Middle East News
Iran criticizes Western war against terrorism
May 19, 2007, 10:15 GMT
Vienna - Iran sharply criticized the Western powers' approach to fighting terrorism Saturday as superficial and biased.
Iran's Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told delegates participating in a UN-sponsored counter-terrorism symposium in Vienna that the West's actions only led to an increase in violence.
'The unsuccessful experience of major powers in their superficial, improper and biased approach to combating terrorism has been ineffective in decreasing terrorist threats,' he was quoted as saying by the Iranian IRNA news agency.
At the two-day meeting which concluded on Friday, Soltanieh, who represents his country at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, denounced the attempt to establish a connection between terrorism and religion.
'Worst of all are the attempts made to associate terrorism with a certain religion and culture,' he said.
The reasons behind terrorism were foreign occupation, discrimination, the West's double standards in politics and economy, and so-called 'state terrorism,' Soltanieh argued.
The ambassador also belaboured Western support for the exiled anti-Iranian People's Mujaheddin (MEK), whom Iran regards as a terrorist organization, formerly under the protection of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
The Vienna counter-terrorism symposium was aimed at propelling forward the UN-strategy for fighting terrorism.
The participants from approximately 100 UN member states were asked to present their issues and discuss strategies.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
Since M&C would prefer no links, these are the 'bread crumbs' that you'll need.
The Decline Begins
By James Kitfield, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, May 18, 2007
(The article aptly identifies U.S. policy failures - one excerpt from Edward Luttwak, a longtime strategist and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington..)
Although Luttwak personally doubts that current events presage a permanent American decline, he decries the diversion into Iraq at the cusp of an important victory against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 'We overshot the culminating point of success, because at that point the enemy was frightened, our friends were reassured, and neutrals were inclined to cooperate. At that point we should have regrouped and acted more humble,' he said. Instead, Luttwak noted, the United States is paying a great price for becoming embroiled in the internecine conflicts of an unforgiving Middle East. 'America is rediscovering an irony of history, played out over and over, where the single strongest power overreaches and provokes resistance, and the louder and more arrogantly it acts, the more resistance it provokes, until its power is neutralized.'
--- Bush's Five Fallacies per Francis Fukuyama ---
1). Fukuyama's analysis, one seconded by many foreign-affairs experts interviewed for this article, begins with the Bush administration's overreliance on America's conventional military forces. 'Our military thinks of itself as an overwhelming force optimized against other nation-states; but overwhelming force applied to groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or the militias in Iraq is often counterproductive because it increases the population from which these groups draw strength.'
2). The elevation of 'preventive war' against other nation-states as a way to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 'Preventive strikes against stateless terror groups that can't be contained or deterred make sense,' Fukuyama said, 'but the problem is, the Bush administration switched the subject in the middle of the conversation and applied it to rogue states in the 'axis of evil.' That's a very different ballgame.'
3). Making democracy the chief instrument for achieving U.S. strategic goals, regardless of the absence of democratic institutions or traditions in areas of the world such as the Middle East. Worse, it seemed to many of these traditional societies that the United States was imposing Western-style democracy at the end of a gun. The tension between modernity and traditional Islamic culture fueled much of the jihadist terrorism at the center of this struggle.
4). The idea of a 'benevolent unilateralism,' which others never viewed as benevolent and which largely ignored the multilateral nature of virtually all problems in an age of globalization, from terrorism and worldwide pandemics to weapons proliferation and global warming.
5). A yawning mismatch between its lofty goals and the consistently underwhelming means used to reach them. The Bush neoconservatives launched a grand campaign to eradicate tyranny and reorder the world, yet the Bush administration failed to rally a sustainable coalition for Iraq, skimped on ground troops, resisted significantly increasing the size of the U.S. military, and refused to put the nation on a wartime footing by asking for sacrifices commensurate with the challenge.
'Since M&C would prefer no links, these are the 'bread crumbs' that you'll need.'
'Bread crumbs'? That we will 'need'?
Isn't it a bit idiotic to blame the USA for the ongoing violance between Hamas and Fatah? (The subject of the article that you obviously didn't read before you posted Francis 'end of history' Fukuyama speaking about Iraq.
I think the Gaza fighting is your fault pb. That makes about as much sense as anything you have posted.
The comment about superficiality is correct.
Killing a few score of the Taliban is fine but the USA should also be going aggressively after the mullahs, ayotollas, etc. in Tehran.
When these cynical and hypocritical jackasses have all been sent directly to Allah, we will suddenly see major improvements a whole lot of other problem areas.
To view the truth see these sites below:
h**p://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Iran runs the show
h**p://www.iranterror.com
RE: 'Since M&C would prefer no links, these are the 'bread crumbs' that you'll need.'
'Bread crumbs'? That we will 'need'?
(That's for the benefit of those who like to use the Web to learn something using Google - consider yourself disqualified)
(A neurotic thinks that two and two are five. A psychotic knows that the answer is four, but hates it. I'm still trying to figure out where you fit, because 'reality' seems to escape you).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it a bit idiotic to blame the USA for the ongoing violance (sic) between Hamas and Fatah? (The subject of the article that you obviously didn't read before you posted Francis 'end of history' Fukuyama speaking about Iraq.
***
(On 'Mclaughlin' just now, Pat Buchanan made the VERY same essential point that I made - Bush has contributed ZERO during his Presidency towards calming the Israel-Palestine situation. Giving unbridled support to Sharon, and not immediately recognizing the need for a Palestinian state, typified Bush's failed policies in the region.
A failed President is responsible for all of it, and it's really impossible to separate out these issues; as though the Intafada was not already raising anti-Western sentiments when Bush went into Iraq.
If you're keeping up (I know it's hard with your head up in your nether regions; but try anyway), there's a real threat of al Qaeda getting itself mixed into the Hamas/Fatah battling. That, of course, leads me back to Bush's failure to 'win' in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban and al Qaeda in place to profit from a bumper crop of opium this year.
You keep making the essential error (or deliberate choice) of not connecting the Mideast dots. Perhaps, that's because if you were forced to link it all together, you'd find Bush at the epicenter of today's total mess. Sort of the start of the 'big bang' theory of Neocon governance.
The Saudi leaders are making it clear as to Iraq - they don't believe that al-Maliki can do the job.
The Saudis ALSO don't want Gaza to totally implode. They key problem in all of this is Iran, which supplies Hamas as well as Iraqi fighters, and the Saudis fear Iranian influence just as they convinced Bush Sr. to leave Saddam in power in 1991 in order to maintain Sunni rule in Iraq.
(Earthtimes)
Dead Sea, Jordan - Saudi diplomat Turki al-Faisal al-Saud Saturday urged Palestinians to stop shedding each other's blood, and also called on them to stop directing their weapons towards Israel. 'Our Palestinian brothers have to stop fighting not just with each other,' al-Saud told reporters at the Jordan-based World Economic forum. 'I would also call them to stop fighting Israel with military methods.'
The Saudis are hoping Israel would get on board with an Arab- backed proposed peace initiative that promises recognition of the Jewish state, in addition to full diplomatic ties on the condition that Israeli troops would pullout from the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, the Golan Heights in Syria and some territories in southern Lebanon.
Observers have said that it is unlikely that Israel would accept such a proposal, and in the Riyadh-based Arab Summit - held last March - Arab League Chief Amr Moussa had expressed doubt that Israel will accept the Saudi-proposed deal.
' Perhaps, that's because if you were forced to link it all together, you'd find Bush at the epicenter of today's total mess. Sort of the start of the 'big bang' theory of Neocon governance.'
Islam is at the epicenter of todays total mess....and Islam predates Bush by about 1350 years.... Moron.
page: 1
To hell with IranMay 19th, 2007 - 17:11:31
When you are getting complaints from the number one state sponsor of terrorism you are on to something.
Report this comment