Thursday, February 28, 2013

Video - History of Iran-US Relationship Since 1953

Video - History of Iran-US Relationship Since 1953

Sixty years ago, the CIA and the British SIS orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The prime minister and his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves.

Behind the Deepening Crisis with Iran: The Real Story Versus the Cover Story

 Recently, President Obama imposed new sanctions on Iran which according to reports have been very effective, causing a sudden major devaluation of Iran's currency. The Iranians correctly understand that they are under attack, and have threatened to respond by closing the strait of Hormuz, through which a large percentage of oil from the Mideast flows to the global economy. 

If the crisis deepens and Iran makes good on its threat to close Hormuz, there is little doubt that the US will intervene to reopen the strait. This will lead to a shooting war for which Iran will be blamed, even though the recent US sanctions were tantamount to overt aggression.

I believe the US will exploit the situation to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But, even more importantly, the US will target Iran's conventional missiles. Indeed, I believe this is the real reason for US sanctions in the first place, and for the buildup of tensions in recent days. Despite public perceptions, and all the rhetoric about nukes, the present crisis has nothing to do with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. In my opinion, that is just a cover story. 

The real issue is the fact that Iran has upgraded its medium range conventionally-armed missiles with GPS technology, making its missiles much more accurate. This means Iran can now target Israel's own nuclear, bio and chemical weapons stockpiles, located inside Israel, as well as the Dimona nuclear reactor. 

In short, Iran has achieved a conventional deterrent to Israel. Therefor, statements by Iranian officials that Iran has no nuclear weapons program are in my view probably correct. Presently, Iran does not need nukes to deter Israel. It can do so with its GPS-guided medium range missiles. The Israelis are no doubt gnashing their teeth over this, because they now find themselves threatened by their own WMD stockpiles, and by their own nuclear reactors, especially Dimona, all of which have become targets. 

A few direct hits by Iran could cause a toxic plume, killing thousands of Israelis. A worst case might signal the end of the Jewish state.

It is important to realize that Iran would never launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel because the Iranians know that the US/Israeli response would be devastating. However, if Iran comes under attack first, all bets are off. Iran will defend itself. A counter attack on Israel cannot be ruled out because Iranian leaders understand clearly (even if the American people do not) that the crisis has been manufactured, on Israel's behalf.

From the Israeli standpoint, the present Iranian deterrent (though conventional) is simply unacceptable. Israel's military strategists have always insisted on total freedom of movement. This is why Israel refused a US offer many years ago to sign a defense pact with the US. Such a treaty would have limited Israel's freedom of movement, and this was unacceptable. Israel's leaders preferred to remain independent. Israel has always insisted on the "freedom" to intimidate its neighbors, whenever and howsoever it chooses. Iran's conventional missiles now curtail that "freedom." Israeli officials probably worry, for example, that Iran's conventional missiles would limit its freedom to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, in a future conflict. Hezbollah is closely allied with Tehran.

I believe the present crisis has been manufactured to create the pretext for a US air campaign to take out Iran's conventional missile sites. The US will also target Iran's nuclear facilities, but the primary target will be Iran's conventional missiles. The US will be doing Israel's bidding. The Zionist tail will be wagging the servile US dog. 

Obviously, you can't generate public support for such a bombing campaign, on Israel's behalf. Hence the cover story about nukes and the alleged Iranian threat to wipe Israel off the map, all of which is untrue but very effective propaganda nonetheless.

The problem for the US is that depriving Iran of its conventional deterrent will not be easy to accomplish. Indeed, it will be even more difficult than taking out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran's conventional missiles are probably dispersed widely. If they come under attack, the purpose of the air campaign will be transparently obvious to the Iranian leadership. Faced with the prospect of losing their deterrent, the Mullahs may well decide to fire their conventional missiles. If they do and manage some direct hits on Israel's nuclear-bio-and chemical weapons stockpiles, the ensuing disaster will prompt an Israeli response. Israel may even resort to the Samson Option, and attack Iran with nukes. Words cannot describe the horrific scale of such an outcome. Unfortunately, it is all too possible.

Early in the war, US naval  forces in the Gulf will also come under attack. No mistake, Iran has enough anti-ship cruise missiles to pose a grave threat to the US naval presence in the Gulf. Thousands of US sailors are now in harm's way, and at risk.

We must rally to prevent such a war. Peace activists must now marshal every asset for peace that we possess. The American people need to know the truth. This is a phony crisis. Yet the danger is very real. Now is the time to speak out with all of our strength. Tomorrow could come too late.

Mark H Gaffney’s forthcoming book, Black 9/11, will be released soon by Trineday Press. It can be ordered at

Published By: Muhammad Musa Bezhan
Contact No: +93 786 50 55 16
Token Form: Information Clear House Site
By Mark H Gaffney
February 21, 2012 "Information Clearing House" ---

Former British citizens killed by drone strikes after passports revoked

The government has secretly ramped up a controversial programme that strips people of their British citizenship on national security grounds – two of whom have been subsequently killed by US drone attacks.
An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and published in the Independent has established that since 2010 the Home Secretary Theresa May has revoked the passports of 16 individuals many of whom are alleged to have had links to militant or terrorist groups.
Critics of the programme warn that it also allows ministers to ‘wash their hands’ of British nationals suspected of terrorism who could be subject to torture and illegal detention abroad.
They add that it also allows those stripped of their citizenship to be killed or ‘rendered’ without any onus on the British government to intervene.
At least five of those deprived of their UK nationality by the Coalition government were born in Britain, and one man had lived in the country for almost 50 years.
Those affected have their passports cancelled, and lose their right to enter the UK – making it very difficult to appeal the Home Secretary’s decision.
Last night the Liberal Democrat’s deputy leader Simon Hughes said he was writing to the Home Secretary to call for an urgent review into how the law was being implemented.
The leading human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce said the present situation ‘smacked of medieval exile, just as cruel and just as arbitrary’.
Ian Macdonald QC, president of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, described the citizenship orders as ‘sinister’.
‘They’re using executive powers and I think they’re using them quite wrongly,’ he said.
‘It’s not open government, it’s closed, and it needs to be exposed because in my view it’s a real overriding of open government and the rule of law.’
Laws were passed in 2002 enabling the Home Secretary to remove the citizenship of any dual nationals who had done something ‘seriously prejudicial’ to the UK, but the power had rarely been used before the current government.
The Bureau’s investigations have established the identities of all but four of the 21 British passport holders who have lost their citizenship, and their subsequent fates. Only two have successfully appealed – one of whom has since been extradited to the US.
In many cases those involved cannot be named because of ongoing legal action.
The Bureau has also found evidence that government officials act when people are out of the country – on two occasions while on holiday - cancelling passports and revoking citizenships.
Those targeted include Bilal al-Berjawi, a British-Lebanese citizen who came to the UK as a baby and grew up in London, but left for Somalia in 2009 with his close friend British-born Mohamed Sakr, who also held Egyptian nationality.
Both had been the subject of extensive surveillance by British intelligence, with the security services concerned they were involved in terrorist activities.
Once in Somalia, the two reportedly became involved with al Shabaab, an Islamist militant group with links to al Qaeda. Berjawi was said to have risen to a senior position in the organisation, with Sakr his ‘right hand man’.
In 2010, Theresa May stripped both men of their British nationalities and they soon became targets in an ultimately lethal US manhunt.
In June 2011 Berjawi was wounded in the first known US drone strike in Somalia and last year he was killed by a drone strike – within hours of calling his wife in London to congratulate her on the birth of their first son.
Sakr, too, was killed in a US airstrike in February 2012, although his British origins have not been revealed until now.
Sakr’s former UK solicitor said there appeared to be a link between the Home Secretary removing citizenships, and subsequent US actions.
‘It appears that the process of deprivation of citizenship made it easier for the US to then designate Sakr as an enemy combatant, to whom the UK owes no responsibility whatsoever,’  Saghir Hussain told the Bureau.
Macdonald added that depriving people of their citizenship ‘means that the British government can completely wash their hands if the security services give information to the Americans who use their drones to track someone and kill them.’
Campaign group CagePrisoners is in touch with many families of those affected. Executive director Asim Qureshi said the Bureau’s findings were deeply troubling for Britons from an ethnic minority background.
‘We all feel just as British as everybody else, and yet just because our parents came from another country, we can be subjected to an arbitrary process where we are no longer members of this country any more,’ he said.
‘I think that’s extremely dangerous because it will speak to people’s fears about how they’re viewed by their own government, especially when they come from certain areas of the world.’
Liberal Democrat Hughes said that while he accepted there were often real security concerns, he was worried that those who were innocent of Home Office charges against them and were trying to appeal risked finding themselves in a ‘political and constitutional limbo’.
‘There was clearly always a risk when the law was changed seven years ago that the executive could act to take a citizenship away in circumstances that were more frequent or more extensive than those envisaged by ministers at the time,’ he said.
‘I’m concerned at the growing number of people who appear to have lost their right to citizenship in recent years. I plan to write to the Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Select Committee to ask for their assessment of the situation, the policy both in general and in detail, and for a review of whether the act working as intended.’
Gareth Peirce said the present situation ‘smacked of medieval exile’.
‘British citizens are being banished from their own country, being stripped of a core part of their identity yet without a single word of explanation of why they have been singled out and dubbed a risk,’ she said.
Families are sometimes affected by the Home Secretary’s decisions. Parents may have to choose whether their British children remain in the UK, or join their father in exile abroad.
In a case known only as L1, a Sudanese-British man took his four British children on summer holiday to Sudan, along with his wife, who had limited leave to remain in the UK. Four days after his departure, Theresa May decided to strip him of his citizenship.
With their father excluded from the UK and their mother’s lack of permanent right to remain, the order effectively blocks the children from growing up in Britain.At the time of the order the children were aged eight to 13 months.The judge, despite recognising their right to be brought up in Britain, ruled that the grounds on which their father’s citizenship was revoked ‘outweighed’ the rights of the children.
Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in the semi-secret Special Immigration Appeals Commission, said: ‘We accept that it is unlikely to be in the best interests of the Appellant’s children that he should be deprived of his British citizenship… They are British citizens, with a right of abode in the United Kingdom.
‘They are of an age when that right cannot, in practice, be enjoyed if both of their parents cannot return to the United Kingdom.’
Yet he added that Theresa May was ‘unlikely to have made that decision without substantial and plausible grounds’.
In another case, a man born in Newcastle in 1963 and three of his London-born sons all lost their citizenship two years ago while in Pakistan.
An expert witness told Siac, the semi-secretive court which hears deprivation appeals, that those in the family’s situation may be at risk  from the country’s government agencies and militant groups. Yet Siac recently ruled that the UK ‘owed no obligation’ to those at risk of ‘any subsequent act of the Pakistani state or of non-state actors [militant groups] in Pakistan’.
The mother, herself a naturalised British citizen, now wants to return here in the interests of her youngest son, who has developmental needs. Although 15, he is said to be ‘dependent upon [his mother and father] for emotional and practical support’. His mother claimed he ‘has no hope of education in Pakistan’. But the mother has diabetes and mobility problems that mean she ‘does not feel able to return on her own, with or without [her son].’
Mr Justice Mitting ruled that the deprivation of citizenship of the family’s father had ‘undoubtedly had an impact on the private and family life of his wife and youngest son, both of whom remain British citizens’.
But he added that the father posed such a threat to national security that the ‘unavoidable incidental impact’ on his wife and youngest son was ‘justifiable’, and dismissed the appeal.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: ‘Citizenship is a privilege not a right. The Home Secretary has the power to remove citizenship from individuals where she considers it is conducive to the public good. An individual subject to deprivation can appeal to the courts.’
She added: ‘We don’t routinely comment on individual deprivation cases.’
Asked whether intelligence was provided to foreign governments, she said: ‘We don’t comment on intelligence issues. Drone strikes are a matter for the states concerned.’

A law unto herself: How the Home Secretary has the power to strip British citizenship

The Home Secretary has sole power to remove an individual’s British citizenship. The decision does not have to be referred through the courts.
From the moment the Home Secretary signs a deprivation of citizenship order, the individual ceases to be a British subject – their passport is cancelled, they lose the diplomatic protections Britain extends to its citizens, and they must apply for a visa to re-enter the country.
The Home Secretary can only deprive an individual of their citizenship if they are dual nationals. The power cannot be used if by removing British citizenship it renders an individual stateless.
The Home Secretary, Theresa May can use the power whenever she deems it ‘conducive to the public good’. She can act based on what she believes someone might do, rather than based on past acts.
The only way to challenge an order is through retrospective appeal. Where the deprivation is on national-security grounds, as in almost every known case, appeals go to the semi-secret Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac).
Siac hears sensitive, intelligence-based evidence in ‘closed’ proceedings – where an individual and their legal team cannot learn the detail of the evidence against them. Instead, a special advocate – a carefully vetted barrister – challenges the government’s account.  But once they have seen the secret material they cannot speak with the defendant without the court’s permission, making cross-examination ‘pretty useless’, in the words of former special advocate Ian Macdonald.
The government has long been able to remove the citizenship of those who acquired it in cases such as treason, but the power to do so to British-born individuals was introduced after 9/11 in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This allowed the Home Secretary to strip the nationality of those who had ‘done anything seriously prejudicial’ to the country. At that point, no deprivation order had been issued since 1973.
Following the July 7 bombings, the law changed again, so citizenship could be stripped if it is deemed ‘conducive to the public good’. Conservative MPs called this a ‘watered-down test’ – but the Conservative-led coalition government has embraced the power, issuing over three times as many orders as under Labour.
Token From Information Clear House Site
February 28, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -  
Prepared By: Muhammad Musa Bezhan
Contact No: +93 786 50 55 16
Email Address:

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

US Government’s Domain Seizures Questioned by Congress

Lately last month a group of Representatives, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, has written to Attorney General Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, rising questions about their abusive domain seizures.

The letter claimed that the concern of the Congress members had centered on DHS methods, as well as the process given, when seizing the domains of online services whose actions and material are presumed to be legitimate and protected speech. The authors also mentioned the case of an ex hip-hop portal Dajaz1 that had been seized for over a year despite proven evidence that the website had hosted legitimate content, and that a lot of the allegedly infringing links to copyrighted tracks, especially those that were the basis of the seizure order, were provided to the portal admins by musicians and labels themselves.

 Moreover, the authorities have continuously refused to collaborate with the lawyers who represented the hip-hop portal. In fact, the government was only interested in taking the website offline in secrecy. Once the court’s records were made public, it turned out that the government was waiting on the industry’s evaluation on sampling of allegedly infringing material and respond to other questions.

 In the meantime, the right of the website to speak for itself vanished, as well as the public opinion on what is going on. In a year, Dajaz1 was reinstated without any apology or explanations from the authorities. Of course, its possible profits and members were long gone.

 Nevertheless, this wasn’t the first case of abuse – last February two well-known sports streaming portals ( and had been seized without due process. Despite the Spanish court ruling that the portals were lawful, the government simply ignored it and kept the domains offline. Last week the authorities again returned the domains to their owners without any explanation. But the outfits like the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and the Representatives who sent a letter to find out about the policy of Department of Homeland Security, did demand an explanation.

 Let’s see what answer they will be given by the authorities, but most likely it’ll be as blunt as it gets.

 Muhammad Musa Bezhan
 September 11th,2012

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Some Information abou IELTS

International English Language Testing System (IELTS) tests the complete range of English language skills, which students will commonly encounter when studying or training in English.

Many professional organizations including the New Zealand Immigration Service, the Australian Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the Australian Medical Council, the UK General Medical Council and the UK Ministry of Defense accept IELTS as also most Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand academic institutions. American academic institutions are increasingly accepting IELTS for admissions purposes.
Who conducts the test?
The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) superseded the English Language Testing System (ELTS) in 1990. IELTS is jointly managed by University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (Cambridge ESOL), British Council and IDP Education Australia: IELTS Australia. The IELTS test is conducted by the following educational bodies in partnership:
University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (Cambridge ESOL) is an internationally recognised body in the provision of academic and vocational examinations. In the field of English language alone, Cambridge ESOL examines more than one million candidates each year.

British Council has wide experience and knowledge of test administration. With a network of examinations offices in over 100 countries, British Council administers over 500,000 examinations overseas on behalf of British examining boards.

3. IDP Educational Body, Australia (it's subsidiary is IELTS Australia Pvt.
IDP Education Australia is Australia's international education organisation. It undertakes a broad range of activities from student advisory services and educational publications to project consultancy and English language teaching and testing.
Who can take the test?
>> Students applying to study in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US.
>> Medical professionals planning to work or follow further study in the UK, Australia or the US.
>> People planning to emigrate to Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

If I am under 16 years old, can I take the test?
You can take the test but IELTS is not recommended for candidates under the age of 16.

What is minimum qualification for IELTS exam ?
There is no minimum qualification for IELTS. Anyone literate in english can appear for it. (Reply from Ms Nivea Sharma, Achievers Point, Defence Colony, 09873904123

Is IELTS accepted in the US?
Yes! Around 700 American universities and institutions recognise IELTS, including seven of the eight 'Ivy League' universities, CGFNS and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

List of US universities accepting IELTS

Differences and Similarities Between IELTS and TOEFL iBT

How To Score High in IELTS
" Based On New Pattern " IELTS Prep

IELTS Online Tutoring