore. So the question is: What are American troops doing right now in Iraq? They have to answer, respond to these questions. We are not interfering in Iraq. The Iraqi people are our friends. And the president, the prime minister, the speaker of the parliament are our friends. We don't need to interfere in Iraq. We are two nations which have been connected through history. Each year millions of Iranians go to Iraq for pilgrimage. And in a number of these bombings inside Iraq, Iranian citizens have been killed. We want peace; we want security in Iraq; and it only serves our own interests. And those American officials who see the interest in a continued occupation of Iraq, I ask them to reconsider. They should leave alone the Iraqi nation and also their own soldiers. And they shouldn't accuse others needlessly. We basically oppose the killing of any person, innocent persons, from any race or community. As I said, the Iraqi people have been victimized. We feel very sad for them. Equally, we feel sad for American soldiers and troops because they don't know why they're there. They are the victims of the, if you will, the wants and wishes of certain American officials. PELLEY: Mr. President, American men and women are being killed by your weapons in Iraq. You know this. AHMADINEJAD: No, no, no. PELLEY: Why are those weapons there? AHMADINEJAD: Who's saying that? PELLEY: The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq. The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There's no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir. AHMADINEJAD: Very good. If I may. AHMADINEJAD: Are you an American politician? Am I to look at you as an American politician or a reporter? This is what the American officials are claiming. Well, we don't need to arrest many people to prove that Americans are occupying Iraq or produce fabricated documents. If you go to the streets of Baghdad, you will see American helicopters and tanks and Humvees, so on and so forth. So the Iraqi people are just defending themselves. I think the way out for the American official from this problem that it has created for itself shouldn't be in accusing Iraq, Iran, rather. You need to understand the realities of the region and also respect the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people, like other people, want to have security, want to have peace, want to be free. When they see that soldiers come into their houses, they react. So if the American government does accept this reality, this truth, everything will changes. If they accuse us 1,000 times, the truth will not change. They need to accept the truth and also the wishes of the Iraqi people. That is a way out of this deadlock. PELLEY: Mr. President, I want to be very direct and very clear. Many Americans believe that you have American blood on your hands. Are you saying that it is not the policy of this government to send weapons into Iraq? Sir, forgive me, you're smiling, but this is a very serious matter to America. AHMADINEJAD: Well, it's serious for us as well. I daresay it's serious for everyone. I'm just amazed as the representative of the media, why do you insist on the untrue accusations leveled by your government? This doesn't solve anything. It seems to me it's laughable for someone to turn a blind eye to the truth and accuse others. It doesn't help. And the reason that I'm smiling, again, it's because that the picture is so clear. But American officials refuse to see it. And I think that as a member of the media, your responsibility here is to talk about the truth and back home to force your officials to appreciate the truth and take the correct decision. The problem in Iraq doesn't have anything to do with the Iraqi people. For that matter the killing of American troops doesn't have anything to do with the Iraqi people. And as we have security, things will be better. And we don't want to see a single soldier killed. The solutions we are putting on the table are very humane. And, again, we are asking for very basic things from the American officials, to respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and also their rights. A dictator has been toppled and WMDs have not been found. Once they say that they are going to leave the Iraq, the Iraqi people will live if that's so to speak. If they persist on the same course for 50 years and arrest diplomats, so on and so forth, this will not help with the situation. And if you repeat the mistakes of the past, nothing will get resolved. PELLEY: Mr. President, you must have rejoiced more than anyone when Saddam Hussein fell. You owe President Bush. This is one of the best things that's ever happened to your country. AHMADINEJAD: Well, I have said this in another interview. Once the dictator was toppled, many people were happy. But the American government did not appropriately use this golden opportunity. Again, this happened sometime ago and it pleased the Iraqi people. They could have used this much better. They should have left the Iraqi people to go their own way and to determine their own fate and to live like other nations in this part of the world. Well, initially, we might have had the impression that American officials want to redeem themselves and the mistakes they have made in the past. Because for eight years they supported Saddam against my nation. Many hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Thousands of people were chemically bombarded. Many people were killed in their own houses. This very city of Tehran was the target of more than 100 missiles. Many people were killed in Tehran. But Saddam was being supported by American officials. So once American officials announced that they were going to deal with Saddam, our first impression was that they're going to make amends for their past behavior. We have every hope and we were happy. But once Saddam went away, they didn't find any weapons, American officials later announced that we are here to stay in Iraq. So there was a question: Why do you want to be there? Why do you want to stay behind? Do you think that the Iraqi people cannot take care of themselves? They can determine their own fate. I think that their first biggest mistake was to remain in Iraq. If they had left Iraq, that would have helped with positive interaction between the American government and the peoples of the region. But once they stayed behind and they appointed an American administrator and they tried to influence the elections and also the future government in Iraq, later they tried to sow the seeds of discord and also give a free hand to terrorist groups to come inside Iraq. So once a country is occupied, its security is the responsibility of the occupation. However, they have to answer for all of these. Many thousands of American soldiers have been killed. They need to answer for their action. Instead of answering these questions, they are accusing others. So initially we welcome the developments, but once it continued, this is very regrettable. PELLEY: Mr. President, can you tell me that you are not sending weapons to Iraq? Very simple. Very directly. AHMADINEJAD: We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity in Iraq. PELLEY: Is that "no," sir? AHMADINEJAD: It's very clear, the situation. The insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests. We have more than 1,000 kilometers of common borders with Iraq. Each year, many millions of Iranians go to Iraq and millions of Iraqis come to Iran. So we are very unhappy with the insecurity. We are doing our very best to help with security. For security, we decided to sit down and talk with Americans in Iraq. PELLEY: As a goodwill gesture, will you say right now in this interview that you will do everything in your power to prevent Iranian arms from entering Iraq? AHMADINEJAD: Well, Iranian forces are not inside Iraq. Can you show me one? PELLEY: No sir, Iranian arms, sir. AHMADINEJAD: Please, allow me to continue. Please, allow me to finish my thought. The American government has admitted that with more than 160,000 troops, state-of-the-art military equipment, they have failed to control and put a stop to the activities of these few people. That's very unfortunate. You shouldn't accuse others because you have certain problems yourself. Very clearly, we are friends to all. We very much are saddened with war. We are very much saddened that American troops are being killed, losing their lives over there. So you don't know the people of the region. I think that the British government was smarter. They left the city of Basra, pulled out their forces. And once the British soldiers left the city, the local people celebrated. And today, unfortunately, you're opposing the Iraqi people. You could have stood side by side with the Iraqi people. Again, whenever you correct your policies, it helps everyone. It benefits you. It benefits Iraq. It benefits all the peoples of the region. We're using everything in our power to provide security in Iraq. We have said so on many occasions. Whoever is killed in Iraq, that would sadden us. PELLEY: Mr. President, we appreciate your thoughts. Some people watching this interview, frankly, will think that you're dodging the questions because many of the questions that I ask you are fairly straightforward "yes" or "no" questions. And let me try this one again, if I may. Will you pledge tonight to do everything in your power to prevent Iranian arms from entering Iraq? Can you make that pledge? AHMADINEJAD: Well, I think you have been charged with a mission to repeat a sentence over and over again. My comments are very clear. I think that you should go back and take American officials to task. Use the same force you're using right now so that they take the troops out. PELLEY: Was that a "yes" or a "no," sir? AHMADINEJAD: If you are to take sides, well, I don't know. Well, you shouldn't tell me what kind of answer I should give to you. You're free to ask me questions. I didn't put any limitations on your questions. PELLEY: True. AHMADINEJAD: I'm free to give my own answers. I think that all of us should go to American officials and ask them: "What are you looking for in Iraq? Let's be clear. Why have you stayed behind? Why are you accusing others? And your policies have created insecurity. You are behind terrorism. So once you correct your ways, these things will take care of themselves. Why are you using a road that goes to nowhere? Use the correct road." AHMADINEJAD: We support the rights of all nations. We love all nations. And the message of the Iranian people is friendship with all. In our history, we have never attacked another country, occupied another country. This is a peace-loving nation. And you should remember that we are living within our borders. And people who have brought troops from thousands of miles away, they are the ones who should be held accountable and responsible. PELLEY: Mr. President, you say you love all nations. I have to assume that includes the Nation of Israel. AHMADINEJAD: Israel is not a nation. Well, we like the people, yes, because they are victims as well. They used to live in their own countries, in their own cities. They were given empty promises, false promises. They said that we are going to give you jobs, we are going to give you security. And they pushed the local Palestinian people out and made them refugees and also made refugees of another community. In other words, from thousands of miles away, people have been emigrating to this country and they are living in fear every day. And we feel for them. Last year in my speech I said that the Zionist entity should open the borders and the gates. Let the people decide where they want to go and settle. They are good people as well. We have no bones to pick with them. We are against terrorism. We are against wrong policies. We are friends with all people, Jewish people, Christians, different people of different faiths. We are, well, we're in contact with them. Here in Iran there are Jewish communities; there are Christian communities; we're all friends. Also, non-Muslim countries, we help them when a natural, let's say, calamity breaks. We love all people. We are opposed to Zionism, occupation, terrorism, dropping bombs on behalf of people when they are inside their own homes, killing men, women, and children. Very openly I have said time and again that I oppose these. PELLEY: If the Palestinians reach an agreement with Israel for a two-state solution, will you then recognize Israel as well? AHMADINEJAD: Well, the decision rests with the Palestinian people. This is exactly what I'm saying. PELLEY: What would you do, sir? AHMADINEJAD: What I'm saying is that you should allow -- oh, please, let me finish my thought. What we are saying, our solution for Palestine is a humane one. We are saying that you should allow the Palestinian people to participate in a fair and free election and determine their own fate. Whatever decision they take, everyone should go with that. PELLEY: And if that decision . . . AHMADINEJAD: No other party must interfere. We are not telling the Palestinian people what decisions they should take. Let them make their own decision. Whatever decision they take, we will go for that. PELLEY: And if that decision is a two-state solution, you're good with that? You could support a two-state solution? AHMADINEJAD: Well, why are you prejudging what will happen? Let's pave the ground first for a free and fair choice. And once they make their choice, we must respect that. All the people, all the Palestinian people must be given this opportunity, allow them to make their own decisions. Let us not tell them what course of action they need to take. SCOTT PELLEY: You have said in the past that you have 3,000 centrifuges in a line producing highly-enriched uranium. Do you have more now? MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: No. Our plan and program is very transparent. We are under the supervision of the agency. Everything is on the table. We have nothing to hide. PELLEY: Transparent? Sir, it's been hidden for more than 15 years. You've been operating a secret nuclear program. It's nothing if it's not secret. AHMADINEJAD: Who is saying that? PELLEY: Well, the IAEA. You've, in fact, agreed with the IAEA to confess what you've done in secret over the past years. It is not transparent, sir. AHMADINEJAD: Very good. I think that you are not familiar with the structure and the laws and the regulations of the agency. The agency is supposed to do two things. One, supervision. The other, support for the member states. The agency is supposed to supervise and ask questions and we respond. Interestingly enough, in all agency reports, you will read that there are no signs of diversion on the part of the Iranian people. In no reports. But naturally, the agency has questions to ask. And when it comes to that, interestingly enough, compared to European countries and other countries, the questions they ask us are far fewer. They have scores of questions to ask other countries. But the U.S. and a number of other countries are politicizing matters. They don't want us to progress, to develop. So maybe it would be best if you ask the agency how many questions they have asked the U.S. and European countries for that matter. Scores of questions. Because they are producing bombs, new generations of nuclear bombs, they are fabricating those. And our activities are very peaceful under the supervision of the agency. We have provided the largest amount of cooperation to the agency. And what we are doing is very transparent. PELLEY: For the sake of clarity, because there is so much concern in the world about this next question, please give me the most direct answer you can. Is it your goal to build a nuclear bomb? AHMADINEJAD: What are you driving at? PELLEY: Simply that, sir. Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon? AHMADINEJAD: Do you think that the nuclear technology is only limited in a bomb? You can only build a bomb with that? PELLEY: No, I appreciate the differences, sir, but the question is limited to the bomb. AHMADINEJAD: It has different uses. Well, you have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What needs do we have for a bomb? PELLEY: May I take that as a "no," sir? AHMADINEJAD: Please, let me finish my thought. It is a firm "no." I'm going to be much firmer now. I want to address all politicians around the world, statesmen. Any party who uses national revenues to make a bomb, a nuclear bomb, will make a mistake. Because in political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union. If it was useful, it would have resolved the problems the Americans have in Iraq. The U.S. has tested new generations of bombs, many thousands of warheads you have in your arsenals. It's of no use. And also the Zionist entity, they have hundreds of warheads. It's not going to help them. The time of the bomb is past. The parties who think that by using the bomb you can control others, they are wrong. Today we are living in the era of intellectual pursuits. You should spend your money on your people. We don't need the bomb. For 28 years we have defended ourselves in the face of enemy onslaught. Every day we are becoming more powerful. And, again, we don't need such weapons. In fact, we think that this is inhuman. So can you please tell me why the U.S. government is fabricating these bombs? Do you want to provide a more welfare, happiness to the people through the bomb? Are you going to deal with global poverty? Or do you want to kill people? So our belief, sir, tell us and also our culture, because of these, we are very much opposed to the killing of people. This is very clear. PELLEY: At the moment, our two countries may very well be walking down the road to war. How do you convince President Bush, how do you convince other nations in the West . . . . AHMADINEJAD: What two parties are walking towards war? PELLEY: Iran, the United States, Western countries. France this week . . . . AHMADINEJAD: Who says that? PELLEY: France this week said that war might be indicated. How do you convince these Western powers that you are not pursuing a bomb? AHMADEINEJAD: You haven't read the latest news, I have to say. It's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? What reasons are there for the two countries to go to war? We have a logic which we have announced for some time now. We very much oppose the behavior of the U.S. administration. We think it's wrong. And we are saying what we feel, and you are free to say what you feel. And people have a right to choose. Why should we go to war over that? If having said that is a part of a psychological warfare plot. The American people are well familiar with these plots. You shouldn't make the American people afraid needlessly. There's no war in the offing. And also I think that certain American officials do not want friendly relations between the two countries and the citizens of the two countries to visit each other. Last year we requested for a direct flight between the two countries because we want to promote trade, promote cultural activities, and also people-to-people contact. But the American government opposed that. There is no war in the offing. Again, this is psychological warfare. If you have differences of opinions, you can use logic to resolve your differences. PELLEY: You can show the world today that you are not pursuing a bomb. All you have to do is give the order. Open your nuclear facilities. Let the United Nations inspectors in there today and prove that there is no bomb program. Why not take that course? AHMADEINEJAD: I think that you are a little bit behind the day's news. You might have been away on an assignment. I don't know. PELLEY: I'm familiar with the day's news. AHMADEINEJAD: The reports say that we have been complying. And they are inspecting all of our sites every day. What more am I supposed to do? So, I try to be as frank as possible, but . . . . PELLEY: You're opening the sites slowly over time, sir. People say that you're just trying to gather as much highly-enriched uranium as you possibly can. AHMADEINEJAD: No. No. No. Well, should you say this, make these accusations or agency inspectors? Inspectors have said, that we are saying that Iran has not diverted; there's no diversion here, in other words. Again, let me repeat. We have not diverted from a peaceful path. This is what the agencies think. There is a solution here, however, a very simple solution. The countries that have atomic bombs should destroy their stockpiles. And that would make everyone happy. You shouldn't accuse others needlessly, and you shouldn't lose your temper and make life miserable for others as well. They have made mistakes and have diverted themselves. They think that others will do the same. There are many countries which have the technology. Five or six have diverted from the peaceful path, road, rather. So those five or six should return to the correct path. If certain parties think that they have rights which go beyond the normal rights that any nation should have, that will be problematic. I think that the American government should appreciate that it is like any other member of the international community, respect the views of the agency. It's very regrettable to see that certain U.S. officials have insulted the very clear positions taken by the agency, and they have lost their temper. And also they have made threats. They have attacked the director general of the agency. That is shameful. If you think that the agency is a reputable one, you should allow it to go ahead with its business. Why should you, or the agency, for that matter, repeat the words of the secretary of state? Rather, what they need to do is report the facts, the truth. So the problems of the American politicians is because they are interested in their own interests. And they want the rest of the world just to say "yes, sir" and go along with whatever they say. That is finished. It's in the past. PELLEY: What trait do you admire in President Bush? AHMADINEJAD: Again, I have a very frank tone. I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways. PELLEY: What do you admire about him? AHMADEINEJAD: He should respect the American people. PELLEY: Is there anything? Any trait? AHMADINEJAD: As an American citizen, tell me what trait do you admire? PELLEY: Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man, for example, as you are. I wonder if there's anything that you've seen in President Bush that you admire. AHMADEINEJAD: Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man? PELLEY: Very much so. As you are. AHMADEINEJAD: What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man. And once you hear that a person has been killed, you should be saddened. You shouldn't sit in a room, a dark room, and hatch plots. And because of your plots, many thousands of people are killed. Having said that, we respect the American people. And because of our respect for the American people, we respectfully talk with President Bush. We have a respectful tone. But having said that, I don't think that that is a good definition of religion. Religion is love for your fellow man, brotherhood, telling the truth. PELLEY: I take it you can't think of anything you like about President Bush. AHMADEINEJAD: Well, I'm not familiar with the gentleman's private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or a determined man. I'm not aware of that. I base my judgment on what I see in his public life. Having said that, I think that President Bush can behave much better. There were golden opportunities for President Bush. He should have used them better. PELLEY: I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me, quote, speaking to you, that you've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush's words to you. What's your reply to the president? AHMADINEJAD: Well, President Bush is free to think as he pleases and to say what he pleases. I don't oppose the freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of speech. President Bush is free to say what he pleases. But these would not change the truth. So that President Bush knows the Iranian people are dearly loved today. We can very well put this to the test to find out who has become isolated. Again, maybe one of my friends could go to another country and a friend of President Bush could go to the same country, find out which one of us is isolated. You're free to choose any country you like. I don't think that President Bush has said these things. Rather, I prefer to think that this is your impression of what the president has said. PELLEY: I'm quoting the president directly for the record. AHMADEINEJAD: This is a direct quote? So, well, this tells me that there's a great divide between us. PELLEY: Why does your government confiscate your people's satellite dishes? What is it that you don't want your people to see? AHMADEINEJAD: Well, it's not prohibited like that. After everything is said and done, this is a law passed by the Iranian parliament. And the members of the parliament have been chosen by the people. Having said that, the Iranian people are, by and large, using satellite television. You can go out on the streets and see this for yourself. PELLEY: But as you well know, they are confiscated from time to time in sweeps in the country. And I wonder what it is that you don't want your people to see. AHMADINEJAD: Well, again, this is the law. Our people are free and express their opinion about all matters internationally. They are well aware of international news. Having said that, I like to think that the Iranian people is one of the most well-informed nations. You can go to the street and ask the people yourself. Reporters from other countries go to different Iranian cities, they're free to move about and ask questions. But Iranian reporters cannot do the same in the U.S. You can very easily come and see me and just ask me questions, but our reporters cannot ask questions from American officials. Our interview today is going to be aired from the Iranian TV. I very much hope that Iranian reporters will be given a possibility to ask questions from American officials. Then the truth will be uncovered. PELLEY: You know, I'm curious. Looking back over the years, do you believe today that taking the American hostages in 1979 was a mistake? AHMADEINEJAD: Well, you have to deal with different things in their own time. If you go back in time, things will go wrong. If you go back 500 years, what happened in Europe and the U.S. for that matter. You shouldn't look back at what happened in the past. Have your sights towards the future. This wouldn't help with anything. Because if you are to do that, we have to go over the dossier of the activities of various American administrations in this country from 1337 Iranian calendar onwards. That wouldn't be a pretty picture. I don't want to talk about and think about the dark passages of our history. Let's have our sights towards the future. PELLEY: Mr. President, I just have a few questions. We have appreciated your answers very much, and I know we're pressing on time here. We would be very grateful if you wouldn't mind taking just a few more. Will you, in this interview tonight, rule out the possibility of a nuclear test of an Iranian weapon during your presidency? AHMADEINEJAD: Well, we don't have any plans. PELLEY: But rule it out. Say that "we will not test a nuclear device as long as I am president." Can you say that? AHMADINEJAD: Please, please, let me finish my thought. Actually, I very much oppose this behavior. Picture it. If an Iranian reporter kept repeatedly asking the same questions from a U.S. official, how would you feel? Would you feel good about that? PELLEY: I would. AHMADINEJAD: I think that instead of going astray here and misleading the public, we should try to help with the uncovering of the truth. You are a member of the media. You are not a government official. You should be concerned with the truth. We should all be concerned with the truth. We don't need such weapons. Those who don't have anything to say to other nations and deal with them, they resort to atomic weapons. We are a cultured people and we have good relations with all nations. And the status of a country has nothing to do with atomic weapons, rather its culture and its civilization. And whenever we make a decision, we are courageous enough to come out and say that we have made such a decision. Whatever we want to do, we have nothing to hide. We clearly will announce that. Well, I said sometime ago that if you sanction us, we are going to take the production to an industrial scale, and we did that. And we said that we will continue to push ahead undaunted. We did that. We have no problems. When it comes to that, we are very transparent and we have a frank tone of voice. Let me be frank and very straightforward here. I oppose the unilateral policies and bullying policies of the American administration. I believe that these lead to war, leads to greater poverty and killing. I believe that you can manage the war better through friendship, mutual respect, and by respecting laws and also fair play. Again, I'm being very frank here. I oppose the very idea of the bomb. I have nothing to hide. Also, I oppose the policies of the American administration. PELLEY: If the United Nations Security Council or the European Union votes in favor of additional sanctions against your country, what will you do? AHMADEINEJAD: Well, they are just trapping themselves. They can become trapped themselves. Because any person or party who insists on a wrong decision, that will be problematic for him, no other person. For 28 years now we have been under political pressure and economic sanctions. What happened? Nothing. And the Iranian people have managed to push ahead with technology. Our economy is growing each day. And, of course, having said that, I think that that course of action is highly unlikely. There are wise people in different countries which will not go ahead with this. Iran is a member of the agency. We're under the supervision of the agency. The agency's reports are very transparent. We have provided the fullest amount of cooperation to the agency. If a party wants to go beyond the law, they will just, this will be to their own detriment. I have said time and again you can do nothing to this country. This is a great country. We have extensive God-given riches and resources. From a political point of view, we are strong and powerful. And under any conditions, we will manage to push ahead. But they need to appreciate that if having said that, I don't think that such a thing is possible. Again, a number of American officials want this to happen. But you shouldn't worry about that. Just say that this is not going to happen. PELLEY: If sanctions do occur, if another round of sanctions occur, you will continue to enrich uranium behind closed doors, I take it. AHMADEINEJAD: This is not going to happen. I have talked extensively about this. Nobody is able to impose an unlawful course of action on the Iranian people. The Iranian people will not abide by that, accept that. And it will not serve their interests to do that. Both the American government and other countries, it helps them if they are friends with Iran. As a friend, I need to tell you to take this route. Again, you're free to take any route you want. And you would have to, you will have to go with the repercussions. So these past few years, what has it gotten you? And the conditions will not change to benefit them; I assure you of that. PELLEY: Would an attack on your nuclear sites, in your opinion, give you leave to attack U.S. forces in the region or the U.S. mainland? AHMADEINEJAD: Who is going to attack this country? PELLEY: President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary. AHMADEINEJAD: I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. But if they insist on what they are saying right now, this will not help them. Again, nobody can hurt the Iranian people. And history tells us that the people who have been less than kind to the Iranian people, they have lost out. What I'm saying, I am being very sincere here. I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie. I am supposed to tell the truth. What I'm saying is that President Bush's conduct in Iraq is wrong. And his wrong conduct is behind his party losing the previous elections. This is very clear. The American people are very much dismayed with the behavior and the conduct of the present administration. They are not dismayed with Iran. In fact, the two nations are very close to one another. An example of that would be the letter sent to me by an American scholar a few days ago. PELLEY: You mentioned telling the truth as a Muslim, and as you know so much better than I do, Verse 42 of the second sura: "The truth shall not be obscured by falsehood, and those who know the truth must tell it." But when I ask you a question as direct as "Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?" you you dance all around the question. You never say "yes." You never say "no." AHMADEINEJAD: Well, thank you for that. You are like a CIA investigator. And you are . . . PELLEY: I am just a reporter. I am a simple, average American reporter. AHMADEINEJAD: This is not a Baghdad prison. Please, this is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is Iran. I'm the president of this country. Well, I think that I've gone beyond what you've asked me, above and beyond. And I think that if you speak to your job as a reporter, what I have said so far, again, goes above and beyond what you ask me. PELLEY: One last thing. So important for the American people to understand. When your airplane approaches Manhattan this week, you will look out the window and you will see that the World Trade Center is gone. Many Americans, Mr. President, to be frank, believe that you look out that window and you say to yourself, "Good. Somebody got 'em." They believe our countries are enemies. AHMADEINEJAD: Well, you shouldn't speak on behalf of the American people. I can speak on behalf of the Iranian people, but you cannot speak on behalf of the American people. Why do you insist on doing that? Why do you not allow the American people to speak for themselves? Why? Let them speak for themselves. The people gathered around the White House a couple of days ago. They spoke whatever was in their hearts and minds. Are they not American citizens? Hundreds of thousands of people have rallied against the war. Are they not citizens? Our government at the time expressed its condemnation. We issued an official communiqu� condemning that incident. How can you, in your mind, accuse and condemn others? Well, if an Iranian person for that matter had done the same thing, it would have been shameful, and it would not have been fair. So, again, this is not fair. Maybe this is your point of view or also perhaps your editor's point of view. And you are saying that the American people are saying these things. The American people still don't know who was behind the bombing of the Twin Towers. Many books in the U.S. have been written about the incident., and there are questions circling in your society. Once you go back, go to the streets, ask the local people who was behind this, what were the reason for that? And, again, I fail to see why you continually say �the American people.� I have the latest surveys. Eighty percent of the American citizens say that the American government knew about the attack beforehand. They had information. PELLEY: You don't believe that, sir. AHMADEINEJAD: I'm not making a judgment here, mind you. I'm not being judgmental. That's not important for me. What is important for me is to find out why this happened. We can take a course of action which ensures this never happens. Why should we manage the world like this? It's very possible for us all to be friends, for the world to be in peace, and for the family of man to love one another and to not hate one another. So who propagates these ideas, I ask you. We should all be friends. We should deal fairly with one another, respect one another. Nations do not have any problems when it comes to interacting with one another. Unethical politicians make war. Nations don't make war. We're saying that you should allow our nations to be friends with one another. We condemned that incident right there and then. Why should many innocent people be killed? For what reason? Well, behind this building there is another building, a building which in 1360 Iranian calendar, some 25 years ago, the Iranian president and the prime minister in the office, they were blown up by terrorists, a bomb planted by terrorists. And the president and the prime minister burned in that bomb, by that bomb. And, again, this is very regrettable that those terrorists, which were behind that bombing and other assassinations in this country, can freely have access to American officials are being protected by the American Army in Iraq. So this country is a victim of terrorism throughout its history. So you cannot produce even one document, a single document, about terrorist action on the part of the Iranian government or Iranian officials. We are very clear in our position. We say that we spiritually support the right of the Palestinian people and also independence for Iraq. We have nothing to hide. We are very much opposed to the Iraqi occupation. Again, we have nothing to hide. It's very regrettable that many thousands of people were killed in the Twin Tower incident. We have announced time and again. And what we are asking is can we do something that ensures this never happens? And the answer is "yes." We can do that, providing a number of parties do not establish terrorist organizations and set them off on nations. We know who is behind terrorist organizations. You know full well who is behind a number of terrorist organizations around my part of the world, that is. Who provided them with logistical support, political support? It's a very well-known fact they have made and created these terrorist organizations themselves. PELLEY: Who, sir? AHMADINEJAD: It's very clear. Very clear. PELLEY: Make it clearer. Name the names. AHMADEINEJAD: I don't want to name names. I don't want to name names. But the terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, who is behind them? And what intelligence organization belonging to what country is behind them? This is very clear. PELLEY: Shall I say CIA and the United States? Will that . . . AHMADEINEJAD: Well, maybe you know something that . . . The relations and the developments in this part of the world are somewhat clear. I don't want to say something which would agitate and fan the flames of the situation. What I'm saying that this is shameful. My country is a great victim of terrorism. We very much oppose terrorism. As I said, we oppose terrorism. Why? Why should innocent people be killed? For what reason? We are saying that each and every person should be respected regardless of their color, creed, what country they come from, what language they speak. We're all fellow human beings. We should be respected. Why some parties ask more than their fair share? Why do they insult nations? They shouldn't do that. This is not right. PELLEY: Would you reestablish . . . AHMADEINEJAD: If I may. Who created secret prisons in Europe? You don't know that? Did Iran establish those prisons? This one is very clear and the documents have been revealed. Why are they creating secret prisons? If the law provides the possibility to establish these prisons, go ahead. Why this skullduggery? So this is, again, very clear. PELLEY: Would you reestablish diplomatic relations with the United States? Is that something you want? Something you would do right away? AHMADINEJAD: Well, our foreign policy is a policy which says that we should have relations with all countries and nations. Before the revolution, this country was much damaged by American policy. Our late imam said that we will not have relations with two countries: one, the apartheid regime of South Africa; the other, the Zionist regime. We like to have relations with all countries. The American administration cut off relations themselves unilaterally. The Carter administration perhaps they were thinking that this would be to their benefit. But this didn't happen. We would like to have relations with all countries based on mutual respect. This is the very basis of our foreign policy. I think that we are done. PELLEY: You have been generous with your time, Mr. President. Thank you for your time very much. AHMADEINEJAD: Good luck. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18452.htm

The British government maps concerning Iranian waters

Derek Lane

Thanks to 'noamswampy' for digging this up (noam's words and links follow): Well, even the UK Foreign Affairs Committee is now saying..... "We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that the map of the Shatt al-Arab waterway provided by the Government was less clear than it ought to have been. The Government was fortunate that it was not in Iran's interests to contest the accuracy of the map. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government state why it chose to mark the boundary as a purely 'territorial water boundary' rather than including aspects of the 'land boundary' agreed to in 1975." ...and.... "There has been some dispute over the map that was produced by the Ministry of Defence. We asked Martin Pratt, Director of Research at the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University, for his analysis. He argued that the Government's map was "certainly an oversimplification" and that "it could reasonably be argued that it was deliberately misleading."49 His particular concern was that the Government chose to downgrade a land boundary signed between Iran and Iraq in 1975 (known as the �Algiers Agreement�) to a "territorial water boundary" on its map." Full report at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmfaff/880/880.pdf Related item at Presstv: http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=17048�ionid=351020601 Regards, N.

Fear & Loathing In Teheran

Derek Lane

- by Sarah Gillespie �The blood drained from her face and Faye whispered, 'there's going to be a rape involved in this' Operator Maintainer Arthur Batchelor Daily Mirror 9th April 2007 Faye Turney, the �she-man� Seaman captured in Shatt al-Arab last month, claims her captivity in Teheran was marred by fear of rape, torture and a lifetime of incarceration. Despite having been released unharmed, a bizarre scene is emerging from the dark recesses of Turney�s imagination in which the saintly mother of little Molly (3) was subjected to floundering indefinitely in a dingy jail wearing nothing but pair of knickers and a floral headscarf. According to Faye�s �worst fears� her �evil captors� spied on her through her cell door slat, cracked jokes about her imminent martyrdom and most bizarrely of all, felt compelled to fit her out with her very own hand-crafted, bespoke coffin. Here is our first hint that we are dealing with the humiliation fantasies of a serious narcissist; while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard indeed have affiliations with the Moral Police responsible for public executions, I doubt very much that they throw a made-to-measure coffin service into the deal. Nothing here adds up. But it doesn�t have to because the press have finally dispensed with the pursuit of truth altogether. Faye Turney�s fears are being treated by the media as if they were facts. Do a Google search on �Faye Turney rape� and over 80,000 results appear. Remarkable really, given the woman has not been raped at all and is even claiming that she was not. Such is the ravenous appetite in Britain for titillating tales of defenceless damsels and wicked Arabs, the Sun-reading British electorate doesn�t care anymore if the narrative is absolute fantasy or not, so long as the victim is a westerner and the aggressor is a Muslim. Thus, it doesn�t matter that Turney & Co were well-fed, clothed, even supplied with Marlborough Lights and Presidential �goodie bags�. It doesn�t matter that none of the 15 were exposed to torture, sexual abuse or humiliation. It doesn�t matter either that the worst trauma they endured was having their I Pods confiscated and forced to wear outfits that looked a bit �last year�. Arthur Batchelor, one of the Seaman, who we can assume has received at least some Military training for coping with stress during captivity, said: �Those suits were an insult. Not only did mine not fit, but it was cheap and tacky and the Hugo Boss shirt was a fake.� What? So this is the �mental torment� he insists on peddling for cash? The message is clear, the Seamen were treated well. Another message is also clear; the news-consuming public refuses to internalise this. Fay's abuse was in her disturbed mind and what is even more disturbing is the fact that our minds are deviant enough to consume her sickening fantasies. Without delving too deeply into the collective perversion of an entire nation, it is crucial to note that the British, who built their pseudo-egalitarian, post-industrial, mega-economy on the backs of two centuries of colonized labour, just love to feel like they are the victim. Check out the streets of Soho if you need proof. What is more alarming, is that British media are quick to mobilise this penchant for humiliation in order to spoon feed us fictional narratives that reinforce the binary underpinning Anglo-American-Israeli foreign policy: Muslim=terrorist/Westerner=liberator. Since Turney traded in her phantasmic trauma for a substantial wad of Rupert Murdoch�s cash we are inundated with stories about her not being raped. Without the popular fear of Islam bestowing a veneer of feasibility into this narrative, Turney�s confessional would be exposed for the absurd non-event that it is. Try to imagine an equivalent news flash without the anti-Muslim agenda: �Man Thought He Was Being Followed Home by Rabid Gunmen, But Then He Realized It Was His Mum & He Was Just Being Paranoid.� Or �Footsie Share Index Plummets to Record Lows Thought City Worker When He Accidentally Leant on His Apple Mac Keyboard Earlier Today.' The rape, the torture, the execution didn�t happen but still it is reported over and over again simply on the proviso that it was temporarily imagined to be true in the mind of one woman. Truth is elusive, murky territory, impossible to fix or locate, impervious to the tyranny of technological mapping devices that offer objective comprehendible absolutes. Truth is relative, deceptive, it is in process, it never arrives at its destination and yet, we all insist on chasing it into oblivion. What has happened in the case of Faye Turney is that we seem to have given up the quest altogether, we have willingly surrendered to the absolutist reassurance of fear, at the expense of truth. Not only are we cut adrift from facts, we are not even pretending to look for them anymore, we are heading for a terrain were facts no longer matter. On 9th April 2007 Blair, a man who, among his many sins, incarcerates Muslims for months on end without charge, dubbed Iran a �cruel and callous� nation. So complicit are we in the demonisation of an entire civilization, we knowingly consume this fantasy of cruelty rather than consider the real possibility of humanity. We are invited to believe that Turney, the giant Viking of the Gulf Sea, is the ultimate victim, while Ahmadinejad, who hopes, albeit naively, one day to defend his country from foreign invaders, is the ultimate evil. The tragedy is we are no longer concerned as to whether this is true or not. Link: peacepalestineblog

Why Can't Americans See it?

Derek Lane

by Paul Craig Roberts The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq. This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue � the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran. Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media � and the demonstration in Washington � are focused on Iraq. What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world? In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world. Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran. There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes: "Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.... The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the US president." The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq. Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans. For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker." Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media. General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda. Why cannot Americans understand? Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war? Link: http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10411

Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel

Derek Lane

Sunday, August 27, 2006 by Juan Cole Believe it, don't believe it, that's up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech on Saturday: Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections: "Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections." Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved. The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened "to wipe Israel off the map" when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after. Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei's pledge of no first strike against any country by Iran with any kind of weapon, and his condemnation of nuclear bombs as un-Islamic and impossible for Iran to possess or use, was completely ignored by the Western press and is never referred to. Indeed, after all that talk of peace and no first strike and no nukes, Khamenei at the very end said that if Iran were attacked, it would defend itself. Karl Vicks of the Washington Post at the time ignored all the rest of the speech and made the headline, 'Khamenei threatens reprisals against US." In other words, on Iran, the US public is being spoonfed agitprop, not news. Although Iran's protestations of peaceful intentions are greeted cynically in the US and Israel, in fact Iran has not launched a war of aggression in over a century. The US and Israel have launched several during that period of time. Ahmadinejad made the remarks in a speech inaugurating work on a heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak. I don't think that work is very advanced. The Iranians maintain that it is for peaceful energy generation. Much of the electricity produced in France, South Korea and Japan is generated by nuclear plants.

Who attacked who - Lebanon or Israel? Is history being rewritten?

Derek Lane

The following are a collection of news articles from the various new agencies from the time of the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, on the 12th July 2006: Beirut, July 12 (DPA) The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,' a statement by Hezbollah said. http://in.news.yahoo.com/060712/43/65tzi.html ---------------------------------------------------------- It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel. Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html ---------------------------------------------------------- DPA (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) "In the afternoon, the scene changed in the streets of southern Lebanon, which was the target of 32 Israeli raids that mainly targeted areas near the area where the two soldiers were captured in Aita al Chaab, close to the border with Israel." http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1180404.php/Hezbollah_back_in_the_spotlight_after_capturing_soldiers --------------------------------------------------------- Voici les faits : le Hezbollah exige depuis de longues ann�es la lib�ration de prisonniers d�tenus par Isra�l, tel que Samir el Kantar, emprisonn� depuis 1978, Nassim Nisr et Yahia Skaff qui est incarc�r� depuis 1982. Dans de nombreuses occasion, il a fait savoir qu’il ne manquerait pas de faire prisonnier � son tour des soldats isra�liens -si ci-ceux-ci venaient � s’introduire au Liban-, et de les utiliser comme monnaire d’�change. De mani�re d�lib�r�e, Tsahal a envoy� un commando dans l’arri�re-pays libanais � A�ta al Chaab. Il a �t� attaqu� par le Hezbollah, faisant deux prisonniers. Isra�l a alors feint d’�tre agress� et a attaqu� le Liban. Le Hezbollah, qui se pr�parait � faire face � une agression isra�lienne que chacun savait imminente depuis le retrait syrien, a tir� des missiles de moyenne port�e sur Isra�l. (Here are the facts : Hezbollah has demanded for years now the release of prisoners held by Israel, such as Samir el Kantar, improsonned since 1978, Nassim Nisr and Yahia Skaff, imprisonned since 1982. On innumerable occasions it has made known that it, in turn, won't hesitate to capture Israeli soldiers- if they enter Lebanon- and to use them as bargaining counters. Quite deliberately, Tsahal sent a commando unit into Lebanese territory around Aita al Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, who took two prisonners. Israel then made out that they had been attacked and attacked Lebanon. Hezbollah, which was preparing for an israeli attack which everyone new was inevitable after the Syrian withdrawal, fired some medium range missiles at Israel.) Translated by Conlin Buchanan http://www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org/news.php?page=601 Breaking News - Voltaire Network-Western press agencies willing victims of Israeli censorship --------------------------------------------------------- Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers Forbes By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN, 07.12.2006, 05:41 AM Associated Press The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity. The Israeli military would not confirm the report. http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html --------------------------------------------------------- Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers Hindustan Times Indo-Asian News Service Beirut, July 12, 2006 The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. [...] The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they "infiltrated" into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:Rbn7oBquCyIJ:www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1742306,00050004.htm%20&hl=it&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1%22" target="_blank">www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1742306,00050004.htm%20&hl=it&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1%22">http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:Rbn7oBquCyIJ:www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1742306,00050004.htm%20&hl=it&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1%22 --------------------------------------------------------- Hezbollah back in the spotlight after capturing soldiers M & C News By Weedah Hamzah Jul 12, 2006, 22:17 GMT Tyre, Southern Lebanon Lebanon's pro-Syrian Shiite movement is back in the spotlight after capturing two Israeli soldiers on Wednesday, plunging the country into a crisis that could lead to new violence in the region. [...] In the afternoon, the scene changed in the streets of southern Lebanon, which was the target of 32 Israeli raids that mainly targeted areas near the area where the two soldiers were captured in Aita al Chaab, close to the border with Israel. http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1180404.php/Hezbollah_back_in_the_spotlight_after_capturing_soldiers --------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, July 16, 2006 Censorship Policy Regarding Fighting in the North Date: 16.7.06 Censorship Policy Regarding Fighting in the North 1. As of now, over 1,200 rockets have been fired at Israel; it is expected that this will continue. 2. Therefore, following are the Military Censor's relevant guidelines: a. The Military Censor will not approve reports regarding visits of Israeli Government and IDF officials in the north of Israel until the visits are over due to the clear connection between officials' visits and missile attacks on the area in question. b. The Military Censor will not approve reports on missile hits at IDF bases and/or strategic facilities. c. The Military Censor will not approve reports on missiles that fall in the Mediterranean Sea. d. The Military Censor will not approve reports on time periods when citizens are permitted to leave their shelters. Warnings of such times are utilized by the enemy for timing attacks. e. Reporting on locations in which there are public defense and organizational difficulties should be avoided as much as possible. 3. Real-time reporting on the exact location of rocket hits must be strictly avoided! Sincerely, Col. Sima Vaknin-Gil Chief Military Censor http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30102 ---------------------------------------------------------- Note the same author below, one article at the beginning of the day states that the soldiers were captured in Southern Lebanon, the other, at the end of the day states they were captured in Israel. Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers, Associated Press By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN , 07.12.2006, 05:41 AM The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The Israeli military would not confirm the report. http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 12, 4:13 PM ET BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_clash ---------------------------------------------------------- MSNBC changes its story 1) Updated: 4:31 p.m. ET July 12, 2006 After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the Mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13831982/site/newsweek/ 2) Kidnappings changed everything Updated: 7:45 p.m. ET July 13, 2006 All that changed Wednesday, when Hezbollah guerrillas crossed into Israel, seizing Goldwasser and Regev and killing eight other Israeli soldiers in the ensuing fighting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13847803/ ---------------------------------------------------------- Jerusalem post changes its story 1) Jul. 12, 2006 17:56, Nasrallah calls abduction 'only and logical right' Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said the timing of the capture of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon on Wednesday would boost the position of Palestinians in Gaza. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885980789&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 2) Jul 14, 2006 In a drastic escalation of what has become a war across Israel's northern border, Hizbullah fired Katyusha rockets that landed in Haifa and Nahariya on Thursday while the IDF laid siege to Lebanon, imposing a naval blockade and bombing Beirut's international airport. YAAKOV KATZ, Tovah Lazaroff, Judy Siegel and AP contributed to this report. [NB AP ran and then changed the original version of the story!] http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/1078280481.html?dids=1078280481:1078280481&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+14%2C+2006&author=&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=01&desc=Israel+vows+to+break%27+Hizbullah+as+rocket+hits+Haifa.+2+Israeli+civilians+killed+in+barrage+on+North+*+Up+to+a+million+ordered+into+shelters+*+IDF+lays+seige+to+Lebanon --------------------------------------------------------- "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al-Shaab, some 15 kilometres from the Mediterranean coast." The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1685306.htm --------------------------------------------------------- "Olmert called a special cabinet session for 1700 GMT to discuss further military action. "It is an act of war by the state of Lebanon against the state of Israel in its sovereign territory," he said." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A5A917D4-76E6-46F6-A92B-7250249FD172.htm A ridiculous statement considering Israel, Lebanon and the rest of the world all seem to acknowledge that the state of Lebanon has no power over Hezbollah. To declare then that it is 'an act of war from the state of Lebanon' should have been a statement Olmert was pulled up on almost immediately. “The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier." frontier: the far edge of a country, where few people live. Therefore, according to ABC sources, the IDF actually confirmed that the Israeli soldier had been captured on Lebanese territory, but if you take the paragraph preceeding that, it seems to be intentionally misleading; it has been quoted not just by ABC but many news outlets, and, with the absence of commas could mean anything...'[Israeli soldiers were] seized across the border [from Israel], from Aita al-Shaab [which is] some 15 km from the Mediterranean coast', or [Israeli soldiers were] seized, across the border [from the Lebanon side] from Aita al-Shaab [therefore in Israel], some 15km from the Mediterranean coast.' The debate on the web seems to be fairly heavy as to the semantics of the above quote, easy, I think, to see why, especially with the absence of much else by way of exact location from major news corps. The BBC reported simply that “Lebanese guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid “ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5171616.stm neglecting to mention where, as though it were simply unimportant. They also had this report, again neglecting to mention the location: (13th July 2006) Similiarly, the Guardian reported that ... “Israel threatened to bomb Lebanon "back 20 years" yesterday as it launched a ground and air assault after Hizbullah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed others. “ (13th July 2006) http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1819122,00.html The Independent stated that “The fighting erupted after Hezbollah captured the two Israeli soldiers in a strike that killed eight other Israeli troops. Israel blasted bridges and roads in southern Lebanon throughout yesterday. “ (13th July 2006) http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1174162.ece The wishy washy terminology of the western press agencies compared to elsewhere raises further questions when 11 days later, organisations like the BBC begin to state as unequivocable fact that the captures took place inside Israel. "Israel says it is doing everything to avoid civilian casualties, but will continue and indeed escalate its attacks unless the Hezbollah militant group frees two soldiers it captured inside Israel 11 days ago and stops its rocket attacks." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5206446.stm and... This is part of the human cost of Israel's war against the Hezbollah militants who captured two soldiers in northern Israel on 12 July and have since stepped up rocket attacks on Israeli population centres. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5208110.stm So what can we make of all this? Is it another example where the western press leaps on the bandwagon in criticism of an enemy of the West, without paying heed to such intricacies as the truth, as happened with Ahmadinejad and that famous speech 'A world without Zionism', or whether the journalists bother to read such things as Hamas' charter to decide if it is justified to assert that Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel? If the mistake were an honest mistake, you would think there would be such explanations as 'earlier it was thought that the soldiers were captured in Southern Lebanon, but it now seems the captures were in fact made on the Israeli side of the border, at ________' That, of course, would weaken the position of Israel being in the right, to readers who otherwise would not have noticed (because it would still sound vaguely like a rewriting of history). As it is, it seems to me quite likely that this is indeed what it is. It was not, possibly, until afterwards (at least after Olmert had declared this to be an 'act of war') that Israel realised this could be the justification for their long planned invasion of Lebanon (in the twisted way that warrants justification amongst today's leaders. Diplomacy, it seems, is not the job of the cultured elite any longer. Aggression is fine for the US and the UK, so why shouldn't it be fine also for other nations?), but only if the captures occurred on the 'right' side of the border. It seems like no small thing to me. One would think a journalist would be capable of taking the facts down accurately (not little facts like the spelling of a name, but big ones, like who captured who, and where). If they can't, and there was possibly more than one original source, then journalist may indeed lack 'professional rigour', in the truest sense. If they can, but are then told they +must+ follow the story that Israel's military censorship people tell them to, then it makes a great deal more sense. I don't honestly believe that journalists could be that incompetent as providence for the first option, which leaves the second as quite a tangible possibility. I wish I knew just how restrictive the contracts journalists must sign for the IDF censorship are, but I do not.

IBC and a final summary

Derek Lane

Province	Total
Anbar	912
Basrah	71
Muthanna	6
Qadisiyah	21
Najaf	29
Arbil	1
Sulaymaniyah	0
At Ta'mim	37
Babil	135
Baghdad	637
Dahuk	0
Dhi Qar	71
Diyala	83
Karbala	28
Maysan	20
Ninawa	181
Salah ad Din	259
Wasit	34

Source: ICasualties Based on the above figures, I suggested (without 'suggesting', due to the sensitive nature of the IBC representatives), that the fact it showed 2/3 outside of Baghdad for military deaths, as opposed to 2/3 inside Baghdad for civilian deaths recorded by IBC might highlight some discrepancies with the completeness of that civilian count. Multiplying the current IBC count for Baghdad by 3 gives a figure of 80727. Of course this figure is not an accurate extrapolation, and needless to say I was 'told off' by Josh Dougherty for even suggesting it as a possibility. Let me first outline what is wrong with it: The difference between IBC's exclusively civilian count, and the reality, that it is citizens, not just civilians who are killed by the occupation. So an extrapolation based on troop deaths would likely include a high count of anti-occupation citizens killed by the USUK forces, hence, would not appear on IBC's database. Nevertheless, it is one way in many (others more detailed and 'scientific') that I and others have been attempting to persuade IBC of, in relation to reaching that base point of realisation that IBC is not likely to be close to the real civilian count of violent deaths in Iraq (and certainly not the true death toll of Iraqis murdered by occupation forces). The debate continued on from there, that I was injecting things with my own slant, that data could not possibly be gathered with so many uncertainties. I never claimed that 'definitive' data could be claimed, but that the more you work it, the more morsels we turn and inspect and scrutinise, the more likely we are to come closer to a version that resembles the reality. I said that the difficulty seemed to be that in applying imagination in a way that threatened IBC, imagination (based on experience, understanding, et al) suddenly became an enemy. My argument is that its necessary to draw reasonable and realistic conclusions, using 'imagination'. Then, there is also science which can either back up, or refute what we imagine to be the truth, but that we need imagination to draw conclusions about anything seems a given. In the case of Dresden-type campaigns of might against the weak, we know that when an effective guerilla campaign in Iraq is launched it is met with even greater force, which claims more lives, as in the case of Falluja, for one example. Labelled an 'insurgent stronghold', the 'Dresden style' bombing campaign then begins, after locking the gates with all males of fighting age locked in. Yet it's Baghdad that carries the highest percentage of media reported deaths, and the rest of Iraq which carries the highest proportion of USUK deaths. From the events of Iraq, it is likely that some guerilla groups began as more organised and therefore less prone to dying than others, but once the USUK have been beaten a little, they have responded with fuller force to 'obliterate' their enemy. Therefore, while the numbers might be a little imbalanced to begin with, its also likely that USUK makes up the difference fairly fast. Based on experience, (things we know), its also perfectly reasonable to assume that the reason Baghdad has greater incidents of media reported deaths is that most of the reporters and outlets are stationed in Baghdad, therefore, it is likely that most reports will come from there, and be about there. Of course, we can't prove it, which is a sentiment that emanates from IBC and its supporters, but we don't need to prove it to know it’s a distinct possibility. I know that, where I am from, few news reports reach Australia's main newspapers and media outlets. Only the worst, and biggest incidents make it that far. There are plenty of brawls, plenty of knifings, a little gun crime etc, but, where in Sydney such events regularly make it 'snippet' form into, for example, ABC news or the SMH its very unlikely you would find such information from the small town I come from. Its the nature of the media - it looks after what's important, and what's important is what is in its line of vision. I am sure you can think of examples from where you are from as well. Why would it be so greatly different in Iraq? More than likely it isn't. The epicentre of Baghdad is most likely to attract the most attention when it comes to small (comparatively) crimes and violence, than the outer-lying regions of Iraq. The more journalists there are reporting internationally in Baghdad, the more the reports will focus on Baghdad. In the small town I am from, there are no direct or indirect affiliations from the local paper to the larger ones either. They have no web presence - none that constitutes online news, anyway. A phone number, a front page, an email address - I am sure you've seen similiar in terms of web-sites for small local papers. If the news doesn't make it online, or on television, or even in hard copy to a place like Baghdad, who is going to read it and how will IBC take that report (especially if the report is not in English)? Of course, I don't know for sure - and this seems to be the back up argument on every front from IBC, whenever it seems that to say such things should be an affront to the work they do. The root of it is, for me, as I have followed and begun to participate in such arguments with Josh and co, is that things in life are grey, but the argument (from IBC's perspective) is black and white. Every incontestable point conceded to IBC is swallowed up, every incontestable point insisted upon that IBC should admit is resolutely ignored or rejected, as if to admit to a single flaw would bring the whole project crashing down around their feet, which of course it wouldn't. I have said it before, but a little humility would actually bolster their position for many people. A real (and not vaguely conciliatory) admission that there are flaws in terms of what IBC counts (probably a very accurate count for what it actually counts) and the reality of deaths in Iraq (including 'combatants', missed civilians, wrongly labelled civilians, and the young and old killed by destruction of infrastructure, lack of food, disease etc) would make people realise that what they show is only the tip of the iceberg. Some caveats, some links to all the other studies and reports from the main page; these things are not a threat to the viability of the IBC count, but an enhancement. Why they don't do it baffles me; but what seems likely to me is that is has to do with a great deal of pride in never being proven wrong about anything. In other words, the argument is about black and white - a ridiculous concept in such a situation. Josh Dougherty, to his credit, responded by conceding that Baghdad is probably over-represented in terms of media-coverage in Iraq. "As for Baghdad, I think Baghdad is covered better than most other areas in IBC, so I think media reports do over-represent Baghdad. For IBC this has a lot to do with the consistent publication of Baghdad morgue figures, while comprehensive official records like that are spotty in most other areas. Josh Dougherty - IBC 11th July 2006 http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1152634031.html" I don't agree entirely, I must point out here that 'over-represented' is perhaps the wrong word, and not the one I suspect he intended. If there were that many media-reports in Baghdad, it would have been remiss to reject them simply because Baghdad had had its fair share. What I suspect he meant was that the rest of Iraq was under-represented, but that may of course concede too much for IBC. A discussion from a few days previous to this prompted me to rework my database interface for IBC data and come up with some new workings. If you compare them with the old ones on site here, they show improvements for IBC, which is good. It still, however, doesn't account for the huge anomaly between reporting in Baghdad versus the rest of Iraq. The information follows: According to a BBC report, 6025 violent deaths have been recorded in Baghdad morgues since the beginning of the year, from January through to May. January: 1068 February: 1110 March: 1294 April: 1155 May: 1398 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5053134.stm This means, 81% were captured by IBC for first 5 months of 2006 for Baghdad – a 19% undercount. IBC’s total for first 5 months is 6400 for entire Iraq. Compared to their Baghdad figure this translates to 76.23% of all media reports for Iraq centred in Baghdad. So while the percentage undercount has dropped since last year for IBC, the percentage of reporting in Baghdad still seems to be disparately higher in Baghdad than anywhere else. 62.18% across the span of the invasion and occupation are accounted for in Baghdad alone. Again, (I've said this before), if we discount the rest of Iraq as inaccurate due to a lower coverage and use the Baghdad figures alone, we can extrapolate a possibility for the number of likely violent deaths across the whole of Iraq, given that - before the invasion - Baghdad's population was approximately 1/6 the population of Iraq. Therefore, if the percentage undercounting currently stands at 20% (it has in the past been much higher), then 26909 * 0.2=32291*6 =193746 violent Iraqi deaths It's not a definitive answer (because we don't know the intensity of the damage comparatively. We have been told, at times, that the fighting is equally bad in places like Samarra, Falluja, Basra, but we don't know), but it does show that such a possibility is not as off the cards as IBC would like to believe. Even if we were to use the exact IBC figure for Baghdad and not take into account underreporting according to morgue data, the number still comes out at 161454. If we are to use the troop comparisons from above, then the figure comes out as 96873, and if we apply the undercounting to the entirety of Iraq, then 43273*0.2=51928 In all cases the undercount is significant (and therefore, worth mentioning in my opinion). The last example does not take into account the disparity between reporting in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq that even IBC acknowledge exists. Keep in mind that while the control possibly contains non-civilian deaths, the base (IBC) is only civilian deaths directly attributable to the occupation. There is also (in my mind, a thing directly attributable) the cost in lives of damaged and unrepaired infrastructure, depleted uranium related deaths to come, either already or soon, plus this ridiculous notion that when the US kills someone they can automatically label them as insurgent or civilian. Then there is the fact that an 'insurgent' is often a freedom fighter, fighting, honourably and correctly, the occupation of their own country, as the Brits did, as the Australians did, as the French did, in WWII. Its not a thing that can currently be verified by any methodology that IBC use (and therefore could not be included in their dataset), but it could be acknowledged as factor of great importance. Deaths are, after all, deaths. If the civilian count could be as high as the workings above suggest, the possibilities of the numbers of uncounted categories of Iraqi citizens could be astronomical. By that rationale, its difficult to dismiss Roberts' assertion that the sensitivity of IBC's figure could be <5%, particularly when you realise that Les Roberts' study – the one on which the <5% is based – counts excess violent deaths, not simply the narrow range of media-reported civilians that IBC counts. What I would like to see is, if not an acknowledgement from IBC that what it counts could not possibly be the true number of citizens killed by the intervention of the western forces, a spreading of the word from other sources, an acknowledgement that people who fight for their country are just as important to be counted, just as deserving of acknowledgement, as those who don't. An acknowledgement that people in Samarra are as important as people in Baghdad, even if our media don't report on them as often. An acknowledgement that the old, the sick, the young, who die not from bombs and bullets, but dysentry or thirst, starvation, heat exhaustion or hypothermia, caused by the shells lying in the rubble of their hospitals, their sewerage treatment plants, their power stations and their playgrounds are every bit as deserving of our sympathy, and our anger as those shot down in the primes of their lives.