The winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize and the first female judge in Iran, Shirin Ebadi, claims she has received a death threat for challenging the current Iranian regime.

She said the threats were in a letter she received by mail in which 2,470 names including her own were listed as having been sentenced to life “for their anti-revolutionary and anti-Islamic activities.”

Ebadi was forced to remove herself as jurist in 1979 as the Islamic Revolution swept across Iran. It appears as if it’s business as usual within Iran, but the government’s actions against Democracy advocates, all the while Iran claims they represent a democratic government, have risen within the last year alone.

Ramin Jahanbegloo, a Candian-Iranian professor who challenged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust, was recently released from prison. Jahanbegloo faced charges of “relations with foreigners,” no, not that kind of relations, and ‘confessed’ in prison he wanted to take part in a “velvet revolution,” presumably which would have toppled the Mullahs.

Since Iran is a usual topic on this blog, I always appreciate finding new Iranian blogs.  This morning an Iranian blogger commented upon a post on the proposed UN sanctions on Iran which led me to the site Aryamehr.

It is always quite striking to me to read Iranian bloggers share their views which are usually (I can recall maybe three that agreed with Ahmadinejad) directly opposite of what the Iranian government holds.  It gives me hope there can be a peaceful solution.
Please do check it out.

A blogger at the Huffington Post, R.J. Eskow, writes radical Islam is not fascism, an argument we’ve had here a time or two and indeed it is a form of facism more related to nazism. Eskow does what so many people do when it comes to fascism; they cherry-pick parts of fascism for their own use without taking the ideology as a whole for comparitive purposes.

What always strikes me as odd coming from the likes of Eskow is that they define fascism as a totalitarian government catering to corporate interests with high levels of nationalism, though Eskow says “collaboration” with huge corporations. Catering to corporate interests. That’s a rather liberal definition considering under fascism corporations are not controlled by the government but the way they do business is mandated by the government. Collaboration usually means to benefit both, not one and no one can rationally argue government mandates and restrictions help a large corporation out.

Is it possible for a government to be controlled by corporations when the government places unhealthy restrictions upon those very corporations? Isn’t that control, in essense, the other way around? Of course it is, but that just ruins the entire fascism talk some on the American Left are so fond of having.

The Nazi Regime invested heavily in a socialist state, and last I checked, socialism was not a right-wing ideology. Socialism was the key to Nazism and they truly believed they could and would create a giant nanny state over all of Europe. Wait a minute. Socialism. Is that a bit like how Hezbollah distributed likely forged U.S. currency to the victims of their war, building an insane amount of social infrastruction over military bunkers, trying to create an income redistribution system, etc.?  It should also be noted Al Qaida grew in Sudan partially due to civic projects and a socialist program.

Someone who has no basis of understanding of what fascism is cannot launch an argument for or against what may or may not be Islamofascism, but Eskow tries to.  Eskow writes:

IF [ed. Islamofacism] is a propaganda creation in the classic sense of the term. Anyone with a grasp of history knows that “fascism” entails intense nationalism and collaboration with large corporations, both of which Islamists reject. They do practice intense control of individual behavior, which is hateful but not limited to fascist movements.

Yes, there is no Islamofascism nor any Islamist threat. It’s all propoganda . . . for what purpose? And that’s where all good conspiracy theories die; there’s no actual rationale for the beliefs in the first place.

Fascism conspirators always sink into the line of nationalism like that’s somehow the one difference between a fascist nation and a free nation, but they fail to actually define nationalism in the first place. Nationalism, at its core, is a deep sense of pride for an idea, not a nation. Isn’t Islamism an idea? Why yes it is, and you cannot convince me radical Islamists do not have a deep passion for the ideology of Islamism. Their words and actions contradict that very thought. Further, isn’t a global Islamic state a nation?
And on the idea Islamists reject large corporations, that’s just insane. The leader of Al Qaida made his money from his father’s rather large corporation. He didn’t walk away from it, rather he was disowned by the family and kicked out of Saudi Arabia. They only object to non-Islamic corporations.  Are not some ‘charities’ coporations as well?  Some do fund the Islamist movement, but that’s just silly talk because Islamists reject corporations according to Eskow.

Eskow doesn’t even show up at the station, indeed, but he’s not even trying to board a train in the first place as evidenced by the following paragraph of Eskow’s:

You can assassinate as many leaders as your military capability allows, and you’ll still never end the threat. (Ask Israel.) Hang Ahmadinejad from a lamp pole Mussolini-style, if you like. There’ll be another, more extreme leader in his place tomorrow.

Uh, yeah, and that’s what makes this entire deal an ideology rather than a small set of individuals trying to create chaos. That’s why it’s better described as a movement instead of just a singular Hitler or Mussolini, and coincidentally, that’s the very strategy that was unfurled in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem also falls into this line, but I assume all ITB readers know that); a movement that surpassed an individual. But “anyone with a grasp of history knows” better, therefore I must presume Eskow used his history books as coasters rather than actually cracking them open to look at the contents inside. And you want to be my latex salesman?

President Bush’s address at the American Legion Conference was much like Rumsfeld’s speech posted upon yesterday, or at least with the actual message and it has yet to be determined if the Associated Press will completely misquote the speech like it did to Rumsfeld’s.

Kash has excerpts related to Iran, and they are very interesting.  One small portion I’d like to point out is as follows:

Extremists in Iran seized American hostages. Hezbollah terrorists murdered American troops at the Marine barracks in Beirut and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Terrorists set off a truck bomb at the World Trade Center. Al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in East Africa, and bombed the USS Cole. Then came the nightmare of September the 11, 2001, when 19 hijackers killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children.

I realize this linking, if you will, of Hezbollah to 9/11 will cause many within the American Left to go ape___, but there is a link between all of the radical Islamic terrorist attacks with each other.  They all carry upon the same basic ideology, though the specific ideologies are vastly different, and they all present a challenge to free nations accross the globe.

This summer’s crisis in Lebanon has made it clearer than ever that the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran. The Iranian regime arms, funds, and advises Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist network except al Qaeda. The Iranian regime interferes in Iraq by sponsoring terrorists and insurgents, empowering unlawful militias, and supplying components for improvised explosive devices. The Iranian regime denies basic human rights to millions of its people. And the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons in open defiance of its international obligations.

We know the death and suffering that Iran’s sponsorship of terrorists has brought, and we can imagine how much worse it would be if Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Many nations are working together to solve this problem.

It is time for Iran to make a choice. We’ve made our choice: We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution — but there must be consequences for Iran’s defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon…

Sounds a bit like the “you’re with us or against us” line President Bush delivered right after 9/11.  Back then it was able to turn Pakistan, but there’s no real hope of turning Iran unless the government is overthrown.

AKI and Reuters provide a bit more of what was the in the IAEA report to the United Nations Security Council this morning, including that Iran has no intention of ever stopping its nuclear program.  It’s not the nuclear program I object to, but rather Iran’s pursuit for nuclear weapons, and that concern has hardly been appeased.

Among the findings as leaked to the press include:

• Iran restarted uranium enrichment days prior to the UNSC deadline
• IAEA inspectors found “highly enriched uranium” in a container at the Karaj Waste Storage Facility in mid-August.  Highly enriched uranium is used in making bombs.
• The production of UF6 to uranium metal, again only used in bombs.

Vital Perspective obtained a copy of the report which outlines in small detail Iran’s dodging the IAEA, advancement in technology and refusting to discuss Project Green Salt among many, many other problems Iran claims is not happening.  Head on over to Vital Perspective and read the full report available in pdf format.

Truly sad news out of Waziristan as the mufsidun continue to wage their war on opposing voices.  The borther of journalist Dilawar Khan Wazir was taken hostage and killed on his way to school reaching the young age of 14.

He was found lying unconscious and wounded near the Karikot area on Wednesday by locals who took him to the civil hospital where he eventually died. Doctors said the boy died of torture. They said Taimoor had received severe injuries on his neck.

Eight months ago, suspected militants had planted a bomb outside Wazir’s home in Waziristan, forcing him to move to Dera Ismail Khan in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province from the restive Waziristan. His family, however, continue to live in Karikot in Waziristan. Wazir had been reporting on the Pakistani Army’s assault on al-Qaeda training camps in the area.

Wazir works for the Daily Dawn and the BBC Urdu Service in South Waziristan, and unfortunately this is just one of many similar attacks in the region.

The new Miss England, a Muslim, is speaking out against alleged ‘opression’ towards the Islamic community in Britain, only it is future opression that may or may not ever actually occur.  I’ve seen a grand total of one beauty pageant in my life and knew a contestant and I’ve got to say her rather bizarre logic is pretty par for the course (prove me wrong).

The first Muslim to be crowned Miss England has warned that stereotyping members of her community is leading some towards extremism.

[Hammasa Kohistani] said: “The attitude towards Muslims has got worse over the year. Also the Muslims’ attitude to British people has got worse.

“Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more.

“People may feel I am just a sugar coating on the situation. I am a symbol to show it’s not really that bad.

But at the same time, she said, “there is this hostility” which comes “mainly from the Government”.

Can someone be called a moderate Muslim after they ‘turn to terrorism?’  I mean isn’t that the very breaking point?

What’s always interesting about these terrorism apologists, and make no mistake Kohistani by defelcting the blame is an apologist, is they never actually look inward.  It would be shocking if those who carried out July 7 in London were actually swayed more by a religion than foreign policy only because that’s the exact opposite of what we’re told, but it’s 100 percent accurate.

She added: “For a Muslim to represent England is asking for controversy at the moment. I feel after everything that’s happened Muslims are being stereotyped negatively. The whole community has been labelled and, whether they are guilty of crime or not, they are getting penalised for it.

“I like being in the limelight because people can look at me and see I am a Muslim but good. Most of the people being pinpointed are judged by their outer appearances and people assume because they are Muslim and have a beard they have done something wrong.”

She continued: “The bridge I have made is slowly being broken by more and more wars. Now the Iran situation is brought up and another Islamic country is under scrutiny – and the recent Heathrow scare. I guess I am needed even more now than last year to an extent because of what has happened.

“It is not for me to answer how to get people to turn away from terrorism. The politicians don’t know what to do and I am just a 19-year-old.”

She can start by stop making excuses for it and use her pedastal to express that radical Islamic terrorism is only because of radical Islam.  Of course that would put her on the firing line of the Islamists, but she claims she’s trying to build a bridge.

Patterico has reviewed an ABC movie entitled ‘The Path to 9/11‘ and gives it very high ratings.  I have seen several of these documentaries and usually walk away rather disappointed because they are interestingly selective on what information to put in and what information to leave out (the bias works on both sides), but Patterico claims this one is fairly even.  And besides, CAIR might be upset too so that means it’s good.

CAIR and usual “Islamic civil rights” crowd are also likely to burst a neck artery over this one. “The Path To 9/11″ shows how fanatics have managed to thouroughly infect pockets of the Islamic body-politic throughout the world. At the same time, the terrorists are not depicted as mere one-dimentional characatures (which ought to make CAIR’s P.C. rantings all the more difficult to sustain).

Ultimately, “Path” does not try to depict past “blame”, its ultimate goal is to push us forward towards more constructive policies in fighting the war on terror. That is why its underlying criticism becomes all the more powerful. Nobody will be able to dismiss this as a “partisan smear job”.

I hate setting my schedule based upon television, but in this case I’ll have to.

Pierre Rehov has produced another documentary on radical Islam entitled ‘Suicide Killers’ that is screening in New York this week (last day is tomorrow).

I have watched the trailer and it looks pretty interesting, and I have seen two other of Rehov’s documentaries. In fact two of those documentaries have been featured in a YouTube video I spliced together: Arafat Wanted Proof.

Do check out the new trailer.

Thanks to no2liberals.

According to the New York Times, the United States has unveiled a list of sanctions they will call for the UNSC to impose upon Iran following Iran’s refusal to stop enriching uranium on the August 31 deadline.  The sanctions are, I believe, a good start if they can be agreed upon and if they can be enacted better than sanctions upon other nations.
The proposed sanctions are as follows:

• Embargo on the sale of nuclear-related equipment and materials to Iran
• Restriction of travel for Iranian leaders direcly involved in Iran’s nuclear program
• Freeze the nation’s foreign assets

In addition, the NYT reports “the Bush administration is also seeking to persuade European financial institutions to end new lending to Iran.”  An official IAEA report is due today in the Security Council.

It’s unclear if Russia or China, two of Iran’s trading partners, will comply with the proposed sanctions, but given the list of sanctions above it will shine a poor light upon any nation who either disapproves of the sanctions or vetos any sanctions.

In addition, the sanctions effort may also be hampered by a report to be issued Thursday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, in which inspectors will describe only slow progress by Iran in enriching uranium.

The report, according to diplomats familiar with its contents, will describe how Iran has resumed producing small amounts of enriched uranium since temporarily stopping in the spring, but has not increased the rate of production.

Furthermore, the report is expected to say that the purity of the uranium enrichment would not be high enough for use in nuclear weapons, but only for power plants. Iran has long insisted that its program is for peaceful purposes only.

Why has Iran only made “slow progress” in enriching uranium?  A European official believes it was self-imposed to partially appease the UNSC while an American official believes the reason is because Iran ran into technical difficulties or is hiding part of the nation’s nuclear program; the latter is all but known.

In terms of what Iranian leaders have told the public relating to the nation’s supposed full cooperation with the IAEA and a transparent nuclear program, the NYT reports the IAEA report likely will shed some light on just how false those statements are.

RELATED: Iranian blogger Kash of Kash’s Newsroom -  I’m a patriotic Iranian. That’s why I say ‘no’ to Tehran’s nuclear program.