Tom Wonacott - The statistics you cite with reference to Muslim opinions about suicide bombing and Osama Bin Laudin, et al, is both worrisome and provdes grounds for hope. The numbers for the Arab world appear about par for the course and provides even more reason for us to completely disengage from that part of the world. I find the numbers for England and France to rather outrageous. I cannot imagine how that high a percentage of Islamic immigrants would hate the very country that provides for them and gives them life and hope. In the end, if they refuse to integrate, they ought to be shipped back to where they came from to fend for themselves in that regions never ending wars and hatred. The numbers for the U.S., however, are a pleasant non-surprise. Our own Arab immigrant and Muslim population appears to be adapting and integrating quite nicely. The 13% that supports suicide bombing appears to be the norm for nut cases in any group.
Hirsi Ali, and her treatment at the hand of her country mates is the product of a country with a backward and barbaric culture that is not representative of Islam. And I am sorry for saying this but you write like a hate monger.
I urge you to get your free download of a book called the principles of successful manifesting and learn about how you are creating your own reality.
Also, why don't you do your own independent research, rather relying on FOX to learn why she was stripped of her Dutch citizenship and deported?
If you don’t care about assaulting the dignity of 1.5 Billion Muslims, calling 1.5 Billion people animals, at least you owe it to your own conscience to find out who she is vs who she claims to be.
Hirsi Said!!! As if she is the authority on Islam! She is a victim of a brutal backward society and our heart goes out to her and we pray for her, but it does not give her the license to go around the US act as a mercenary for hate mongers. Islam spans from Indonesia to South America. What makes her qualified to judge all these people? the barbaric act of her grandmother?
And since you care so much about victims why don’t you speak up for thousands of female servicewomen who get raped in our military every year or American children who are molested by their own father? I guess it makes you feel better to dig dirt in Africa rather than acknowledging the filth you’ve been raised in yourself.
I wish I could have worked in my garden today. The weather (rain) precluded me from lecturing my plants on the ills of Bush.
I know there were a certain percentage of republicans that loathed Bill Clinton. Frankly, I just found him a intelligent and competent president who was personally morally bankrupt. Bush is the first politican I've hated. I don't mean I don't like him I mean he makes my skin crawl. Even Richard Nixon didn't cause this reaction from me. Still I'd hate to see the country go through another impeachment hearing so I'm willing to live with him until his term is up. That said I'm counting the days/hours/minutes until he is out of offce. I'm also hoping congressional oversight can limit what I perceive as damage to this nation. Time will tell.
At the age of 5, her grandmother (with the smiling approval of Ali's entire family) used a pair of scissors to cut off Ali's clitori and labia.
Today, as an adult, Ali travels across the USA (after seeking refuge in this country from Islam thugs tolerated by European liberals), makes speeches, and offers interviews. In an interview today with Chris Matthews of Fox News, she condemned Islam. She stated that mainstream Islam is diametrically opposed to human rights and that Islamic animals must choose between -- continuing to believe in Islam or supporting human rights.
I had to go back to my post to see where I talked about water boarding and I couldn't find a single reference to it. Isn't it odd I just say torture is heinous and your response is the other side is more heinous, hence justifying our transgressions?
I'll stand solidly behind my previous post on this issue. By the way if you believe US torture has been limited to a couple of cases of water boarding and Lindy England laughing at naked Iraqi men I've got some swamp land for sale real cheap.
As far as civilian causalties give me a break. The US has had a long standing history of attacking civilian populations. Go back the last hundred years and just look at the history. We dropped to atomic bombs on civilian populations. It was argued we did so to protect American lives. I'm not arguing it didn't save American lives, what I'm saying is we have never lived in a glass house. We have been more then willing on numerous occasions to go after civilian populations as policy. Look at the fire bombing of Tokyo. Look at what we did to Hamburg and Dresden. Go back and revisit the carpet bombing we engaged in Vietnam. This isn't a history lesson, but come on. To try to posit we're not guilty of targeting civilians in conflicts is simply revisionist history at best. However, if you want to stick your head in the sand and either rationalize our attacks against civilian populations or believe they haven't existed help yourself.
As far as terror I don't have a problem with the definition of using force to create intense fear in another group. Unfortunately, the nitwits in the administration want to limit the definition to groups that target civilians and more specifically Americans. They can only come up with why these people are doing it because they detest our way of life. Bulldoodles. That Bush is too stupid to know why Bin Laden hates the US or is unwilling to share this information with us is another reason he should resign. I could respect Bush if he said, "Look, the US is firmly committed to the State of Israel at any cost. I understand our relationship with Israel will mean a percentage of Muslims will engage the US in guerrilla style warfare and try to persuade us to abandon our staunch support for Israel. I believe it's in the best interest of the US to continue our support of Israel and I will do everything in my power to limit the damage radical muslim groups can do to the US." Da, da! A realistic response to a situation. Instead this nitwit keeps regurgitating his talking points about how the terrorists (who he can't define) want to bring America down because they have an irrational hate for us. Then he fails to mention the reason the Muslim world hates Israel is because they believe the Israelis stole their land and they want it back. So what does our fearless leader do he runs right over there and steals some more of their land. Ah, it would be humorous if it wasn't so sick.
Tom, first who are we fighting? ElQaeda? OK, how many are there? Where are they? Who are they? Why are they fighting us? What can we do to stop the fighting? Who else are we fighting? Who are they? Why are they fighting us? What can we do to stop the fighting? Simple questions with relatively simple answers unless you just simply say the dreaded terrorists and there's no end to them and they hate us for no good reason and they are low life's who deserve to die. By the way did I mention they eat babies too. Let's equate them to Hitler and call them evil as they die by thousands each month. Then let's bring up the word democracy like it was the panacea of life. Muslims don't like democracy so they must be bad people. Muslims don't believe in womens rights so they must be bad people. Any one who doesn't believe in a Bush view of the world is not only wrong, but bad people. He may be our leader, but he sure isn't one I'm proud of.
"...The definition of terrorism is important. It helps to clarify what has happened and what will happen. Until we (a consensus) can come to terms with what it means we're just poking around in the dark..."
You are poking around in the dark. I'm not. What you are saying, in effect, is that water boarding is cruel and inhumane treatment, while targeting and killing 150 children at the Beslan school in Russia is fair game because these school children were providing material support for the Russian army?
Read "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". There are special provisions for the protection of children, pregnant mothers, mothers of children under seven etc.
By your reasoning, there is always justification for ethnic cleansing, genocide, genocide against an occupied people, murder, torture, attacking hospitals etc. because they could be providing material support for the enemy. Anyone is fair game.
The Geneva accords were created for a reason. I couldn't have kept the definition any simpler. Targeting civilians is illegal and immoral.
As far as Bin Laden goes, and, hopefully, you agree that he is a terrorist, it was obviously a politically motivated attack against the US and the West, in general.
I believe he attacked us because he wants to create a fundamentalist (Salafist) Islamic state(s) in the Islamic sections of the world (ideally, the whole world), obviously including where Israel is located. He cannot create that while we are supporting many of the regimes currently in power. His plans (eventually) would surely include annihilating Iran and all Shiites.
Chomsky says:
"...They are very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they know it even if we don’t want to. And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year..."
Bin Laden is not interested in democracy, after all, he supported the Taliban. He is definitely anti religious freedom, free speech etc., and would create the type of world that would be the antithesis of a democratic society. He most definitely hates our freedoms because they are a threat to the servitude and control of the population that fundamentalist Islam requires.
Our support of the Shah must have been a blessing for him as that led to an Islamic state (albeit Shiite). Certainly, the overthrow of Saddam was a gift (in his world, but the Shia in control is a result that he surely cannot support).
Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will be fought at all cost as that is a huge recruitment tool for his cause. Interestingly, in my opinion, Iran uses the Palestinian issue to further its cause in the same way, and therefore opposes peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
Most of what Chomsky regurgitates is little more than propaganda for Al Qaeda's true cause, but I believe it can be applied to other people in the Middle East that truly support a move toward democracy (eight million Iraqis voted in each of the elections, for example).
TSK, TSK! You can't confuse incarcerated people (POW's) with a civilian population who is aiding, abetting and providing material support for your enemies. The first group is no longer a threat to your well being and the second group is still a threat to your life.
This fundamental problem has always existed in warfare and always will. Armies require everything from food to energy to transportation to clothing to arms, etc., etc. to operate efficiently. In any strategic view of warfare the disabling of the industries that provide goods and services to an army have always been fair game. OK, where do you draw the line? If a factory that provides uniforms is operated by 1,200 civilian women are they also not in harms way. Does anyone really think the general population of a society won't support a war effort and open themselves up to the possibility of being attacked for it? Breaking the will of the general population to fight is a long established technique in warfare.
This is opposed to how we treat captured combatants. Captured combatants have been taken out of the theater of warfare and are no longer a risk to anyone or anything. The worst you can say about them is we have to gaurd them, feed them and provide them medical attention. However, torturing them once incarcerated should not be an option. Torture is an issue where the means (torture) never justify the ends (information collected). It's rare I'll ever use the word never in a post. However, torture should be an absolute. What's the next step Tom? Do we start allowing our police departments to torture people picked up for speeding to see if they know of any wrong doing going on in our society? Do we start beating old ladies and children to see what they know. Where does it stop? You may argue that the constitiution has restrictions against such actions and that enemies don't have any such proctections outside of the Geneva Accords. However, if we play a game of semantics we can on one hand say we're at war with terrorists, but on the other say these same terrorists are not enemy combatants. Kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it?
The definition of terrorism is important. It helps to clarify what has happened and what will happen. Until we (a consensus) can come to terms with what it means we're just poking around in the dark. In essence we're fighting a hundred different wars. My original point on your definition of terrorism was political gain is too broad to have a meaning. Everything in life is political. Hillary Clinton is looking for political gain each and every day. So is George Bush. We're not calling them terrorists (well actually we may be), but you get my point. Is not GW using force (violence) to impose his will on Iraq? Of course he is. Does that make him a terrorist? Some would say yes and some would say no. I have a problem with having a war over a concept to begin with, but I have an even greater problem having a war over a concept that no one can agree what the definition is.
Finally, I leave you with a question. Why do you think Bin Laden attacked the US?
What's the right agenda for the next meeting in U.S.-Iran talks?
I find it difficult to understand how to determine such an agenda. We are talking about trying to establish a conversation across civilizations and the state of the world today is such that the option of just walking away if the conversation turns ugly is impossible. With communications technology, etc.--ease of movement from one civilization to another, compression of world as if all continents closing back toward the one original continent before separation,--and this coupled with increasingly dangerous weaponry--there simply is no option of retreating anywhere and it comes down to a brutal and pure political philosophy conversation, how to keep order in such a mad world.
And there is no question in my mind that I am firmly for the U.S. values of separation of church and state; freedom of press; the advance of science; and above all an increasing determination to get at the difference between individual and society with the purpose of creating a society which constantly puts forth gifted individuals in an evolutionary process.
I am so in love with the possibilities derived from Western speculation on political order that I find it incomprehensible to hear notions such as "Islam has killed only ten thousand people but Western society has killed ten million" as if this at all makes a difference. Too often people seem to confuse inability to kill with goodness or a better society when really it is only inability to kill. Islam is not kinder for having killed so few in relationship to Western society, only unable to kill by being not nearly as technologically advanced. And I am being really kind here to Islam and not pointing out the fact that Islam does not even allow many individuals to get born--to even breathe the air of freedom--let alone get into a position to be killed. Islam non-violent in comparison to the West? Ridiculous. Half the civilization--the women--are in subordinate position. Just ridiculous.
And once again this notion of trying to compare levels of violence to determine which civilization is the better one is just absurd. Saying Islam is less violent is like native Americans saying native American ways are better for the environment--when really one civilization has no technology to be really violent and the other no technology to be an environmental threat. Just absurd. The question is what would occur if right now all technology--and the most dangerous weapons--were transfered to the Islamic world. Or just imagine how kind native Americans would have been to the environment if they had the polluting capacities of a modern society.
I care to find out neither. The West of all civilizations has demonstrated the greatest sense with technology. For all our capacity for destruction we have demonstrated a restraint which I doubt other civilizations are capable of. And why do I say such a thing? I point to simply a constant will to politically philosophize with the purpose of trying to bridge ethnic, racial, religious, etc. differences. Islam is just Islam to be imposed on all of us--everything is declared understood.
I no longer believe in even a moderate Islam. I think the concept of Islamic civilization is trouble. And furthermore I believe all Westerners should stock up on weapons at home and be prepared to mirror every single tactic that Muslims are now embracing in confrontation with the West. Westerners can start by threatening the liberals (the democratic party members in the U.S., socialists in Europe) just as the fundamental Muslims threaten the moderates among them. Two can play at the game.
The question is coming down to which political philosophy is best for the world and the stakes are much higher than a Western-Soviet discussion. I ask simply does Islamic civilization accept Western methods of bridging differences or not? And by Western methods, no, do not try to distinguish such from Russian or Chinese methods. The West can converse with Russia or China. With Islam however there is the fundamental problem of a religion trying to thrust itself above all else.
That is the question. It is really up to Iran to determine the agenda.
How can you cite the US on torture, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and then accept the targeting and killing of civilians as just a product of war? At least most "bleeding heart liberals" are consistent with respect to human rights. It is against the Geneva Convention. Illegal. No more excuses for explicitly and intentionally targeting civilians. Bin Laden (purposely) makes no distinction. The rest of us do.
I don't want to get bogged down in a definition of terrorism. It is a difficult term to define, and there are a great deal of definitions and it, at least in part, is subjective. That being said, the Madrid bombings were designed to influence the Spanish elections. If you believe Ron Paul, our foreign policy caused the 911 attacks, therefore, Bin Laden bombed us for political reasons (which Bin Laden has stated). The election of Sarkozy drew a threat from an Al Qaeda affiliated organization against the election of an Israeli supporting President (not to mention his Jewish heritage).
All those are political in nature. I think your definition is good and correct, but I prefer political gain as that is the ultimate goal in most cases.
"...Hence, do we need to declare war on Islam and kill all 1.5 billion of them to ensure this radical element doesn't rise again? A little over the top, don't you think?..."
On the other hand, we shouldn't be required to "win the hearts and minds" of Muslims living within our own country either. They are here by choice, presumably, because there was a better opportunity here. The same goes for Europe, although Muslims have assimilated into US society quite well as compared to Europe.
To answer your question, no, obviously the war against radical Islam is being fought within Islam, as well. The pro-secular demonstrations in Turkey indicate that people in Turkey do not want an Islamic government. Algeria has seen a rise in women's rights, as has Morocco. Ultimately, the war may be won by moderate Islam (with a little help from their friends).
In the Name of God Who Gave Us Our Life to Sacrifice in the Defense of Iran
Tom,
What you are saying here? All that data is like saying "I have an itch in my ..." Fine. Why do you think you have the itch? No matter the answer you come up with; whether it is Islam is the root of evil, or Muslims are animals, or whatever else you come up with; here is the challenge to you:
Go read Xenophon's Cyropedia. If Cyrus the Great was able to rule those same lands, from India to Morocco with fairness and humanity, then go join the movement to bring back his glorious achievement rather than sitting here complaining about the world you have created around yourself.
"...The figures cited by this report have ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO TOM's DATA..."
I had reservations about citing any polls in my post because of the response to the polls I cited about US support of Israel (which were entirely correct), and because, as I noted in the post, statistics can be interpreted liberally to fit your argument. The data I cited are mostly in the PEW report you cited but obviously missed. Other date were from other reports. One was incorrectly copied. INSTEAD OF ACCUSING ME OF LYING (BASICALLY), MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST ASK WHERE I GOT THE DATA.
From the PEW study:
Only 40 percent of US Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (page 50)
13 percent of US Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
5 percent of US Muslims have favourable views of Al Qaeda. (Page 53)
The above references a May 2006 study which found that:
Only 17 percent of British Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (Page 50)
Only 16 percent of Turkish Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (Page 50)
Only 15 percent of Pakistani Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (Page 50)
35 percent of French Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
25 percent of Spanish Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
24 percent of British Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
69 percent of Nigerian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 52)
57 percent of Jordanian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 52)
53 percent of Egyptian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified (Page 52)
"...AMSTERDAM — A new centre for the study of radicalism and extremism has been established in Amsterdam...
...Researcher Frank Buijs of UvA's Institute of Migration and Ethnic Studies decided there was a need for the new academic centre while he was researching radicalisation of Moroccan youth on behalf of the Ministry for Immigration and Integration...
...The study found 40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy. Six to seven percent are prepared to use force to defend Islam.
The majority are opposed to freedom of speech for offensive statements, particularly criticism of Islam..."
The poll from the UK should read 40% want sharia Law (instead of the 50% that I miscopied)
It is very difficult to define an agenda before you define the intentions, goals and the outcomes.
So I would pose the question as to what should be the goals and intentions of each party and what subset of those should be considered for these meetings?
I will then suggest both parties to apply Sandler Sales principles to move on. These principles are based on natural laws and can not be broken.
In Sandler Sales methodology you make an analogy between the process and safety doors of an imaginary submarine that secures each compartment. These doors are supposed to be locked in the right sequence or ship will sink.
The 1st compartment is Bonding & Rapport.
The 2nd compartment is Upfront Contract.
The 3rd compartment is understanding of each others’ pain.
For the sake of brevity I skip the other compartments here.
As you note Iran and the US are now in the 3rd compartment without having locked the door on the compartment Bonding and Rapport.
Of all the parties running for US presidency, Gov. Richardson is the only one who seems to be a seasoned practitioner of these principles.
So it is my sincere hope that he wins the presidency and then start to build some rapport with the rest of the world.
Ere you accept Tom W's data on Muslims and Terrorism, please read the last PEW poll on this subject: http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf the paper is long [108 pages] the summary on terrorism is on page 5 [11 of PDF file] with a chapter on Terrorism etc later.
The figures cited by this report have ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO TOM's DATA
I spent a couple hours yesterday composing a nice lengthy response to you your post only to have it eaten up by the web-site. Bummer, but it happens.
I'll try this again and hope this one makes it through.
First, your definition of terrorism. Sorry, it's a very bad definition. You wrote:
"Definition of terrorism:
“Targeting (killing) of civilians for political gain”
What, are terrorists trying to influence the political process by killing off people who would vote against them in an election? That would be political gain. No, political gain has nothing to do with it. Terrorism is actions designed to instill intense fear in people for the purposes of attempting to impose one's will on them.
The targeting of civilians of civilians for political gain is too broad to have nay real meaning. The US has for centuries targeted civilians and we don't call ourselves terrorists. The fire bombings of WWII (which we love to us as how good the US is) were designed specifically to target civilians. The A bombs used against Japan were specifically designed to target civilians. No, we have a long history of targeting civilians. It's only been in the last 20 years with smart weapons we've made any attempt to spare civilians.
I will go back to a point I brought up in an earlier post. Any country that is going to war will try to terrorize the other side. It only makes sense. You want to reduce their will to fight. To buy into a concept of a surgically run war only targeting military facilities and personnel is naive. Since the US is ready, willing and able to engage other nations in conflicts (wars) it only makes sense they are willing to engage in actions designed to terrorize the opposition. That is the nature of war. Shock and Awe was designed for this very purpose. While we attempted to terrorize only the Iraqi military everyone who thinks about this issue knows that isn't possible. Now we're fond of saying "collateral damage." This damage is the death and destruction of civilians that is caused by mistakes or malfunctions. Hmmmm, do you think in warfare it's possible to have shock and awe without a series of mistakes and malfunctions? Of course it isn't. We know this. We know we'll kill civilians and non-combatants.
Anyway, the use of the word terrorism/terrorist is this administrations way to denoting the other side is a bunch of insidious low lifes who deserve to die. It's our way of villifying Radical Muslim groups. We call them terrorist, we call them Islamo-Facists, we call them murders, we equate them to everything heinous known to mankind. In essence we do this to first garner support for a war effort and second so that our armed forces will engage and kill these people we're at war with. It's really hard to tell a US soldier the other side of a conflict are really good rational people with families and shoot them anyway. So we demonize them. We've done this in every conflict we've ever entered. I could, but I won't, go back and use the names that Germans were called in WWI & II, that the Japanese were called in WWII, that the North Koreans were called, that the Chinese were called or the Vietnamese. Now it's the radical muslims that are called bad names. You need to remember these same people we villified before we have diplomatic relationships with today (exception: N. Korea).
What I did like about your post was the second part. This is where you show statistics about how Muslims around the world feel. Without arguing these statistics and assuming they have merit it begs the following question: IF THE MUSLIM RELIGION PROMOTES A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY OF VIOLENT EXTREMISTS SHOULD THE WORLD NOT TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AS TO WHETHER WE WISH IT TO CONTINUE TO EXIST?
Rather harsh question, don't you think? However, it seems to be germaine. If in fact jihad and radical extremism is inherent in the religion what should be done about it? Can we surgically remove the extremist element and leave only the moderate element? Probably not if it is inherent in the religion. Hence, do we need to declare war on Islam and kill all 1.5 billion of them to ensure this radical element doesn't rise again? A little over the top, don't you think?
People are people. There are good people and there are bad people. It's impossible to find in a society all good or bad people. They all have a mix. The Muslim world is no different. Obviously, something is going on that causes radical elements of the religion to rise up. No, I don't buy the argument they do this because they are evil. If, as Bush is fond of saying, there are a vast majority of good muslims then it is encumbent on them to police their own. If they are failing to do this and in fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest exactly the opposite they must be really mad about something or Bush is just plain wrong.
Hence, it is encumbent on us to examine why their is a rise in radical extremism in the muslim world and maybe, just maybe, work with them to reduce the tensions. I know, I know, I'm sounding like a bleeding heart liberal here, but invading, occupying and equating Iraq to Korea won't do anything but assist in the rise of extremism. Our current policies are counter productive to our security.
The start of dialogue between US and Iran after so much long time is a very encouraging news for all who wants stability and peace in middle east.
I suggest following agenda
1. With immidiate effect Iran stop calling " Death to US" and US stop calling exis of evil.
2. US accept Iran as a soverign country and an important player in middle east. Iran in return accept US as a super power and recognize its role in middle east as a genuin power broker.
3. US and Iran agree to start working for full deplomatic relations.
4. US agree to release all Iranian confiscated funds and in return Iran agree to invest these funds for welfare of Iraqi and palestinian suffers on merit.
5. US recognize the right of Iran to develop technological advancement including neaclear technology and in return Iran agrees to allow monitoring of its installation and declare not to enrich uranium up to weapon grade.
6. US and Iran declare to resume cultural and sports exchange events.
7. Iran unconditionally declare to abide the international regulations and not to support any milatery at any hot spot. In return Iran will be allowed to play its role in the peace process of Iraq
For those of you who are US citizens, I have two questions:
1- the so-called questionable Iranian nuclear activities have been surfaced only 4 years ago. The United States of America has been in violation of its commitments to IAEA for a much longer time and cannot use Iran as an excuse to retain its nuclear weapons.
If you guys really understand your democratic rights and OBLIGATIONS as responsible citizens, how often have you pressed your representative on the issue of US dismantling its nuclear weapons?
It is amazing that people who are treated like sheep by their own government roar like lions in these blogs about the legitimate right of Iranian people to have nuclear energy.
2- The US government states that Iran has to dismantle billions of dollars of investment in enrichment facilities before they sit down to talk. The US government says if they start talking without any preconditions, the Iranians will use that as an opportunity to drag their feet and continue enrichment.
Well let’s look at where we are. It is almost 2 years that Dr. Rice has come up with this brilliant idea. In the course of these 2 years US has refused to talk and Iran has continued to do what they wanted.
Could we have lost more, if we had talked to them during this time?
Are these questions too complicated for you to understand? That's OK. Just copy and paste it in a word document and send it as a letter to your representative.
There is a good chance they are too thick to understand it either. But at least you would have registered your interest to take back your country.
Miss stoliker, In response to your outrageous claim about Khuzestan, a pretty lady like you should then know that southern Iraq and Basra province were forcefully stolen from Iran by the British.
Young lady, if you want to play violence and go around tearing up countries, don't cry like babies when nations have to use resources available to them to defend themselves.
You and the other girl ZAP just presented the case for why Iran should bug US down in Iraq and Afghanistan and help majority Shiaas overthrough the governments of Bahrain and Qatar.
Pretty girls who live in glass house should not through stone.
I appreciate your response. I am not an atheist and believe that there is a place in the world for religion whether it is Christianity or Islam, etc.
I consider radical Islam to be a threat to all people (including people of Islamic faith) and a threat to the freedoms of western democracies. Some of today's ideological battles against radical Islam occur within Islam itself. Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Turkey are facing a growing population of extremist. Christopher Hitchins makes some interesting points regarding the left ("Islamofascism and the Left", An interview with Christopher Hutchins):
"...He explains that he believes the moment the left's bankruptcy became clear was on 9/11. "The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represents all the most reactionary elements on earth. They stand for liquidating everything the left has fought for: women's rights, democracy? And how did much of the left respond? By affecting a kind of neutrality between America and the theocratic fascists." He cites the cover of one of Tariq Ali's books as the perfect example. It shows Bush and Bin Laden morphed into one on its cover. "It's explicitly saying they are equally bad. However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this. It is not the Taliban, and anybody - any movement - that cannot see the difference has lost all moral bearings."
Hitchens - who has just returned from Afghanistan - says, "The world these [al-Quadea and Taliban] fascists want to create is one of constant submission and servility. The individual only has value to them if they enter into a life of constant reaffirmation and prayer. It is pure totalitarianism, and one of the ugliest totalitarianisms we've seen. It's the irrational combined with the idea of a completely closed society...
...But can he see a time when this kind of jihadist fever will be as marginalised as, say, Nazism is now, confined to a few reactionary eccentrics? "Not without what that took - which is an absolutely convincing defeat and discrediting. Something unarguable. I wouldn't exclude any measure either. There's nothing I wouldn't do to stop this form of fascism."..."
Iran is not a homogeneous state..Kuhzistan province on the Iraq-Iran border was illegally seized by Iran after WWI and is inhabitated by Arabs not Iranians (the true cause of the Iran/Iraq war) there are many Sunnis along the "Persian Gulf" not to mention the Kurds in northwestern Iran....if its ok to break up "Yugoslavia" what makes Iran so special??? America will continue to have major problems in a post-cold war environment until we throw out the old "English Imperialism Made Easy" playbook our leaders have followed..sadly since 1917
Dave! June 1, 2007 6:05 PM: To be sure, I donot predict the future. However our mis-adventure in Iraq has many precedents. We should have stayed out.
However, you also posted some things that indicate that you either want to mis-direct the discusion, or you have a point to make. At any rate, what you posted has nothing to do with my post. Specifically, you posted "Regime change for Germany and Italy back in the 40's was ok. Or regime changes in eastern Europe during the 80's and 90's. Or Yugoslavia. Regime change for Afghanistan under the Taliban is OK. Apartheid South Africa regime change was ok. But not for the butcher of Baghdad and his sadistic cohorts. Got it. Glad those rule are clear." Utter nonsense:
1. Germany, with Italy as an ally, declared war on us;
2. 'Regime chnages in Eastern Europe' is a very simplistic statement to sum the collapse of Communism in Europe. I assume that you are not as naive;
3. Yugoslavia collapsed of its own weight. And as a matter of record, I disagreed strongly with Germany's decision to support Croatia's secession. It was a repeat of the events prior to WW1;
4. Unfortunately we were attacked from Afghanistan (9/11);
5. South Africa was an internal matter;
6. Please explain tome when Iraq attacked us.
I see that you regurgurated the recent PEW poll on torture and justified attack on civilians.
I note that you took as prejudiced citation versus Muslims as possible.
I note that you have failed to indicate the poll result pertaining to "WHITE CHRISTIAN USA CITIZENS"
whereas all the data is availble in public view; and whereas you have with INTENTION skewed the results to satisfy your point of view regarding Muslims, I therfore must adjudge this effort by you as groundless PROPAGANDA, similar to the recurring speeches of your darlings, Bush and Cheney, we are progressing in IRAQ .
While I admit that some Muslims took certain inhumane views on torture and civilian targeting [in smaller % than the Chirstian Whites], no person from the USA can utter a word on this subject without reminding the WORLD THAT THE USA IS THE GREATEST ATTACKER OF CIVILIANS IN THE XXII-nd century.
AMViennaVA,
The success or failure of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam is unknown to us at this time. That history has not yet been written. Events that seem disasterous or the wrong policy sometimes wind up having a positive effect years later. And vice versa. Remember that WWI was "the war to end all wars". The point is that we don't know how things will eventually turn out. Islamic terrorism was alive and well long before Bush and Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, took out Saddam. Islamic terrorists had little problem with recruiting prior to Iraq, i doubt that they would have had trouble recruiting with or without Iraq. The poster would just have the Palestinians or the US air base in SA or Israel as the rally cry. Solomom is blind to or just does not care about the support that suicide bombers have from Muslims throughout the world and what that support says about Muslims. The world is a bloody place regardless of the actions of Bush. You could have a government full of Jimmy Carters and there would still be people dying all over the place - and suicide bombers. There would still be brutal dictators. People would live never having experienced liberty or freedom. People would still be fighting and dying. It's easy but intellectually dishonest to blame all the world's ills on one man or one event. But its convenient. It saves people the trouble of actually looking for root causes of problems.
Now let's see. Regime change for Germany and Italy back in the 40's was ok. Or regime changes in eastern Europe during the 80's and 90's. Or Yugoslavia. Regime change for Afghanistan under the Taliban is OK. Apartheid South Africa regime change was ok. But not for the butcher of Baghdad and his sadistic cohorts. Got it. Glad those rule are clear.
Tom Wonacott.
Your lengthy post was excellent and terrifying.
Thank you for all the work you did to get that info out.I've copied it for further study.
My problem is the realiisation that all we have to counter militant Islam seems to be christianity.
Christians can hardly jeer at the idiocy of Islam when they too believe in a skygod.
An intellectual revolution is needed to oppose supernaturalism,and I think this is why Richard Dawkins,Sam Harris and now Christopher Hitchins are writing books on Atheism,and why more and more non believers are posting very intelligent comments on these threads.
Our lives are at stake.We all have to speak out against religion,if only to counter the groupthink that has so long been unopposed and has grown because it is impolite to question someones religious beliefs.
We are polite at our peril.
Dave (& Salamon): Salamon has the better of the argument. We (the US) invaded and have created a distatrou8s situation, for absolutely no reason. And, please, spare me the line that we were attacked on 9/11 since Iraq had nothing to do with it; or that Iraq 'supported terrorism' since we do the same (what do you think is our advocacy of 'regime change').
Now we have a situation where:
1. Because of the Kurds, Turkey/Syria/Iran have common cause that we oppose;
2. Because of our invasion of Iraq, Iran is much stronger (after all, we eliminated their biggest enemies - the Taliban, justifiably, and Saddam Hussein);
3. We created the perfect recruitment posters for all Islamic millitants.
And I very much fear that Bush will take steps before he leaves that wil require our active participation in Iraqi affairs for decades to come (since we do not have the courage to admit a mistake and accept the consequences - the long term impact of getting out willbe much shorter-lived than staying; after all even Vietnam has good relations with us now).
Agenda: America, Let’s find a way to live in peace with each other.
Iran should tell the US that as long as you have military bases in Diego Garcia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Tajikistan and Afghanistan, you are a threat to our national security.
We want to get into a regional security agreement that ensures Iran will not be attacked and in return Iran will not destabilize US allies in the region.
In the case of some of Emirates of the Persian Gulf, as much as 75% of their income is paid back to the US government and companies for security and protection reasons. We are talking about several hundred billion dollars that each year these countries pay as bribe to the US.
The Persian Empire that at some point spanned from Libya to India has been around for thousands of years and the United States has to recognize and respect the peaceful ambitions of the Iranian people. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not invaded any country but has been the subject of military and financial invasion since its inception.
While Iran has one of the strongest militaries in the region, per capita it spends far less on the military than all US allies. That is why while most US allies in the region have made little progress thousands of villages in Iran are enjoying electricity and clean water, hundreds of dams have been built, 60% of university teachers are now women and the same is the ratio for students.
Which US ally in the region can claim the same accomplishments? There must be a better way than military posturing.
Are all of the panelists here working for the Iranian govt? There responses are so predictible that they really do not add any insight to this issue.
There is only one thing Iranians understand and that is brute force. One more little international incident and they should be bombed back to the stone age.
Iran does not contribute to any UN programs, and their only export is terrorism. The world would indeed be a better place if it was wiped form the map once and for all.
Salamon,
You are one of the reasons my childrens childrens children will be fighting Islamic terrorism. A failure to realize the realities of the world and a rationalization of the barbaric terrorist model adopted by Muslims does not bode well for the future.
Us/Allied persons killed by Islamists LESS THAN 10 000 [that includes all invading/occuping armed personnel/mercaneries]
Islamist killed by USA/Allied IN EXCESS of 500 000, probably closer to 1 000 000 - for all unnatural deaths in Afganistan, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon and points around there are due to USA warmongering, proxie arming, Special Forces, carpet bombing, destroying hospitals, not providing potable water, food, etc or GROSS NEGLIGENCE in providing SECURITY IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.
The following USA ACTIONS are against INTERNATIONAL LAW, Geneva Convention, Haque Convention, UN Declaration of HUMAN Rights, [and in sopme cases against the USA Constitution/Federal Statutes] and a few more:
1., Invading a Sovereign Country when the attacker was not attacked.
2., Neglecting to provide security in occupied country [the USa is also responsible for all ISREALI TRANSGRESSION OF THIS LAW, for the USA armes and supports Israel's actions contrary to international law]
3., Carpet bombing, straffing by "gunships" and or attack planes civilian targets.
4., Rendering prisoners to 3rd countries for torture,
5, torturing prisoners
6., arming and contracting 3rd parties to create havoc in soverign countries.
and there are more.
The best thing to do with you, Sir, is ship you to Iraq - without armor, and forbid you to enter the Green Zone. If you still among the living in 5 years, you can relate your experiences with relation you enoyed in the company of native Arabs, whose country your nation invaded.
SALAMON,
"WHAT IS THE LEGACY YOU PLAN TO WILL TO THE NEXT GENERATION?" You are right in that we have not done enough for our next generation. We have been lax on addressing the Global Response Against Islamic Terrorism (and Fundamentalism). Our biggest failure in this is being able to convince Muslims that their belief that terrorism in general and suicide bombing in particular are acceptable methods of addressing perceived wrongs is abhorent. I don't care if Muslims or Europeans "like" us or not. I do care when a person thinks it is their duty to God to strap a bomb on their body and blow up as many innocent people as possible and have that act endorsed and supported by millions of people, Muslim religious leaders and governments alike. If anything, the US has been nowhere near tough enough, persistent enough or brutal enough in its War on Terror. This fight against Islamic terrorism will be the legacy that is left to the next generation. Hopefully, they will do a better job than we have been doing. However, given the existence of liberals in America, i doubt it. I fear it's a legacy that my childrens childrens children will inherit.
While the phrase “War on Terror” works well for me considering the methods employed by Jihadist, a better phrase is “Global Response Against Islamic Terrorism (and Fundamentalism) - GRAIT”
The phrase confronts the reality of the dominant source of terrorism in the world today and challenges the spread of a fundamentalist ideology that not only threatens western democratic freedoms, but also attempts to subjugate people living in Islamic countries under an extreme, fundamentalist ideology (Algeria is an example).
Definition of terrorism:
“Targeting (killing) of civilians for political gain”
Several characteristics provide a commonality to Radical Islamic activity around the globe (global Jihad). Characteristics of world-wide Islamic terrorism include:
1. TARGETING AND KILLING CIVILIANS for political (and religious) gain by design is the defining characteristic of all Islamic terrorism. To dismiss this is to dismiss reality, and there is no justification (or excuse) for this illegal and immoral strategy. Terror is meant to subjugate the population. The Taliban kill civilians to undermine the government’s ability to provide security for the population.
2. SOURCES OF FUNDING are state-sponsors such as Iran and Saudi Arabia (?), as well as Islamic charities, drug smuggling, bank robberies, etc. The same sources may fund separate conflicts. The Saudis fund the building of Mosque world-wide that Jihadist use to spread their radical ideology:
“…In particular, these officials remain worried that a process of fanatical Arabisation similar to that which has occurred in Indonesia and the outlying Moro areas of the Philippine archipelago may now be taking place in Thailand’s deep-south, possibly heralding the emergence of a new strategic theater for anti-Western terrorist attacks in Southeast Asia (Interviews, November 2005).
Compounding these fears are reports that money from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Pakistan is increasingly being channeled to fund the construction of local Muslim boarding schools (or “ponoh,” known as pondoks in Malaysia and pesenteren in Indonesia), private colleges and mosques dedicated to the articulation of hardline Wahhabist and Salafist teachings….”
3. TRAINING is conducted at camps that teach the global Jihadist philosophy and terrorist techniques to various fighters around the world. Chechnya rebels trained in Afghanistan at Bin Laden’s Camps, and UK terrorist, in part, trained in Pakistan. Pakistan has now become the new training center for Islamic extremism after the camps were closed in Afghanistan. Many leaders of terror networks world-wide received their training from camps in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. Most subscribe to the Wahabi or Salafi Sunni form of Islam.
“…The apparent commander of this terrorist network is Aden Hashi 'Ayro, a protégé of Sheikh Hassan Aweys, the once notorious leader of al-Itihaad military wing [1]. Ayro is a graduate of Afghan terrorist camps. It is believed that is where he acquired mastery of low-tech and low-cost weapons. His followers are growing adept at the use of explosives, shoulder-launched missiles and anti-tank systems…”
4. THE SPREAD OF SALAFISM AND WAHABISM which is funded and exported world-wide by Saudi Arabia (principally), and is a strict interpretation of the Qur’an (adhered to by Bin Laden in its most radical interpretation) is completely contrary to democratic principals (separation of church and state to begin with). Saudi Arabia is a good example of a country with Islamic law, and most agree, it is one of the least free societies on earth (gender equality, religious freedom, etc.).
Radical Imams preach a message of hate in many Mosque in Europe that radicalizes young Muslims (by most surveys, younger immigrant Muslims are more radical than Muslims older than thirty). A poll conducted on Moroccan youth in the Netherlands (2006): “…40 % reject democracy, and a majority think that criticism of Islam should be illegal…”. Fifty percent of Muslims in Great Britain want Islamic Law and 5% endorse violence to attain it. “…All of 58% (GB) want those who criticize or insult Islam to face criminal prosecution…”.
Apparently, this is true, as well, in other parts of Europe. The murder of Theo van Gogh, the fatwa’s issued on Salmon Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their outspoken criticism of Islam, the world-wide rioting caused by the Pope and the Danish cartoons (and other incidents) has attacked free speech in Europe. These incidents mark a “…prolonged campaign of intimidation, with surely more to come….”
5. MOST OF THE CONFLICTS IN THE WORLD TODAY INVOLVE MUSLIMS. The timing of the conflicts is not coincidental and can be termed a world-wide revolution.
“…If you look around the borders of the Muslim world, you find that there are a whole series of local conflicts involving Muslims and non-Muslims: Bosnia, Kosovo, the Caucuses, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, North Africa, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Muslims also fight Muslims, and much more than the people of other civilizations fight each other…” (Samuel Huntington, Political Science, Harvard University, 2001).
Afghanistan and Thailand also have seen a bloody, radical Islamic uprising. Tracing of the funding, training and philosophy (jihad) of the wars indicates there is a link between many of the conflicts even though the wars are fought for many different reasons in many different parts of the world.
Daniel Bynum on Al Qaeda:
“…not just a distinct terrorist organization: it is a movement that
seeks to inspire and coordinate other groups and individuals.
Even if Al-Qaeda is taking losses beyond its ability to recuperate,
there is still a much broader Islamist movement that is hostile to
the United States, seeks to overthrow U.S. allies and is committed
to mass casualty terrorist violence. . . . The conceptual key is this:
Al-Qaeda is not a single terrorist group but a global insurgency.3...”
Polls conducted in various locations in Europe and the US indicate significant Muslim support for the use of suicide bombing against civilians under certain conditions. In addition, Muslims, in general, are in denial that the attacks of 911 were conducted by Muslims.
Only 40 percent of US Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
13 percent of US Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
5 percent of US Muslims have favourable views of Al Qaeda.
The above references a May 2006 study which found that:
Only 17 percent of British Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
Only 16 percent of Turkish Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
Only 15 percent of Pakistani Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
35 percent of French Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
25 percent of Spanish Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
24 percent of British Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
69 percent of Nigerian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
57 percent of Jordanian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
53 percent of Egyptian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified…”
While statistics can be manipulated to support an argument, these statistics should, at least, throw up a red flag regarding the threat within Western democracies.
In summary, there is a global network of Islamic terrorist both internal and external to western democracies that seek to manipulate policy by the use of terror (targeting of civilians) and subjugate people (by intimidation and terror) in Islamic countries under a fundamentalist form of Islam (Wahabism and Salafism) exported, principally, by Saudi Arabia.
There is so much to discuss with Iran, it's hard to find a place to start on subjects that range from their nuclear weapons program that threatens to start a Middle East nuclear arms race, to kidnapping Haleh Esfandiari who was visiting her 93 year old mom, to undermining the Arab Peace Initiative while using the Palestinian people as pawns in their opposition to Israel's existence, to undermining the stabilization of Iraq, to undermining the Lebanese government through their proxy Hezbollah, to hosting the Holocaust Denial Conference, to threatening to annihilate Israel, to kidnapping British soldiers (twice)...What a glorious track record of peace and cooperation.
Besides kidnapping the 67 year old Haleh Esfandiari (and others), the Iranian Supreme court "...overturned the murder convictions of six members of a prestigious state militia who killed five people they considered “morally corrupt.”...according to Islamic teachings and Iran’s Islamic penal code, their blood could therefore be shed....The last victims, for example, were a young couple engaged to be married who the killers claimed were walking together in public...". Achmidinijad was a member of the same militia.
On the lighter side (to me, but not necessarily to those that have been detained), there has also been a nation-wide crackdown on barbers that cut hair using "western grooming methods" and on women for dressing in an un-Islamic fashion (oh those teenagers).
The people are relatively pro western, but the government is all pro trouble.
Georgie Anne Geyer writes in her Dallas Morning News column that when it comes to his war in Iraq, "by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.
"Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated 'I am the president!' He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of 'our country's destiny
The right agenda for the United States’ next meeting with Iran would not be limited to a discussion of the dire circumstances in Iraq. There are many larger global issues that need to be discussed between these two influential countries. The elimination of world hunger, for example, would cost a mere $19 billion. Both countries have committed themselves to the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. This commitment must be shown to be more than rhetoric and, consequently, ought to be on the agenda of the two nation’s next meeting.
Interesting while the putative Iran-USA talks are to be run, Uncle Sam is busy in Lebanon trying to forment more mischief [and death with reliable USA Guns and ammo]. Moreover they are trying to get another military base in the ME.
Question arises for the USA citizens: Hopw Many Wars do you want to pay for from your childrens' grandchildren's income:
Iraq, Iran [Special Forces and PAID proxies], Somalia [Paid Proxies and Special Forces],Western Sahara [just money for armaments], Lebanon [proxies and armaments] ....
Consiedering that your country has gone into debt of 800 billion this year [Balance of Payments] and your federal deficit is approx 300 billion [and many odds/ends un counted] WHAT IS THE LEGACY YOU PLAN TO WILL TO THE NEXT GENERATION? Tke your pick:
1., Hate of the Muslim World
2.,Dislike of Europe
3.,Distrust of South America
4., Well being of USA willed to China, Japan, OPEC for they hold the key to your money's value [falling at fast rate for the last 2 years]
Or are you going to insist that your politicians leave the ME and concentrate on rebuilding your own nation [rather than putting it into a PAWNSHOP]?
Agenda, what agenda? Is this the agenda where a failed and terrible President sends his useless Secretary of State over to the ME for the sole purpose of lying to and insulting the Iranians? That's not much of an agenda.
Every world leader out there knows Bish only has 600 days left in office. They also know whoever we elect will be better then who we currently have. Nobody at this points needs to negotiate in good faith with an administration that can't spell "good faith." If the information about the US keeping permanent bases in Iraq has merit then why would the Iranians even want to negotioate with us? We've invaded and now appear to be willing to threaten their security for years to come. What's worse is we're not even Muslim and we're occupying their soil. No, there's no real agenda besides polical showmanship here.
the agenda of Iran and usa would be
1.Iraq shia goverment and iran role to help usa honouarble exit from iraq.
2.iran nuclear ambition and American and european concern of isreal security.
3.Iran cooperation in eleminating alqueda and sammaist in iraq.
4Iran relation with saudia arabia in next decades
5.how iran can play a role in american onslaught on pakistan and suadia arabia like pakistan played in afghanistan and kuwait played in iraq.
6 strategic partnership in oil pricing and syrian and leban problem.
7iran ambition to have greater shia iran by have a joint federation with shia iran .
8.American concern about the growing power of china and Russia and role of Iran .
American concern about the selling of gass to india and a subsititute to repalce india with big american company.
9 american unessieness in venezuella and iran close realation with it.
10 iran abd backing of palestianian cuase .how to delink so there is less problem for israel.
11.American conspiracy policy to engage iran in talk and show the closeness and alienating sunni world and then bring iran into net by complete isolating.
12.iraqi different faction and iranhelp to neatralize these faction.
The pre-requisite to the Right Agenda for the US-Iran meeting would be to have a Right Attitude i.e. Political Will - to solve the various problems plaguing both the countries’ foreign policies and relations, therefore.
Both the nations need to be aware about their responsibilities towards the welfare of the world at large besides their individual responsibilities towards their own citizens.
The broad Agenda could be to put serious and sincere efforts towards arriving at amicable solutions to:
*Iran’s Nuclear Aspirations and the impending US sanctions
*Middle-East crises – Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, …and how both could work together constructively towards sustainable peace and progress in this war-ridden region.
I think for one meeting this would be more than enough on diplomats’ plates!
there should be following agenda
1.Iran controlled goverment in Iraq and cooperation of both in honourable exit of America from Iraq.
2.Power sharing among the different section of Iraq with present shia dominated goverment.
3 controll of Al-Sadre mehdi army nd other shia wings
4.Iran and nuclear progress and worryness of American allies
5.Iran and venezuella relation
6 iran and lebanan syria problem.
7 Iran demand of withdrawl of America from middle east
8 IRAn,america and oil prices.
9 Iran and emergence of taliban inAfghanistan
10 Iran and Indian pakistan gass oil pip line.
The biggest problem is the American rudly behabiour and Iranian ambition to dominant the middle east butconrolling the govement of iraq,lebanan,syria,yemen etc.
Washington should consult with Paris on dealing with the Iranians. We Americans have completely screwed up the situation in Iraq. Our foreign policy has lost substantial credibility, and we seriously need help. Paris can provide that help.
The government of Nicolas Sarkozy, the new president of France, is masterful in handling foreign policy. Read the story at the following link.
The reporter at the "International Herald Tribune" wrote, "France's new foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, [refuted the Russian minister and] said Kosovo was a specific case that could not be used as a precedent. He said the United Nations had not rushed into making a decision on Kosovo. Once the status of the province was finally resolved, it would bring stability to this part of the Balkans, he said."
The French government has finally found its Western mettle in the new French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner. He told the Russian thugs to go to hell and declared that Kosovo shall be free.
Washington would do well to seek advice from Sarkozy and Kouchner. They have dealt with thugs (like the ones in the Kremlin) in the political arena. They will certainly know how to deal with the Islamic beasts.
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (65)
dkbl ptnihuq qgdjb knhsupzq hkxvjcwno gvkje tkcwbi
June 11, 2007 4:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
MikeB
They definitely have their work cut out for them in Europe.
"...The 13% that supports suicide bombing appears to be the norm for nut cases in any group..."
In that about the percentage of people that still claim to be Republicans?
June 4, 2007 9:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott - The statistics you cite with reference to Muslim opinions about suicide bombing and Osama Bin Laudin, et al, is both worrisome and provdes grounds for hope. The numbers for the Arab world appear about par for the course and provides even more reason for us to completely disengage from that part of the world. I find the numbers for England and France to rather outrageous. I cannot imagine how that high a percentage of Islamic immigrants would hate the very country that provides for them and gives them life and hope. In the end, if they refuse to integrate, they ought to be shipped back to where they came from to fend for themselves in that regions never ending wars and hatred. The numbers for the U.S., however, are a pleasant non-surprise. Our own Arab immigrant and Muslim population appears to be adapting and integrating quite nicely. The 13% that supports suicide bombing appears to be the norm for nut cases in any group.
June 4, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Atheist, Boston, USA,
Hirsi Ali, and her treatment at the hand of her country mates is the product of a country with a backward and barbaric culture that is not representative of Islam. And I am sorry for saying this but you write like a hate monger.
I urge you to get your free download of a book called the principles of successful manifesting and learn about how you are creating your own reality.
Also, why don't you do your own independent research, rather relying on FOX to learn why she was stripped of her Dutch citizenship and deported?
If you don’t care about assaulting the dignity of 1.5 Billion Muslims, calling 1.5 Billion people animals, at least you owe it to your own conscience to find out who she is vs who she claims to be.
Hirsi Said!!! As if she is the authority on Islam! She is a victim of a brutal backward society and our heart goes out to her and we pray for her, but it does not give her the license to go around the US act as a mercenary for hate mongers. Islam spans from Indonesia to South America. What makes her qualified to judge all these people? the barbaric act of her grandmother?
And since you care so much about victims why don’t you speak up for thousands of female servicewomen who get raped in our military every year or American children who are molested by their own father? I guess it makes you feel better to dig dirt in Africa rather than acknowledging the filth you’ve been raised in yourself.
June 4, 2007 3:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom,
I wish I could have worked in my garden today. The weather (rain) precluded me from lecturing my plants on the ills of Bush.
I know there were a certain percentage of republicans that loathed Bill Clinton. Frankly, I just found him a intelligent and competent president who was personally morally bankrupt. Bush is the first politican I've hated. I don't mean I don't like him I mean he makes my skin crawl. Even Richard Nixon didn't cause this reaction from me. Still I'd hate to see the country go through another impeachment hearing so I'm willing to live with him until his term is up. That said I'm counting the days/hours/minutes until he is out of offce. I'm also hoping congressional oversight can limit what I perceive as damage to this nation. Time will tell.
Hope you were able to mow your lawn.
June 3, 2007 8:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
1) UNILATERAL AND COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL FORCES FROM THE MIDDLE EAST EXCEPT IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.
2) PLEDGE TO NOT USE THE AMERCAN VETO POWER FOR ANY SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING PALESTINE AREA OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
3) REDUCTION OF ALL NUCLEAR FORCES IN COLABERATION WITH ALL OTHER NUCLEAR POWERS WITH THE GOAL OF ELIMINATING ALL SUCH WEAPONS BY 2012.
4) PLEDGE TO DISCONTINUM USE OF:
• CLUSTER BOMBS
• DEPLETED URANIMIUM BULLETS AND SHELLS
• LAND MINES
• BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL AGENTS
June 3, 2007 6:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL:
Good thing we aren't next door neighbors, we would never get anything done in the yard. Enjoy the rest of your weekend...
June 3, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
What plagues Iran is Islam. This religion was established by Mohammed.
Unlike the fictional Jesus Christ, Muhammad was a real person. He was a rapist and a murderer. His followers, to this very day, are beasts.
Just ask Hirsi Ali, mentioned in the article at the following WWW link.
An 'infidel' explores extremism
-------------------------------
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070602/FEATURES06/706020370/1010/FEATURES
At the age of 5, her grandmother (with the smiling approval of Ali's entire family) used a pair of scissors to cut off Ali's clitori and labia.
Today, as an adult, Ali travels across the USA (after seeking refuge in this country from Islam thugs tolerated by European liberals), makes speeches, and offers interviews. In an interview today with Chris Matthews of Fox News, she condemned Islam. She stated that mainstream Islam is diametrically opposed to human rights and that Islamic animals must choose between -- continuing to believe in Islam or supporting human rights.
Which path will the Islamic animals choose?
June 3, 2007 3:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom,
I had to go back to my post to see where I talked about water boarding and I couldn't find a single reference to it. Isn't it odd I just say torture is heinous and your response is the other side is more heinous, hence justifying our transgressions?
I'll stand solidly behind my previous post on this issue. By the way if you believe US torture has been limited to a couple of cases of water boarding and Lindy England laughing at naked Iraqi men I've got some swamp land for sale real cheap.
As far as civilian causalties give me a break. The US has had a long standing history of attacking civilian populations. Go back the last hundred years and just look at the history. We dropped to atomic bombs on civilian populations. It was argued we did so to protect American lives. I'm not arguing it didn't save American lives, what I'm saying is we have never lived in a glass house. We have been more then willing on numerous occasions to go after civilian populations as policy. Look at the fire bombing of Tokyo. Look at what we did to Hamburg and Dresden. Go back and revisit the carpet bombing we engaged in Vietnam. This isn't a history lesson, but come on. To try to posit we're not guilty of targeting civilians in conflicts is simply revisionist history at best. However, if you want to stick your head in the sand and either rationalize our attacks against civilian populations or believe they haven't existed help yourself.
As far as terror I don't have a problem with the definition of using force to create intense fear in another group. Unfortunately, the nitwits in the administration want to limit the definition to groups that target civilians and more specifically Americans. They can only come up with why these people are doing it because they detest our way of life. Bulldoodles. That Bush is too stupid to know why Bin Laden hates the US or is unwilling to share this information with us is another reason he should resign. I could respect Bush if he said, "Look, the US is firmly committed to the State of Israel at any cost. I understand our relationship with Israel will mean a percentage of Muslims will engage the US in guerrilla style warfare and try to persuade us to abandon our staunch support for Israel. I believe it's in the best interest of the US to continue our support of Israel and I will do everything in my power to limit the damage radical muslim groups can do to the US." Da, da! A realistic response to a situation. Instead this nitwit keeps regurgitating his talking points about how the terrorists (who he can't define) want to bring America down because they have an irrational hate for us. Then he fails to mention the reason the Muslim world hates Israel is because they believe the Israelis stole their land and they want it back. So what does our fearless leader do he runs right over there and steals some more of their land. Ah, it would be humorous if it wasn't so sick.
Tom, first who are we fighting? ElQaeda? OK, how many are there? Where are they? Who are they? Why are they fighting us? What can we do to stop the fighting? Who else are we fighting? Who are they? Why are they fighting us? What can we do to stop the fighting? Simple questions with relatively simple answers unless you just simply say the dreaded terrorists and there's no end to them and they hate us for no good reason and they are low life's who deserve to die. By the way did I mention they eat babies too. Let's equate them to Hitler and call them evil as they die by thousands each month. Then let's bring up the word democracy like it was the panacea of life. Muslims don't like democracy so they must be bad people. Muslims don't believe in womens rights so they must be bad people. Any one who doesn't believe in a Bush view of the world is not only wrong, but bad people. He may be our leader, but he sure isn't one I'm proud of.
June 3, 2007 2:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL
"...The definition of terrorism is important. It helps to clarify what has happened and what will happen. Until we (a consensus) can come to terms with what it means we're just poking around in the dark..."
You are poking around in the dark. I'm not. What you are saying, in effect, is that water boarding is cruel and inhumane treatment, while targeting and killing 150 children at the Beslan school in Russia is fair game because these school children were providing material support for the Russian army?
Read "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". There are special provisions for the protection of children, pregnant mothers, mothers of children under seven etc.
By your reasoning, there is always justification for ethnic cleansing, genocide, genocide against an occupied people, murder, torture, attacking hospitals etc. because they could be providing material support for the enemy. Anyone is fair game.
The Geneva accords were created for a reason. I couldn't have kept the definition any simpler. Targeting civilians is illegal and immoral.
As far as Bin Laden goes, and, hopefully, you agree that he is a terrorist, it was obviously a politically motivated attack against the US and the West, in general.
I believe he attacked us because he wants to create a fundamentalist (Salafist) Islamic state(s) in the Islamic sections of the world (ideally, the whole world), obviously including where Israel is located. He cannot create that while we are supporting many of the regimes currently in power. His plans (eventually) would surely include annihilating Iran and all Shiites.
Chomsky says:
"...They are very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they know it even if we don’t want to. And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year..."
Bin Laden is not interested in democracy, after all, he supported the Taliban. He is definitely anti religious freedom, free speech etc., and would create the type of world that would be the antithesis of a democratic society. He most definitely hates our freedoms because they are a threat to the servitude and control of the population that fundamentalist Islam requires.
Our support of the Shah must have been a blessing for him as that led to an Islamic state (albeit Shiite). Certainly, the overthrow of Saddam was a gift (in his world, but the Shia in control is a result that he surely cannot support).
Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will be fought at all cost as that is a huge recruitment tool for his cause. Interestingly, in my opinion, Iran uses the Palestinian issue to further its cause in the same way, and therefore opposes peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
Most of what Chomsky regurgitates is little more than propaganda for Al Qaeda's true cause, but I believe it can be applied to other people in the Middle East that truly support a move toward democracy (eight million Iraqis voted in each of the elections, for example).
June 3, 2007 10:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom,
TSK, TSK! You can't confuse incarcerated people (POW's) with a civilian population who is aiding, abetting and providing material support for your enemies. The first group is no longer a threat to your well being and the second group is still a threat to your life.
This fundamental problem has always existed in warfare and always will. Armies require everything from food to energy to transportation to clothing to arms, etc., etc. to operate efficiently. In any strategic view of warfare the disabling of the industries that provide goods and services to an army have always been fair game. OK, where do you draw the line? If a factory that provides uniforms is operated by 1,200 civilian women are they also not in harms way. Does anyone really think the general population of a society won't support a war effort and open themselves up to the possibility of being attacked for it? Breaking the will of the general population to fight is a long established technique in warfare.
This is opposed to how we treat captured combatants. Captured combatants have been taken out of the theater of warfare and are no longer a risk to anyone or anything. The worst you can say about them is we have to gaurd them, feed them and provide them medical attention. However, torturing them once incarcerated should not be an option. Torture is an issue where the means (torture) never justify the ends (information collected). It's rare I'll ever use the word never in a post. However, torture should be an absolute. What's the next step Tom? Do we start allowing our police departments to torture people picked up for speeding to see if they know of any wrong doing going on in our society? Do we start beating old ladies and children to see what they know. Where does it stop? You may argue that the constitiution has restrictions against such actions and that enemies don't have any such proctections outside of the Geneva Accords. However, if we play a game of semantics we can on one hand say we're at war with terrorists, but on the other say these same terrorists are not enemy combatants. Kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it?
The definition of terrorism is important. It helps to clarify what has happened and what will happen. Until we (a consensus) can come to terms with what it means we're just poking around in the dark. In essence we're fighting a hundred different wars. My original point on your definition of terrorism was political gain is too broad to have a meaning. Everything in life is political. Hillary Clinton is looking for political gain each and every day. So is George Bush. We're not calling them terrorists (well actually we may be), but you get my point. Is not GW using force (violence) to impose his will on Iraq? Of course he is. Does that make him a terrorist? Some would say yes and some would say no. I have a problem with having a war over a concept to begin with, but I have an even greater problem having a war over a concept that no one can agree what the definition is.
Finally, I leave you with a question. Why do you think Bin Laden attacked the US?
June 3, 2007 7:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
What's the right agenda for the next meeting in U.S.-Iran talks?
I find it difficult to understand how to determine such an agenda. We are talking about trying to establish a conversation across civilizations and the state of the world today is such that the option of just walking away if the conversation turns ugly is impossible. With communications technology, etc.--ease of movement from one civilization to another, compression of world as if all continents closing back toward the one original continent before separation,--and this coupled with increasingly dangerous weaponry--there simply is no option of retreating anywhere and it comes down to a brutal and pure political philosophy conversation, how to keep order in such a mad world.
And there is no question in my mind that I am firmly for the U.S. values of separation of church and state; freedom of press; the advance of science; and above all an increasing determination to get at the difference between individual and society with the purpose of creating a society which constantly puts forth gifted individuals in an evolutionary process.
I am so in love with the possibilities derived from Western speculation on political order that I find it incomprehensible to hear notions such as "Islam has killed only ten thousand people but Western society has killed ten million" as if this at all makes a difference. Too often people seem to confuse inability to kill with goodness or a better society when really it is only inability to kill. Islam is not kinder for having killed so few in relationship to Western society, only unable to kill by being not nearly as technologically advanced. And I am being really kind here to Islam and not pointing out the fact that Islam does not even allow many individuals to get born--to even breathe the air of freedom--let alone get into a position to be killed. Islam non-violent in comparison to the West? Ridiculous. Half the civilization--the women--are in subordinate position. Just ridiculous.
And once again this notion of trying to compare levels of violence to determine which civilization is the better one is just absurd. Saying Islam is less violent is like native Americans saying native American ways are better for the environment--when really one civilization has no technology to be really violent and the other no technology to be an environmental threat. Just absurd. The question is what would occur if right now all technology--and the most dangerous weapons--were transfered to the Islamic world. Or just imagine how kind native Americans would have been to the environment if they had the polluting capacities of a modern society.
I care to find out neither. The West of all civilizations has demonstrated the greatest sense with technology. For all our capacity for destruction we have demonstrated a restraint which I doubt other civilizations are capable of. And why do I say such a thing? I point to simply a constant will to politically philosophize with the purpose of trying to bridge ethnic, racial, religious, etc. differences. Islam is just Islam to be imposed on all of us--everything is declared understood.
I no longer believe in even a moderate Islam. I think the concept of Islamic civilization is trouble. And furthermore I believe all Westerners should stock up on weapons at home and be prepared to mirror every single tactic that Muslims are now embracing in confrontation with the West. Westerners can start by threatening the liberals (the democratic party members in the U.S., socialists in Europe) just as the fundamental Muslims threaten the moderates among them. Two can play at the game.
The question is coming down to which political philosophy is best for the world and the stakes are much higher than a Western-Soviet discussion. I ask simply does Islamic civilization accept Western methods of bridging differences or not? And by Western methods, no, do not try to distinguish such from Russian or Chinese methods. The West can converse with Russia or China. With Islam however there is the fundamental problem of a religion trying to thrust itself above all else.
That is the question. It is really up to Iran to determine the agenda.
June 3, 2007 12:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Wow! Someone else has heard of Sandler.
I bet boys who go on FIDS would be the only government employees who figured out the science of sales and marketing is applicable to diplomacy.
June 2, 2007 6:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL
How can you cite the US on torture, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and then accept the targeting and killing of civilians as just a product of war? At least most "bleeding heart liberals" are consistent with respect to human rights. It is against the Geneva Convention. Illegal. No more excuses for explicitly and intentionally targeting civilians. Bin Laden (purposely) makes no distinction. The rest of us do.
I don't want to get bogged down in a definition of terrorism. It is a difficult term to define, and there are a great deal of definitions and it, at least in part, is subjective. That being said, the Madrid bombings were designed to influence the Spanish elections. If you believe Ron Paul, our foreign policy caused the 911 attacks, therefore, Bin Laden bombed us for political reasons (which Bin Laden has stated). The election of Sarkozy drew a threat from an Al Qaeda affiliated organization against the election of an Israeli supporting President (not to mention his Jewish heritage).
All those are political in nature. I think your definition is good and correct, but I prefer political gain as that is the ultimate goal in most cases.
"...Hence, do we need to declare war on Islam and kill all 1.5 billion of them to ensure this radical element doesn't rise again? A little over the top, don't you think?..."
On the other hand, we shouldn't be required to "win the hearts and minds" of Muslims living within our own country either. They are here by choice, presumably, because there was a better opportunity here. The same goes for Europe, although Muslims have assimilated into US society quite well as compared to Europe.
To answer your question, no, obviously the war against radical Islam is being fought within Islam, as well. The pro-secular demonstrations in Turkey indicate that people in Turkey do not want an Islamic government. Algeria has seen a rise in women's rights, as has Morocco. Ultimately, the war may be won by moderate Islam (with a little help from their friends).
June 2, 2007 6:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
In the Name of God Who Gave Us Our Life to Sacrifice in the Defense of Iran
Tom,
What you are saying here? All that data is like saying "I have an itch in my ..." Fine. Why do you think you have the itch? No matter the answer you come up with; whether it is Islam is the root of evil, or Muslims are animals, or whatever else you come up with; here is the challenge to you:
Go read Xenophon's Cyropedia. If Cyrus the Great was able to rule those same lands, from India to Morocco with fairness and humanity, then go join the movement to bring back his glorious achievement rather than sitting here complaining about the world you have created around yourself.
June 2, 2007 6:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
"...The figures cited by this report have ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO TOM's DATA..."
I had reservations about citing any polls in my post because of the response to the polls I cited about US support of Israel (which were entirely correct), and because, as I noted in the post, statistics can be interpreted liberally to fit your argument. The data I cited are mostly in the PEW report you cited but obviously missed. Other date were from other reports. One was incorrectly copied. INSTEAD OF ACCUSING ME OF LYING (BASICALLY), MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST ASK WHERE I GOT THE DATA.
From the PEW study:
Only 40 percent of US Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (page 50)
13 percent of US Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
5 percent of US Muslims have favourable views of Al Qaeda. (Page 53)
The above references a May 2006 study which found that:
Only 17 percent of British Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (Page 50)
Only 16 percent of Turkish Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (Page 50)
Only 15 percent of Pakistani Muslims say Arabs did 9/11. (Page 50)
35 percent of French Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
25 percent of Spanish Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
24 percent of British Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 53)
69 percent of Nigerian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 52)
57 percent of Jordanian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified. (Page 52)
53 percent of Egyptian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified (Page 52)
"...AMSTERDAM — A new centre for the study of radicalism and extremism has been established in Amsterdam...
...Researcher Frank Buijs of UvA's Institute of Migration and Ethnic Studies decided there was a need for the new academic centre while he was researching radicalisation of Moroccan youth on behalf of the Ministry for Immigration and Integration...
...The study found 40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy. Six to seven percent are prepared to use force to defend Islam.
The majority are opposed to freedom of speech for offensive statements, particularly criticism of Islam..."
The poll from the UK should read 40% want sharia Law (instead of the 50% that I miscopied)
June 2, 2007 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Hay I just noticed that the 3 Middle Eastern panelists have drawn the least of response from your readers.
I don't know if I should attribute that to
a) Our tendency to rather hear our own regurgitation than to learn from each other, or
b) A subconscious belief that since we are “Oberalles” why should we care about what the Middle Eastern people say about the Middle East.
June 2, 2007 11:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I think we are asking the wrong question.
It is very difficult to define an agenda before you define the intentions, goals and the outcomes.
So I would pose the question as to what should be the goals and intentions of each party and what subset of those should be considered for these meetings?
I will then suggest both parties to apply Sandler Sales principles to move on. These principles are based on natural laws and can not be broken.
In Sandler Sales methodology you make an analogy between the process and safety doors of an imaginary submarine that secures each compartment. These doors are supposed to be locked in the right sequence or ship will sink.
The 1st compartment is Bonding & Rapport.
The 2nd compartment is Upfront Contract.
The 3rd compartment is understanding of each others’ pain.
For the sake of brevity I skip the other compartments here.
As you note Iran and the US are now in the 3rd compartment without having locked the door on the compartment Bonding and Rapport.
Of all the parties running for US presidency, Gov. Richardson is the only one who seems to be a seasoned practitioner of these principles.
So it is my sincere hope that he wins the presidency and then start to build some rapport with the rest of the world.
June 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Bob L VA
Your last post was very nice.
Ere you accept Tom W's data on Muslims and Terrorism, please read the last PEW poll on this subject: http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf the paper is long [108 pages] the summary on terrorism is on page 5 [11 of PDF file] with a chapter on Terrorism etc later.
The figures cited by this report have ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION TO TOM's DATA
enjoy reading
June 2, 2007 9:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott,
I spent a couple hours yesterday composing a nice lengthy response to you your post only to have it eaten up by the web-site. Bummer, but it happens.
I'll try this again and hope this one makes it through.
First, your definition of terrorism. Sorry, it's a very bad definition. You wrote:
"Definition of terrorism:
“Targeting (killing) of civilians for political gain”
What, are terrorists trying to influence the political process by killing off people who would vote against them in an election? That would be political gain. No, political gain has nothing to do with it. Terrorism is actions designed to instill intense fear in people for the purposes of attempting to impose one's will on them.
The targeting of civilians of civilians for political gain is too broad to have nay real meaning. The US has for centuries targeted civilians and we don't call ourselves terrorists. The fire bombings of WWII (which we love to us as how good the US is) were designed specifically to target civilians. The A bombs used against Japan were specifically designed to target civilians. No, we have a long history of targeting civilians. It's only been in the last 20 years with smart weapons we've made any attempt to spare civilians.
I will go back to a point I brought up in an earlier post. Any country that is going to war will try to terrorize the other side. It only makes sense. You want to reduce their will to fight. To buy into a concept of a surgically run war only targeting military facilities and personnel is naive. Since the US is ready, willing and able to engage other nations in conflicts (wars) it only makes sense they are willing to engage in actions designed to terrorize the opposition. That is the nature of war. Shock and Awe was designed for this very purpose. While we attempted to terrorize only the Iraqi military everyone who thinks about this issue knows that isn't possible. Now we're fond of saying "collateral damage." This damage is the death and destruction of civilians that is caused by mistakes or malfunctions. Hmmmm, do you think in warfare it's possible to have shock and awe without a series of mistakes and malfunctions? Of course it isn't. We know this. We know we'll kill civilians and non-combatants.
Anyway, the use of the word terrorism/terrorist is this administrations way to denoting the other side is a bunch of insidious low lifes who deserve to die. It's our way of villifying Radical Muslim groups. We call them terrorist, we call them Islamo-Facists, we call them murders, we equate them to everything heinous known to mankind. In essence we do this to first garner support for a war effort and second so that our armed forces will engage and kill these people we're at war with. It's really hard to tell a US soldier the other side of a conflict are really good rational people with families and shoot them anyway. So we demonize them. We've done this in every conflict we've ever entered. I could, but I won't, go back and use the names that Germans were called in WWI & II, that the Japanese were called in WWII, that the North Koreans were called, that the Chinese were called or the Vietnamese. Now it's the radical muslims that are called bad names. You need to remember these same people we villified before we have diplomatic relationships with today (exception: N. Korea).
What I did like about your post was the second part. This is where you show statistics about how Muslims around the world feel. Without arguing these statistics and assuming they have merit it begs the following question: IF THE MUSLIM RELIGION PROMOTES A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY OF VIOLENT EXTREMISTS SHOULD THE WORLD NOT TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AS TO WHETHER WE WISH IT TO CONTINUE TO EXIST?
Rather harsh question, don't you think? However, it seems to be germaine. If in fact jihad and radical extremism is inherent in the religion what should be done about it? Can we surgically remove the extremist element and leave only the moderate element? Probably not if it is inherent in the religion. Hence, do we need to declare war on Islam and kill all 1.5 billion of them to ensure this radical element doesn't rise again? A little over the top, don't you think?
People are people. There are good people and there are bad people. It's impossible to find in a society all good or bad people. They all have a mix. The Muslim world is no different. Obviously, something is going on that causes radical elements of the religion to rise up. No, I don't buy the argument they do this because they are evil. If, as Bush is fond of saying, there are a vast majority of good muslims then it is encumbent on them to police their own. If they are failing to do this and in fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest exactly the opposite they must be really mad about something or Bush is just plain wrong.
Hence, it is encumbent on us to examine why their is a rise in radical extremism in the muslim world and maybe, just maybe, work with them to reduce the tensions. I know, I know, I'm sounding like a bleeding heart liberal here, but invading, occupying and equating Iraq to Korea won't do anything but assist in the rise of extremism. Our current policies are counter productive to our security.
June 2, 2007 9:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The start of dialogue between US and Iran after so much long time is a very encouraging news for all who wants stability and peace in middle east.
I suggest following agenda
1. With immidiate effect Iran stop calling " Death to US" and US stop calling exis of evil.
2. US accept Iran as a soverign country and an important player in middle east. Iran in return accept US as a super power and recognize its role in middle east as a genuin power broker.
3. US and Iran agree to start working for full deplomatic relations.
4. US agree to release all Iranian confiscated funds and in return Iran agree to invest these funds for welfare of Iraqi and palestinian suffers on merit.
5. US recognize the right of Iran to develop technological advancement including neaclear technology and in return Iran agrees to allow monitoring of its installation and declare not to enrich uranium up to weapon grade.
6. US and Iran declare to resume cultural and sports exchange events.
7. Iran unconditionally declare to abide the international regulations and not to support any milatery at any hot spot. In return Iran will be allowed to play its role in the peace process of Iraq
June 2, 2007 3:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
For those of you who are US citizens, I have two questions:
1- the so-called questionable Iranian nuclear activities have been surfaced only 4 years ago. The United States of America has been in violation of its commitments to IAEA for a much longer time and cannot use Iran as an excuse to retain its nuclear weapons.
If you guys really understand your democratic rights and OBLIGATIONS as responsible citizens, how often have you pressed your representative on the issue of US dismantling its nuclear weapons?
It is amazing that people who are treated like sheep by their own government roar like lions in these blogs about the legitimate right of Iranian people to have nuclear energy.
2- The US government states that Iran has to dismantle billions of dollars of investment in enrichment facilities before they sit down to talk. The US government says if they start talking without any preconditions, the Iranians will use that as an opportunity to drag their feet and continue enrichment.
Well let’s look at where we are. It is almost 2 years that Dr. Rice has come up with this brilliant idea. In the course of these 2 years US has refused to talk and Iran has continued to do what they wanted.
Could we have lost more, if we had talked to them during this time?
Are these questions too complicated for you to understand? That's OK. Just copy and paste it in a word document and send it as a letter to your representative.
There is a good chance they are too thick to understand it either. But at least you would have registered your interest to take back your country.
June 2, 2007 1:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Miss stoliker, In response to your outrageous claim about Khuzestan, a pretty lady like you should then know that southern Iraq and Basra province were forcefully stolen from Iran by the British.
Young lady, if you want to play violence and go around tearing up countries, don't cry like babies when nations have to use resources available to them to defend themselves.
You and the other girl ZAP just presented the case for why Iran should bug US down in Iraq and Afghanistan and help majority Shiaas overthrough the governments of Bahrain and Qatar.
Pretty girls who live in glass house should not through stone.
June 2, 2007 12:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Yo-Yo
I appreciate your response. I am not an atheist and believe that there is a place in the world for religion whether it is Christianity or Islam, etc.
I consider radical Islam to be a threat to all people (including people of Islamic faith) and a threat to the freedoms of western democracies. Some of today's ideological battles against radical Islam occur within Islam itself. Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Turkey are facing a growing population of extremist. Christopher Hitchins makes some interesting points regarding the left ("Islamofascism and the Left", An interview with Christopher Hutchins):
"...He explains that he believes the moment the left's bankruptcy became clear was on 9/11. "The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represents all the most reactionary elements on earth. They stand for liquidating everything the left has fought for: women's rights, democracy? And how did much of the left respond? By affecting a kind of neutrality between America and the theocratic fascists." He cites the cover of one of Tariq Ali's books as the perfect example. It shows Bush and Bin Laden morphed into one on its cover. "It's explicitly saying they are equally bad. However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this. It is not the Taliban, and anybody - any movement - that cannot see the difference has lost all moral bearings."
Hitchens - who has just returned from Afghanistan - says, "The world these [al-Quadea and Taliban] fascists want to create is one of constant submission and servility. The individual only has value to them if they enter into a life of constant reaffirmation and prayer. It is pure totalitarianism, and one of the ugliest totalitarianisms we've seen. It's the irrational combined with the idea of a completely closed society...
...But can he see a time when this kind of jihadist fever will be as marginalised as, say, Nazism is now, confined to a few reactionary eccentrics? "Not without what that took - which is an absolutely convincing defeat and discrediting. Something unarguable. I wouldn't exclude any measure either. There's nothing I wouldn't do to stop this form of fascism."..."
June 2, 2007 12:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Good. It's time we finally beat the Iranian's like a drum. The Middle East troubles have originated from one country. They are due...BIG time.
June 1, 2007 8:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Iran is not a homogeneous state..Kuhzistan province on the Iraq-Iran border was illegally seized by Iran after WWI and is inhabitated by Arabs not Iranians (the true cause of the Iran/Iraq war) there are many Sunnis along the "Persian Gulf" not to mention the Kurds in northwestern Iran....if its ok to break up "Yugoslavia" what makes Iran so special??? America will continue to have major problems in a post-cold war environment until we throw out the old "English Imperialism Made Easy" playbook our leaders have followed..sadly since 1917
June 1, 2007 7:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Dave! June 1, 2007 6:05 PM: To be sure, I donot predict the future. However our mis-adventure in Iraq has many precedents. We should have stayed out.
However, you also posted some things that indicate that you either want to mis-direct the discusion, or you have a point to make. At any rate, what you posted has nothing to do with my post. Specifically, you posted "Regime change for Germany and Italy back in the 40's was ok. Or regime changes in eastern Europe during the 80's and 90's. Or Yugoslavia. Regime change for Afghanistan under the Taliban is OK. Apartheid South Africa regime change was ok. But not for the butcher of Baghdad and his sadistic cohorts. Got it. Glad those rule are clear." Utter nonsense:
1. Germany, with Italy as an ally, declared war on us;
2. 'Regime chnages in Eastern Europe' is a very simplistic statement to sum the collapse of Communism in Europe. I assume that you are not as naive;
3. Yugoslavia collapsed of its own weight. And as a matter of record, I disagreed strongly with Germany's decision to support Croatia's secession. It was a repeat of the events prior to WW1;
4. Unfortunately we were attacked from Afghanistan (9/11);
5. South Africa was an internal matter;
6. Please explain tome when Iraq attacked us.
June 1, 2007 7:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
In addition to Iran the US government should have an open blunt conference with its Arab allies who are the key supporters of insurgents in Iraq.
US soldiers are being killed by people who are supported logistically and financially by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
June 1, 2007 6:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TOM W:
I see that you regurgurated the recent PEW poll on torture and justified attack on civilians.
I note that you took as prejudiced citation versus Muslims as possible.
I note that you have failed to indicate the poll result pertaining to "WHITE CHRISTIAN USA CITIZENS"
whereas all the data is availble in public view; and whereas you have with INTENTION skewed the results to satisfy your point of view regarding Muslims, I therfore must adjudge this effort by you as groundless PROPAGANDA, similar to the recurring speeches of your darlings, Bush and Cheney, we are progressing in IRAQ .
While I admit that some Muslims took certain inhumane views on torture and civilian targeting [in smaller % than the Chirstian Whites], no person from the USA can utter a word on this subject without reminding the WORLD THAT THE USA IS THE GREATEST ATTACKER OF CIVILIANS IN THE XXII-nd century.
June 1, 2007 6:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
AMViennaVA,
The success or failure of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam is unknown to us at this time. That history has not yet been written. Events that seem disasterous or the wrong policy sometimes wind up having a positive effect years later. And vice versa. Remember that WWI was "the war to end all wars". The point is that we don't know how things will eventually turn out. Islamic terrorism was alive and well long before Bush and Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, took out Saddam. Islamic terrorists had little problem with recruiting prior to Iraq, i doubt that they would have had trouble recruiting with or without Iraq. The poster would just have the Palestinians or the US air base in SA or Israel as the rally cry. Solomom is blind to or just does not care about the support that suicide bombers have from Muslims throughout the world and what that support says about Muslims. The world is a bloody place regardless of the actions of Bush. You could have a government full of Jimmy Carters and there would still be people dying all over the place - and suicide bombers. There would still be brutal dictators. People would live never having experienced liberty or freedom. People would still be fighting and dying. It's easy but intellectually dishonest to blame all the world's ills on one man or one event. But its convenient. It saves people the trouble of actually looking for root causes of problems.
Now let's see. Regime change for Germany and Italy back in the 40's was ok. Or regime changes in eastern Europe during the 80's and 90's. Or Yugoslavia. Regime change for Afghanistan under the Taliban is OK. Apartheid South Africa regime change was ok. But not for the butcher of Baghdad and his sadistic cohorts. Got it. Glad those rule are clear.
June 1, 2007 6:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott.
Your lengthy post was excellent and terrifying.
Thank you for all the work you did to get that info out.I've copied it for further study.
My problem is the realiisation that all we have to counter militant Islam seems to be christianity.
Christians can hardly jeer at the idiocy of Islam when they too believe in a skygod.
An intellectual revolution is needed to oppose supernaturalism,and I think this is why Richard Dawkins,Sam Harris and now Christopher Hitchins are writing books on Atheism,and why more and more non believers are posting very intelligent comments on these threads.
Our lives are at stake.We all have to speak out against religion,if only to counter the groupthink that has so long been unopposed and has grown because it is impolite to question someones religious beliefs.
We are polite at our peril.
June 1, 2007 5:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Mike B @ May 30, 2007 12:42 PM: That is the perfect plan. It is short, concise, and effective.
June 1, 2007 4:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Dave (& Salamon): Salamon has the better of the argument. We (the US) invaded and have created a distatrou8s situation, for absolutely no reason. And, please, spare me the line that we were attacked on 9/11 since Iraq had nothing to do with it; or that Iraq 'supported terrorism' since we do the same (what do you think is our advocacy of 'regime change').
Now we have a situation where:
1. Because of the Kurds, Turkey/Syria/Iran have common cause that we oppose;
2. Because of our invasion of Iraq, Iran is much stronger (after all, we eliminated their biggest enemies - the Taliban, justifiably, and Saddam Hussein);
3. We created the perfect recruitment posters for all Islamic millitants.
And I very much fear that Bush will take steps before he leaves that wil require our active participation in Iraqi affairs for decades to come (since we do not have the courage to admit a mistake and accept the consequences - the long term impact of getting out willbe much shorter-lived than staying; after all even Vietnam has good relations with us now).
June 1, 2007 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Agenda: America, Let’s find a way to live in peace with each other.
Iran should tell the US that as long as you have military bases in Diego Garcia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Tajikistan and Afghanistan, you are a threat to our national security.
We want to get into a regional security agreement that ensures Iran will not be attacked and in return Iran will not destabilize US allies in the region.
In the case of some of Emirates of the Persian Gulf, as much as 75% of their income is paid back to the US government and companies for security and protection reasons. We are talking about several hundred billion dollars that each year these countries pay as bribe to the US.
The Persian Empire that at some point spanned from Libya to India has been around for thousands of years and the United States has to recognize and respect the peaceful ambitions of the Iranian people. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not invaded any country but has been the subject of military and financial invasion since its inception.
While Iran has one of the strongest militaries in the region, per capita it spends far less on the military than all US allies. That is why while most US allies in the region have made little progress thousands of villages in Iran are enjoying electricity and clean water, hundreds of dams have been built, 60% of university teachers are now women and the same is the ratio for students.
Which US ally in the region can claim the same accomplishments? There must be a better way than military posturing.
June 1, 2007 3:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Are all of the panelists here working for the Iranian govt? There responses are so predictible that they really do not add any insight to this issue.
There is only one thing Iranians understand and that is brute force. One more little international incident and they should be bombed back to the stone age.
Iran does not contribute to any UN programs, and their only export is terrorism. The world would indeed be a better place if it was wiped form the map once and for all.
June 1, 2007 3:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon,
You are one of the reasons my childrens childrens children will be fighting Islamic terrorism. A failure to realize the realities of the world and a rationalization of the barbaric terrorist model adopted by Muslims does not bode well for the future.
June 1, 2007 1:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
DAVE:
You, Sir, have it backward:
Us/Allied persons killed by Islamists LESS THAN 10 000 [that includes all invading/occuping armed personnel/mercaneries]
Islamist killed by USA/Allied IN EXCESS of 500 000, probably closer to 1 000 000 - for all unnatural deaths in Afganistan, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon and points around there are due to USA warmongering, proxie arming, Special Forces, carpet bombing, destroying hospitals, not providing potable water, food, etc or GROSS NEGLIGENCE in providing SECURITY IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.
The following USA ACTIONS are against INTERNATIONAL LAW, Geneva Convention, Haque Convention, UN Declaration of HUMAN Rights, [and in sopme cases against the USA Constitution/Federal Statutes] and a few more:
1., Invading a Sovereign Country when the attacker was not attacked.
2., Neglecting to provide security in occupied country [the USa is also responsible for all ISREALI TRANSGRESSION OF THIS LAW, for the USA armes and supports Israel's actions contrary to international law]
3., Carpet bombing, straffing by "gunships" and or attack planes civilian targets.
4., Rendering prisoners to 3rd countries for torture,
5, torturing prisoners
6., arming and contracting 3rd parties to create havoc in soverign countries.
and there are more.
The best thing to do with you, Sir, is ship you to Iraq - without armor, and forbid you to enter the Green Zone. If you still among the living in 5 years, you can relate your experiences with relation you enoyed in the company of native Arabs, whose country your nation invaded.
June 1, 2007 10:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
SALAMON,
"WHAT IS THE LEGACY YOU PLAN TO WILL TO THE NEXT GENERATION?" You are right in that we have not done enough for our next generation. We have been lax on addressing the Global Response Against Islamic Terrorism (and Fundamentalism). Our biggest failure in this is being able to convince Muslims that their belief that terrorism in general and suicide bombing in particular are acceptable methods of addressing perceived wrongs is abhorent. I don't care if Muslims or Europeans "like" us or not. I do care when a person thinks it is their duty to God to strap a bomb on their body and blow up as many innocent people as possible and have that act endorsed and supported by millions of people, Muslim religious leaders and governments alike. If anything, the US has been nowhere near tough enough, persistent enough or brutal enough in its War on Terror. This fight against Islamic terrorism will be the legacy that is left to the next generation. Hopefully, they will do a better job than we have been doing. However, given the existence of liberals in America, i doubt it. I fear it's a legacy that my childrens childrens children will inherit.
June 1, 2007 9:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL (sorry about the length):
“WAR ON TERROR"
While the phrase “War on Terror” works well for me considering the methods employed by Jihadist, a better phrase is “Global Response Against Islamic Terrorism (and Fundamentalism) - GRAIT”
The phrase confronts the reality of the dominant source of terrorism in the world today and challenges the spread of a fundamentalist ideology that not only threatens western democratic freedoms, but also attempts to subjugate people living in Islamic countries under an extreme, fundamentalist ideology (Algeria is an example).
Definition of terrorism:
“Targeting (killing) of civilians for political gain”
Several characteristics provide a commonality to Radical Islamic activity around the globe (global Jihad). Characteristics of world-wide Islamic terrorism include:
1. TARGETING AND KILLING CIVILIANS for political (and religious) gain by design is the defining characteristic of all Islamic terrorism. To dismiss this is to dismiss reality, and there is no justification (or excuse) for this illegal and immoral strategy. Terror is meant to subjugate the population. The Taliban kill civilians to undermine the government’s ability to provide security for the population.
2. SOURCES OF FUNDING are state-sponsors such as Iran and Saudi Arabia (?), as well as Islamic charities, drug smuggling, bank robberies, etc. The same sources may fund separate conflicts. The Saudis fund the building of Mosque world-wide that Jihadist use to spread their radical ideology:
Global Terrorist Monitor
Volume 4, Issue 1 (January 12, 2006), Thailand:
“…In particular, these officials remain worried that a process of fanatical Arabisation similar to that which has occurred in Indonesia and the outlying Moro areas of the Philippine archipelago may now be taking place in Thailand’s deep-south, possibly heralding the emergence of a new strategic theater for anti-Western terrorist attacks in Southeast Asia (Interviews, November 2005).
Compounding these fears are reports that money from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Pakistan is increasingly being channeled to fund the construction of local Muslim boarding schools (or “ponoh,” known as pondoks in Malaysia and pesenteren in Indonesia), private colleges and mosques dedicated to the articulation of hardline Wahhabist and Salafist teachings….”
3. TRAINING is conducted at camps that teach the global Jihadist philosophy and terrorist techniques to various fighters around the world. Chechnya rebels trained in Afghanistan at Bin Laden’s Camps, and UK terrorist, in part, trained in Pakistan. Pakistan has now become the new training center for Islamic extremism after the camps were closed in Afghanistan. Many leaders of terror networks world-wide received their training from camps in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. Most subscribe to the Wahabi or Salafi Sunni form of Islam.
Global Terrorist Monitor
Volume 4, Issue 1 (January 12, 2006), Somali:
“…The apparent commander of this terrorist network is Aden Hashi 'Ayro, a protégé of Sheikh Hassan Aweys, the once notorious leader of al-Itihaad military wing [1]. Ayro is a graduate of Afghan terrorist camps. It is believed that is where he acquired mastery of low-tech and low-cost weapons. His followers are growing adept at the use of explosives, shoulder-launched missiles and anti-tank systems…”
4. THE SPREAD OF SALAFISM AND WAHABISM which is funded and exported world-wide by Saudi Arabia (principally), and is a strict interpretation of the Qur’an (adhered to by Bin Laden in its most radical interpretation) is completely contrary to democratic principals (separation of church and state to begin with). Saudi Arabia is a good example of a country with Islamic law, and most agree, it is one of the least free societies on earth (gender equality, religious freedom, etc.).
Radical Imams preach a message of hate in many Mosque in Europe that radicalizes young Muslims (by most surveys, younger immigrant Muslims are more radical than Muslims older than thirty). A poll conducted on Moroccan youth in the Netherlands (2006): “…40 % reject democracy, and a majority think that criticism of Islam should be illegal…”. Fifty percent of Muslims in Great Britain want Islamic Law and 5% endorse violence to attain it. “…All of 58% (GB) want those who criticize or insult Islam to face criminal prosecution…”.
Apparently, this is true, as well, in other parts of Europe. The murder of Theo van Gogh, the fatwa’s issued on Salmon Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali for their outspoken criticism of Islam, the world-wide rioting caused by the Pope and the Danish cartoons (and other incidents) has attacked free speech in Europe. These incidents mark a “…prolonged campaign of intimidation, with surely more to come….”
5. MOST OF THE CONFLICTS IN THE WORLD TODAY INVOLVE MUSLIMS. The timing of the conflicts is not coincidental and can be termed a world-wide revolution.
“…If you look around the borders of the Muslim world, you find that there are a whole series of local conflicts involving Muslims and non-Muslims: Bosnia, Kosovo, the Caucuses, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, North Africa, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Muslims also fight Muslims, and much more than the people of other civilizations fight each other…” (Samuel Huntington, Political Science, Harvard University, 2001).
Afghanistan and Thailand also have seen a bloody, radical Islamic uprising. Tracing of the funding, training and philosophy (jihad) of the wars indicates there is a link between many of the conflicts even though the wars are fought for many different reasons in many different parts of the world.
Daniel Bynum on Al Qaeda:
“…not just a distinct terrorist organization: it is a movement that
seeks to inspire and coordinate other groups and individuals.
Even if Al-Qaeda is taking losses beyond its ability to recuperate,
there is still a much broader Islamist movement that is hostile to
the United States, seeks to overthrow U.S. allies and is committed
to mass casualty terrorist violence. . . . The conceptual key is this:
Al-Qaeda is not a single terrorist group but a global insurgency.3...”
Polls conducted in various locations in Europe and the US indicate significant Muslim support for the use of suicide bombing against civilians under certain conditions. In addition, Muslims, in general, are in denial that the attacks of 911 were conducted by Muslims.
Only 40 percent of US Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
13 percent of US Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
5 percent of US Muslims have favourable views of Al Qaeda.
The above references a May 2006 study which found that:
Only 17 percent of British Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
Only 16 percent of Turkish Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
Only 15 percent of Pakistani Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
35 percent of French Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
25 percent of Spanish Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
24 percent of British Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
69 percent of Nigerian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
57 percent of Jordanian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
53 percent of Egyptian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified…”
While statistics can be manipulated to support an argument, these statistics should, at least, throw up a red flag regarding the threat within Western democracies.
In summary, there is a global network of Islamic terrorist both internal and external to western democracies that seek to manipulate policy by the use of terror (targeting of civilians) and subjugate people (by intimidation and terror) in Islamic countries under a fundamentalist form of Islam (Wahabism and Salafism) exported, principally, by Saudi Arabia.
This threat should be taken seriously.
Comments anyone?
June 1, 2007 12:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
PG
There is so much to discuss with Iran, it's hard to find a place to start on subjects that range from their nuclear weapons program that threatens to start a Middle East nuclear arms race, to kidnapping Haleh Esfandiari who was visiting her 93 year old mom, to undermining the Arab Peace Initiative while using the Palestinian people as pawns in their opposition to Israel's existence, to undermining the stabilization of Iraq, to undermining the Lebanese government through their proxy Hezbollah, to hosting the Holocaust Denial Conference, to threatening to annihilate Israel, to kidnapping British soldiers (twice)...What a glorious track record of peace and cooperation.
Besides kidnapping the 67 year old Haleh Esfandiari (and others), the Iranian Supreme court "...overturned the murder convictions of six members of a prestigious state militia who killed five people they considered “morally corrupt.”...according to Islamic teachings and Iran’s Islamic penal code, their blood could therefore be shed....The last victims, for example, were a young couple engaged to be married who the killers claimed were walking together in public...". Achmidinijad was a member of the same militia.
On the lighter side (to me, but not necessarily to those that have been detained), there has also been a nation-wide crackdown on barbers that cut hair using "western grooming methods" and on women for dressing in an un-Islamic fashion (oh those teenagers).
The people are relatively pro western, but the government is all pro trouble.
May 31, 2007 11:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
If this statement reflects the adminstration's view:
But Bush Isn't Listening
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgie Anne Geyer writes in her Dallas Morning News column that when it comes to his war in Iraq, "by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.
"Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated 'I am the president!' He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of 'our country's destiny
Then what is there to talk about with Iran?
May 31, 2007 8:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The right agenda for the United States’ next meeting with Iran would not be limited to a discussion of the dire circumstances in Iraq. There are many larger global issues that need to be discussed between these two influential countries. The elimination of world hunger, for example, would cost a mere $19 billion. Both countries have committed themselves to the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. This commitment must be shown to be more than rhetoric and, consequently, ought to be on the agenda of the two nation’s next meeting.
May 31, 2007 4:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Interesting while the putative Iran-USA talks are to be run, Uncle Sam is busy in Lebanon trying to forment more mischief [and death with reliable USA Guns and ammo]. Moreover they are trying to get another military base in the ME.
Question arises for the USA citizens: Hopw Many Wars do you want to pay for from your childrens' grandchildren's income:
Iraq, Iran [Special Forces and PAID proxies], Somalia [Paid Proxies and Special Forces],Western Sahara [just money for armaments], Lebanon [proxies and armaments] ....
Consiedering that your country has gone into debt of 800 billion this year [Balance of Payments] and your federal deficit is approx 300 billion [and many odds/ends un counted] WHAT IS THE LEGACY YOU PLAN TO WILL TO THE NEXT GENERATION? Tke your pick:
1., Hate of the Muslim World
2.,Dislike of Europe
3.,Distrust of South America
4., Well being of USA willed to China, Japan, OPEC for they hold the key to your money's value [falling at fast rate for the last 2 years]
Or are you going to insist that your politicians leave the ME and concentrate on rebuilding your own nation [rather than putting it into a PAWNSHOP]?
May 31, 2007 3:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Agenda, what agenda? Is this the agenda where a failed and terrible President sends his useless Secretary of State over to the ME for the sole purpose of lying to and insulting the Iranians? That's not much of an agenda.
Every world leader out there knows Bish only has 600 days left in office. They also know whoever we elect will be better then who we currently have. Nobody at this points needs to negotiate in good faith with an administration that can't spell "good faith." If the information about the US keeping permanent bases in Iraq has merit then why would the Iranians even want to negotioate with us? We've invaded and now appear to be willing to threaten their security for years to come. What's worse is we're not even Muslim and we're occupying their soil. No, there's no real agenda besides polical showmanship here.
May 31, 2007 3:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Mohammad Allam , It has taken the US well over 20 years to talk to Iran with only ONE item on the agenda, and only because the US feels it has to.
12 items might be too much to hope for, thoough I agree with some (but not all) of your topics.
May 31, 2007 7:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
the agenda of Iran and usa would be
1.Iraq shia goverment and iran role to help usa honouarble exit from iraq.
2.iran nuclear ambition and American and european concern of isreal security.
3.Iran cooperation in eleminating alqueda and sammaist in iraq.
4Iran relation with saudia arabia in next decades
5.how iran can play a role in american onslaught on pakistan and suadia arabia like pakistan played in afghanistan and kuwait played in iraq.
6 strategic partnership in oil pricing and syrian and leban problem.
7iran ambition to have greater shia iran by have a joint federation with shia iran .
8.American concern about the growing power of china and Russia and role of Iran .
American concern about the selling of gass to india and a subsititute to repalce india with big american company.
9 american unessieness in venezuella and iran close realation with it.
10 iran abd backing of palestianian cuase .how to delink so there is less problem for israel.
11.American conspiracy policy to engage iran in talk and show the closeness and alienating sunni world and then bring iran into net by complete isolating.
12.iraqi different faction and iranhelp to neatralize these faction.
May 31, 2007 5:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The pre-requisite to the Right Agenda for the US-Iran meeting would be to have a Right Attitude i.e. Political Will - to solve the various problems plaguing both the countries’ foreign policies and relations, therefore.
Both the nations need to be aware about their responsibilities towards the welfare of the world at large besides their individual responsibilities towards their own citizens.
The broad Agenda could be to put serious and sincere efforts towards arriving at amicable solutions to:
*Iran’s Nuclear Aspirations and the impending US sanctions
*Middle-East crises – Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, …and how both could work together constructively towards sustainable peace and progress in this war-ridden region.
I think for one meeting this would be more than enough on diplomats’ plates!
May 31, 2007 4:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
there should be following agenda
1.Iran controlled goverment in Iraq and cooperation of both in honourable exit of America from Iraq.
2.Power sharing among the different section of Iraq with present shia dominated goverment.
3 controll of Al-Sadre mehdi army nd other shia wings
4.Iran and nuclear progress and worryness of American allies
5.Iran and venezuella relation
6 iran and lebanan syria problem.
7 Iran demand of withdrawl of America from middle east
8 IRAn,america and oil prices.
9 Iran and emergence of taliban inAfghanistan
10 Iran and Indian pakistan gass oil pip line.
The biggest problem is the American rudly behabiour and Iranian ambition to dominant the middle east butconrolling the govement of iraq,lebanan,syria,yemen etc.
May 31, 2007 2:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Washington should consult with Paris on dealing with the Iranians. We Americans have completely screwed up the situation in Iraq. Our foreign policy has lost substantial credibility, and we seriously need help. Paris can provide that help.
The government of Nicolas Sarkozy, the new president of France, is masterful in handling foreign policy. Read the story at the following link.
Russia worried over UN plans for Kosovo independence
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/30/news/kosovo.php
The reporter at the "International Herald Tribune" wrote, "France's new foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, [refuted the Russian minister and] said Kosovo was a specific case that could not be used as a precedent. He said the United Nations had not rushed into making a decision on Kosovo. Once the status of the province was finally resolved, it would bring stability to this part of the Balkans, he said."
The French government has finally found its Western mettle in the new French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner. He told the Russian thugs to go to hell and declared that Kosovo shall be free.
Washington would do well to seek advice from Sarkozy and Kouchner. They have dealt with thugs (like the ones in the Kremlin) in the political arena. They will certainly know how to deal with the Islamic beasts.
May 31, 2007 1:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments