Posts by HosseinAmiri:
Two Iranian Reporters Among Germanwings Crash Victims
March 26th, 2015
By Hossein Amiri.
Two Iranian nationals,were among those on board the doomed Germanwings flight that ploughed into an Alpine mountainside on Tuesday.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed that Milad Hojjatoleslami, Tasnim News Agency’s sports correspondent, and Hossein Javadi, a reporter with Iran’s Vatan-e Emruz Daily, were among the victims of the crash.
They had travelled to Barcelona to cover the Sunday match between Spain’s Real Madrid C.F. and FC Barcelona. They then left the Spanish city to cover the Iranian National Team’s friendlies with Chile in Austria and Sweden in Stockholm.
Iranian embassy in Berlin, Germany, also confirmed that the two reporters were on board the plane.
The Airbus A320 operated by the budget carrier Germanwings, was en route to Düsseldorf, Germany, from Barcelona, Spain, on Tuesday morning when it lost altitude rapidly and slammed into the French Alps, killing all 144 passengers and six crew members on board.
Lufthansa, the parent company of Germanwings, has characterized the crash as an accident. But as investigators reviewed one of the plane’s so-called black boxes, unanswered questions remained, including why the aircraft had descended for eight minutes before crashing, and why an aircraft with a good safety record had crashed in largely clear weather.
Comments Off on Two Iranian Reporters Among Germanwings Crash Victims
Ayatollah: We cannot reach agreement with the West on human rights
January 28th, 2014
By Hossein Amiri.
Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi met Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Javad Arasta on Wednesday morning in a session where the latter was awarded by the Islamic Human Rights Committee.The ayatollah said “We are so happy that the Human Rights Committee is still operating and expanding. The important thing is that the notion of human rights has become a tool in the hand of the world arrogance and the oppressors.”
He added “This has turned into an alibi for them to pursue their programs. It has become a tool to adjudge their opposers. There is just no end to it and they can still use it on different grounds.”
“We must be careful how we negotiate them. They are likely to enter the talks with their alleged human rights once the nuclear issue is solved. We may be able to come to terms with them on the nuclear program, but we won’t be able to do so in such issues.”
“They try to impose their own interpretation of human rights. If there is freedom of speech, then we are free to talk our talk and we may not be forced into anything. The question is why it is that while they can impose their definition on us, why should we not be able to do the same?” Makarem said.
“They disagree with our beliefs right from the bottom,” the ayatollah asserted, adding “If something is going to be done in Islamic human rights it may not be solely defensive, there must be offensive as well. We must try to disseminate it. If we manage to act offensively while we defend, we will be able to see the results in today’s societies.”
He further added “Some countries believe that they must feed only on the Western culture. We must bring these countries to follow us in human rights. We must help these countries. If we have them by our side, we can do better than when we are alone.”
Makarem Shirazi maintained that the Islamic human rights must keep independent of governments.
Mohammad Javad Arasta, faculty member and the winner of the Islamic Human Rights award, at the beginning of the meeting said “As dear Islam is able to provide answers in all the aspects of human right, I decided to enter the field of human rights.”
At the end of the meeting Ayatollah Makarem presented Arasta with the Islamic Human Rights Committee award.
Comments Off on Ayatollah: We cannot reach agreement with the West on human rights
Former Secretary General says NATO unlikely to involve in war on Syria
September 8th, 2013
By Amiri Hossein.
Tehran, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has said that he seems little possibilities for NATO to get involved in war on Syria as an alliance.
Speaking in a phone interview with Nedaye Enghelab, the former secretary general of NATO provided comments on Syrian developments and global stances in regard to the country.
1) Nedaye Enghelab: What are the possibilities of NATO getting involved in war on Syria?
Scheffer: I think we can rule out that possibility. As my successor Andres Fogh Rasmussen done I think yesterday, because NATO as an alliance will not be involved in the horrors taking place in Syria as we speak.
2) Nedaye Enghelab: What is the reason?
Scheffer: Well, because I do think that when you look at the political landscape in NATO and the policies taken by NATO allies it is difficult to me to imagine that the alliance should be talking about military action. […] If it comes to military action against the Assad regime of course NATO allies will be involved but that is something completely differen t from what we saw over Libya where the NATO command structure was really not involved in coordinating the operation in the skies of Libya. So I think we will not see a repetition of this. Also, because of Russian and Chinese obstruction, which I very much deplore there is not a chance of a consensus.
3) Nedaye Enghelab: Mr. Obama has said that the Syrian war will be a limited war. What do you think about that?
Scheffer: I do not know, first of all, how limited it will be. I do not even know if a military action will take place at all, because as you know president Obama has felt to seek approval of Congress. I don’t know that if he gets approval by congress, which I expect he will have at the end of the day, he then will make a decision if it will be limited or not limited. But my concern, and that was the reason for my Telegraph comments and the reason you and I now talk is that I’m very much concerned that we are discussing military strikes or not military strikes, the horrible use of chemical weapons. But I do not see and I do not hear anything about a political trajectory, a political way of ending the conflict which has already caused 100,000+ fatalities.
4) Nedaye Enghelab: The reason that this happened was the saying that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its people. At a time when the Syrian military were doing very good in the battlefield and at the same time president Obama said the red line for us is the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. Don’t you think this might have been done by the rebels or other forces to make the US enter the war?
Scheffer: Well, let me say this as far as I know. But I have not seen evidence. I’m waiting of course for the results of the United Nations’ inspectors, although we know they will not answer the question who did it. I think a rather strong case is building up against al-Assad in the sense that he and his forces have indeed crossed the line of using what is called the weapon of mass destruction. I know that we are not in the point where there is irrefutable proof of this that might come in the next days. All kinds of briefings are going on. But, I mean, let me say it like this, the odds are very much against al-Assad.
Not attacking Syria to discredit threats against Iran: Blix
September 4th, 2013
By Hossein Amiri.
Former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Hans Blix in a phone call interview with Neday Enghelab discussed his views on the current Syrian situations and the odds that the US might launch a military attack on the country.
Neday Enghelab: What is the use of the inspection teams if they [the US] do not have enough time to listen to the reports?
Blix: Yes. I think there’s a certain amount of disrespect for the United Nations and for mechanisms that are set up by consensus in the Security Council. That is to regret. Though, I think that the whole world will be interested in hearing all the inspectors in Syria have found out. I think it will also be interesting for the world to hear the evidence of the United States. It may be quite interesting, but of course it is one of the factors and we have more confidence in impartial international evidence. Nevertheless, US evidence is also of value and of course they will look also into the question who has in fact used chemical weapons. The inspectors do not have a mandate looking at who has used the weapons. So, both should be on the table of the Security Council.
Nedaye Enghelab: Do you think the experts’ report can be relied on or is it going to be influenced by the US?
Blix: No, I don’t think it’s going to be influenced by the Americans. I think that the group that is being appointed by the Secretary General and assistants of the Chemical Weapons Organization, this is a group of impartial inspectors. Actually the inspectors I had in UNMOVIC the only leaning stone is to be absolutely professional and impartial.
Nedaye Enghelab: Do you think if they say the report is against the will of the United States and allies, the United States will respect the report?
Blix: I hope so. I mean I think they very well ought to do so. And I think the world will have a great deal of confidence in the report that comes from the UN. And after the case of Iraq I think there is a certain suspicion against intelligence that comes from member states. I heard that among the evidence are interceptive telephone calls. Well, in the case of Iraq Mr. Colin Powell also recited interceptive telephone calls and they were evidence but not reliable to see they were. So I think there are good reasons to wait for the report of the UN inspectors.
Nedaye Enghelab: Mr. Panetta, the former Secretary of Defense of the US has said in an interview with NBC that the US had been ready to attack Syria one month earlier, while the chemical attack had happened two weeks earlier. So it means that they were prepared to attack Syria before the chemical attack and they needed an excuse. Do you think the same?
Blix: No, I don’t think that they were looking for an excuse. I think they feel rather uncomfortable in seeing a political need to threaten an attack, because they do not really want to intervene substantially in the civil war. They do not like the establishing, to be sure, that they and many others in the West are regarded as oppressive, but at the same time they are worried that Assad could be replaced by a more fundamentalist regime which perhaps would be even less conciliable vis-à-vis Israel than the Assad regime. I don’t think they were looking for an excuse to attack Syria at all. The inspectors who were sent to Damascus to investigate earlier allegations or accusations of the use of chemical weapons even as far back as the attacks in March, I think. So that was the original part of the mission which the Assad regime had accepted; and then came this attack in Damascus which now is being investigated.
Nedaye Enghelab: Do you think that the United States will attack Syria, even a short attack, in the near future or not?
Blix: Well, through the action by Obama to go to Congress there is established a time […] and I think that time should be used for contemplations and discussions under the security councils, and with Russia in particular; but also with Iran and other countries in the region. I think that in the US certainly the indignation of the use of chemical weapons is one reason for their wish to threaten the Assad regime. But I think it’s also much about the credibility of the president. He said that if Assad would use chemical weapons that would be a red line; and I think many on the opposition side think to themselves “well, that’s good. If chemical weapons are used then the US will intervene on our side.” Well we don’t know to what extent did it happen. But I think the other credibility question is perhaps even more important. I think that they may feel that if they don’t shoot at Syria then it will be also to lose the credibility of the threats that they make vis-à-vis Iran.