Things are getting worse in Iran, as the hardline government the theocrats wanted begins a purge of diplomats around the world. Iran Removes 40 Envoys in Shake-Up By ALI AKBAR DAREINI The Associated Press Wednesday, November 2, 2005; 3:53 PM TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's hard-line government said Wednesday it was removing 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of warmer ties with the West, from their posts in a shake-up that comes as the Islamic republic takes a more confrontational international stance. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced the changes to parliament, saying "the missions of more than 40 ambassadors and heads of Iranian diplomatic missions abroad will expire by the end of the year," which is March 20 under the Iranian calendar. Mottaki, quoted by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, did not specify which ambassadors were among those being removed. But IRNA said they included the ambassador to London, Mohammad Hossein Adeli, one of Iran's top diplomats and a leading member of the pragmatic foreign policy wing that supports contacts with Europe. The moves give the new government of ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the chance to purge pro-reform figures brought in by his predecessor, moderate Mohammad Khatami, and install its own supporters. Ahmadinejad has taken a tougher line on a number of issues, particularly negotiations with Britain, France and Germany over Iran's controversial nuclear program. Hard-liners have criticized Khatami's government for agreeing to freeze much of the country's atomic activities during the talks, and Ahmadinejad already has replaced much of the negotiating team with hard-liners. The new president, elected in June, also generated a storm of international criticism last week when he called for Israel's eradication, saying it should be "wiped off the map." Tensions with Europe and the United States over the nuclear issue are high after Iran ended part of its freeze on nuclear activities earlier this year, resuming uranium conversion at a plant in Isfahan. Washington accuses Iran of secretly aiming to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran counters that its nuclear program is for generating electricity. The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will review Iran's cooperation on the nuclear issue during a Nov. 24 meeting, and Washington is pressing for Tehran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, where it could face sanctions for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Sanctions, however, are unlikely. Iran is sending conflicting signals to an international community concerned about its nuclear agenda, granting U.N. inspectors access to a secret military site but also saying it would process a new batch of uranium that could be used to make atomic weapons, diplomats in Vienna, Austria, said Wednesday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. The diplomats said IAEA experts were allowed to revisit a high-security military site in Parchin as they try to establish whether Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Parchin has been linked by the United States and other nations to alleged experiments linked to nuclear arms. The IAEA had for months been trying to follow up on a visit in January for further checks of buildings and areas within the sprawling military complex as it looks for traces of radioactivity. Iran also has handed over documents and granted interviews with several senior officials believed linked to black market purchases of uranium enrichment technology, the diplomats said. Ahmadinejad's victory in June elections sealed the decline of Iran's reform movement and solidified the control of hard-liners over the government. Some Iranians fear Ahmadinejad _ a longtime member of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards _ will bring back the policies of restrictions at home and confrontation abroad seen after the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. On Wednesday, more than 10,000 demonstrators shouted "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in the largest such demonstration in years. Hard-liners organize protests at the site annually to mark the anniversary of the Nov. 4, 1979 seizure of the embassy by student militants. Demonstrators carried a large picture of Ahmadinejad emblazoned with his quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." They burned U.S. and Israeli flags and effigies of President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon. Some wore a traditional Palestinian kaffiyah headdress, symbolizing their readiness to fight Israel. "We have to continue our confrontation with the United States and Israel. This could help the world get rid of the arrogant powers," the hard-line Jomhuri Eslami daily said in an editorial. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110200981.html What's next? The new Iranian government is clearly trying to turn back the clock and crush any vestiges of the reform movement, which is supported, in my opinion, at least, by a significant majority of the people of Iran. And we continue to look weak before the world, mired in the quagmire of Iraq. Sometimes an arrow pulled from the quiver, but not used, is more powerful that one that's been released. Before Iraq, our power was feared and unquestioned. Today, we are seen as much less than what we were, and less than what we are, giving our enemies, and potential enemies, the ability to act as they wouldn't have dared before the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Iraq was supposed to be a projection of our power that would make our enemies cower in fear, it has had the opposite affect where it matters most... in those countries that really do have weapons of mass destruction, and are busy building new and more powerful ones. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
That you are justifying terrorism. And yet IF they are, then you do. I have done so. The formation of Hezbollah was not out of necessity (your claim), but choice. There were alternatives. Further, your chronology leaves out the causal link for Israel to invade, namely the PLO shelling Israel from Lebanon. That changes the scope of who to 'blame' one might think. This is a weak argument. To claim that violence is the only solution 'in the real world' is spurious at best. The existence of many examples where actions other than violence were taken rebutts your 'real world' distinction. And you have a right to self defense. As the PLO was shelling Israel from Lebanon the situation was much more complex than you portray. You also need to understand there is a distinction between what a nation state has a right to do and what an individual has a right to do. International Law does not encourage individuals to form militias outside the nation-state system. Bad example and here's why: Hezbollah's mission is to project violence as a non-state entity. There is no separation of justification as you do with the Afghanistan example. If you justify Hezbollah at their initiation you justify exactly what a terrorist organization IS - a non-state entity projecting violence to achieve their goals.
Brilliant! Who's playing semantic games, lol? Contending 'their existence is justified' means the same thing as 'there is a reason they exist' is wrong. Justification implies a moral determination not a statement of fact. It would be a worthless exercise to write 'there was a REASON they formed Hezbollah' - that is obvious as it is in every other decision every other person has ever made in every other situation. As I wrote earlier to Tigermission - he could have said 'Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon.' That can reasonably be defended as fact. He didn't do that. He claimed their formation was JUSTIFIED. The question is - was it a 'justified' action. If one says they feel the formation of Hezbollah was justified, then they necessarily advocate the purpose for which Hezbollah was formed. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then they are justifing terrorism. This isn't complex stuff here and I don't really understand where all your rage is coming from. Have a cup of decaf. Uh, no - not joking at all. Maybe you should do a little research before you choke on your condecension. Many groups including Al Queda have declared fundamental opposition to the core ideas of democracies. Their interpretations of Islam present an unresolvable conflict with democratic freedoms. To illustrate for you since I doubt you'll do any research yourself: In a democracy the people make the laws - In AQ's world there is only one possible creator of laws - the Koran (or their interpretation of it). There is no debate only polar opposition. And I guess you missed the bombings in Italy, Spain, England, Mali, the Philippines. You must have missed the beheadings over French domestic law. Your problem is your inability to separate a liberal catchism making fun of Bush from an honest examination of (at least some including AQ) the motives and declarations of terrorists.
It has nothing to do about my honesty but your ability to understand 'paraphrase'. Explain what was inaccurate about the paraphrase. In the context that you used it, my paraphrase of your statements was quite accurate.
There are other actions that could be taken, but they decided to repel force by force. You sound like an 'idealist' here, and in an ideal world, yes, non-violence is an admirable response to violence. In most cases, however, that's not the case. I fully understand the complex nature of the Lebanese situation, you're preaching to the choir here. No it doesn't, and it doesn't forbid it either. BOTH groups (i.e. militias) and states are capable of committing terrorism and various war crimes. Are you saying that one is 'sanctioned' while the other isn't? Hezbollah was formed to repel the ISraeli invasion of southern Lebanon, and not to "commit terrorism". Their very existence as a group (initially that is) was not to "commit terrorism", that was not their declared mission. So try again. The simple fact that they are a non-state entity means NOTHING. Yes there is a 'seperation of justification', and it's a perfect example. Are you saying, for example, that it's impossible to recognize the right of the Palestinians (or the Afghanis following the Soviet invasion in the 1980s) to defend themselves or simply recognize the validity of their 'cause' without at the same time justifying the means used to carry out such objectives? You're losing it quickly Hayes, you're simply sticking to a faulty logic instead of admitting that you were wrong to draw such a hasty conclusion. By your logic, someone who supports the right of Israel to defend itself is thereby justifying atrocities committed by them, and is justifying state-terrorism. You're too hung up on the difference beween a militia and a state-sponsored military. It's a mere 'technicality' that in today's world holds little to no significance, since many of today's conflicts are in fact fought by a mix of state and non-state actors. The only difference is that a state military is capable of far more destruction and misery, and has the backing of an official legal body (sovereign state). There is no point of going further if we disagree on this crucial and central concept of 'seperation of justification', because that's where, IMO, you're confusing matters.
An 'honest' examination of the motives of Al-Qaeda would lead to something completely different from an increadibly naive and willfully ignorant stance of "they hate us for our freedoms". "They hate us for our freedoms" means something completely different from "They hate us because we are forcing our values on them". The former implies that they are merely pissed off by American women walking around half-naked on the streets of Los Angeles, while the latter implies something completely different. Furthermore, Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda brass have made clear their list of 'grievances' against the West, and haven't made a secret of it. If Bin Laden had hated the US and the West, he wouldn't have been more than happy to acquire our aid against the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. He got pissed off the day we set foot inside his cherished "holy land of Arabia", and decried what he saw as 'infidel' presence in the holy land, as well as the fact that the royals, he argues, are mere 'puppets' of America, working against the well-being of the Muslim nation.
man .....if the U.S wanted to completely stop terrorism all they had to do is leave countries like Iraq/Kuwait/UAE/Saudi...and all other Muslim countries....peace for all.
It most cases it is not the CHOICE. However, the existence of other options disproves your assertion that their choice was out of 'necessity.' Your distinctions between the 'real world' and an 'ideal one' are just amibiguous constructs used to warrantlessly prop up your point. The fact, yes fact, that nonviolent options have many times been taken in 'the real world' goes straight to that point. Its as if you're saying Hezbollah was justified because they had to do something. But having to do something does not equate to having to create Hezbollah. That is the problem with your logic. No, I'm saying that terrorism is an action by a non-state entity - usually defined as an individual or organized group but not the same as a state. One of the main objectives of Hezbollah at inception was to spread an Iranian sponsored Islamic revolution (see 1500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards initially sent to form the core of Hezbollah). As such your portrayal of initial goals is a partial one at best. Justification of Islamic revolution by force is a far grander statement than x caused y. The fact that they are a non-state entity with a mission to spread violence at least lends credence to a charge of terrorism. That they have subesquently continued their violence post-Israeli withdraw lends even less credence to your version of history. There is no separation because Hezbollah doesn't have one - their initial mission included more than you've portrayed. As such you can revise your initial claim of justification or defend the whole ball of wax. I can say I don't feel the PLO was justified historically and yet say I understand why it was formed. I can't say the PLO's existence was justified because their existence necessarily enumerated action that I do not find justifiable. No, because the justification of the existence of Israel does not necessarily enumerate atrocities against palestinians. Can you have Israel without the atrocities? Yes. Can you have Hezbollah without violence? No. The core of the organization is based on violence. That is not the case with Israel. Gee, is that the only difference? Since our international order is predicated on the supremacy of the nation-state as international actors, I think that's a pretty big distinction. A state can commit terror but are not terrorists as defined in the language of international relations (as opposed to the .org world in which you might find such references). Your choice.
Hmmm, 'incredibly naive and willfully ignorant,' huh? As plenty of literature coming straight from radical Islam denounces democracy I am suprised at your conclusions. In fact I give an example of this conflict to prove the point - re: who makes law the people or God. You merely make ad hoc attacks. Who's being willfully ignorant? I don't know why you assume they can't take both positions. In a chronology the latter may have come first, but you're kidding yourself if you think radical Islam hasn't moved on to the second. As an aside I pointed out a much more relevant and on point conflict between democracy and radical Islam, not bikini wearing at Venice Beach. Again your argument reaches for too much. Taking aid from the West in Afghanistan in no way shows bin Laden thought the West was ok. The opposite is true when one looks at his own statements. Sometimes you use the devil as a tool to advance your own holy agenda. Its the same argument they make when referring to technology. That you'd claim there is no fundamental (no pun intended) conflict between radical Islam is pure denial on your part and as a 'historian' pretty stunning. They are in conflict us for our freedom as expressed through democracy and secularism. That my friend is pure fact. Those are not the only reasons they are in conflict with us, but they certainly are part of it.
I understand I'm willfully ignorant but here's a few curious things I've come across. Please address. "Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Usama Bin Laden's closest associates, wrote: 'It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American democracy.'" "Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, the al-Qaeda affiliate responsible for deadly bombings in Indonesia, recently declared: "If the West wants peace, they'll have to accept to be governed by Islam." Some of the visions of Muslim extremists like Bin Laden are, if not technically fascist, fundamentally totalitarian. Bin Laden's political views seem to be based on those of his comrade, Ayman Zawahiri. This particular ideology is called hakimiya. Here is Zawahiri's own explanation of hakimiya: Democracy is shirk-u-billah (assigning partners with God). The distinction between democracy and tawhid (monotheism), is that tawhid renders legislation the sole prerogative of God whereas democracy is the rule of the people for the people ..... The legislator in democracy is the people while the legislator in tawhid is the Almighty God .... Hence, democracy is shirk (idolatry) because it usurps the right to legislation from the Almighty and offers it to the people. "But Mr bin Laden's appearance also provoked anger and outrage. To claim that he stood for Muslim liberty was preposterous, wrote Mishari Zaydi, a liberal Islamist columnist in Saudi Arabia, since it was well known that al-Qaeda and its emulators denounce democracy as heresy..." "It misses the central point: that, unlike traditional “third-world” liberation movements looking for a bit of peace and quiet in which to nurture embryonic states, al-Qaida is classically imperialist, looking to subvert established social orders and to replace the cultural and institutional infrastructure of its enemies with a (divinely inspired) hierarchical autocracy of its own, looking to craft the next chapter of human history in its own image." "Indeed, what al-Qaida apparently hates most about “the west” are its best points: the pluralism, the rationalism, individual liberty, the emancipation of women, the openness and social dynamism that represent the strongest legacy of the Enlightenment. These values stand in counterpoint to the tyrannical social code idealised by al-Qaida and by related political groupings such as Afghanistan’s Taliban."
You just made me laugh. English is not my mother tongue, and not even second language, but I do know what 'paraphrase' is. According what I learned that paraphrase is to express SAME message in DIFFERENT words. But I guess you forget the big PREMISE for SAME message. I said that God didn't create them at birth, there must be a reason. And you jumped out and stick the "reason you BELIEVED I was saying" is to blame the country that they attacked. What made you draw that conclusion? Which exact sentense did I give you that excuse to put words in my mouth? Let me give an example. If a young man killed someone, a reporter tried to dig into that man's history. Later, he said in his report that the guy was from a poor family, would you accuse the reporter of justifying killing and blaming bad financial situation in childhood? If the reporter then went on by saying that the guy's parents were laid off by some big company, would you jump out and accuse the reporter of justifying killing and blaming capitalism or large corporations? If the reporter went on saying that young man lived in a high criminal rate, drug troubled and minority heavy district, would you accuse the reporter of justifying killing and playing racial card and blaming government for crime? You were so certain that the context can only lead to the conclusion that I justify terrorism by blaming the other country. Like I said before, it's a taboo to even mention US or Isreal, if it's not about rightous things; otherwise, you will just get labelled. I couldn't emphasize it enough, that one never knows others' true motive or intention, so why bother to second guess at all? Just stick to the action, fact and result of that person's action. It's just quite strange to me that studying background and reason could be that dangerous nowadays. Haystreet accused me of kneejerk ranting, about what? Terrorism is acutally an subjective term, not a fact, so is that "axis of evils", it's just an opinion. I am not a champion of anything, certainly not fair reasoning. But at least, I would admit that my opinion is my view, and it's subjective, and I will never sell it as a fact.
Just for your information: Your opinion is SUBjective. A fact is OBjective. You've got the terms backwards.
Irannian special forces( Funnily enough trained by the british SAS and the US navy Seales) were sent to lebbonan in 1981, to creat a Opposition group to the then goverment of lebbonan.to also export the islamic Revolution to then Christian goverment of lebbonan. i've studied the history of hezbollah very closely. The idea started in the 1979 Revolution which destroyed a rapidly improving nation. the chant was, leader only Ruhollah( Khomenie) and the faction only hezbollah. it eventualy gatherd steam as the revolution won. some mullahs started funding hezbollah heavily. there annual pay check from the mullah right now is around 600 million.
In 1983, militants who went on to join Hezbollah ranks carried out a suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines in Beirut. The Group is accused of being involed in a half-dozen terrorist attacks - mostly against Israelis or Jews around the world. In February 2005 the Palestinian Authority accused Hezbollah of attempting to derail the truce signed with Israel. Palestinian officials and former militants described how Hezbollah promised an increase in funding for any cell able to carry out a terrorist attack Hezbollah stated aim is the destruction of the state of Israel and co-operates with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal. The EU has classified Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization". Russia is considering adding them. The U.N. is currently putting together their list. Now, answer me very carefully - do you feel that Hezbelloh's activities today are justified?
They don't hate us for our freedoms - and we don't force our values upon them. We never said they have to wear bikinis or whatever. Are we horrified about some of the things that happen - how women are treated, how freedoms are taken out? Yes. But we are entitled to our opinion - we don't force our way of life upon them. If some amongst them embrace Western culture - that's not us "forcing it upon them". You know, I think they just think we're infidels. They think we're trying to subjugate them. They think we are morally corrupt and evil. They think we are god's enemies, and they are god's servants - and it's their duty to fight a holy war against us. It's not hate, it's worse then that. Fact is, these people need someone to fight. If Aliens came from outer space and attacked all of humanity, I bet they probably would stop fighting us and join forces to fight the outsider. They just fight the outsider. If they wipe all the infidels out, they will then turn on the differents sects of Islam. It's the whole "me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against my friend, my and my friend against my enemy...."
Your statement is so scary. Should the Saudis leave the U.S. and the rest of the world? If Saudi Arabia is meant to only be for Muslims, and no American should go there to do business, then I think this kind of thinking demonstrates the high level of intolerance this version of Islam has for the world and what makes it so scary. Eventually any place where Islam is, the infidel should not go right?
Disagree, we have forced (and continue to do so at this very moment) our way of life on them in some sense, even if it's not a duplicate copy of what we have. I don't think it's such a bad thing to promote the good things about our society, but I am simply opposed to 'forcing' anything on anyone. IMO, the biggest enemy of Bin Laden and Al-Qaida are 'fellow Muslims', not the West. Why? Well, what has been Bin Laden's chief complaint all along? It has been the royals in Saudi Arabia, and he has made it no secret whatsoever that he would like to unite Muslims under one banner and restore the Caliphah. The biggest obstacle to that is not the 'Westerner', but the guardians of Western interests and what he views as 'mortazaqa' (agents) of the West (those willing to cooperate with the West in order to gain some favor, i.e. power or wealth). Generally speaking, most Islamist groups share the goal of uniting Muslims under one nation eventually, although most would be content with having political influence in their own societies, and many are in fact very much pro-democracy, because they understand that the masses are -- for the most part -- on their sides. In that sense, the major Islamist parties/coalitions in the Muslim world are in fact pro-democracy, and the US has recently shown signs of willingness to work with the 'moderates' since they are often the only legitimate counterforce to the current regimes, and are often the only ones seen as legitimate in the eyes of the locals (i.e. Iraq now for example).
I hate to say it, but the us has a guilty past. they overrthrow a democraticly goverment Mossadegh who wanted to Nationaliaze iran's oil. they helped khomenie come to power to have a power base against the russians After shah refused to bring the oil prices to please the west and the big oil companies. they fiananced Binladen against the russians. they put pinochet the meglo maniac in power in chile. the list goes on....
I doubt Bin Laden has any desire to every run for any kind of office. Please do explain how we "force" our values upon Muslims. And please do answer my question regarding Hezbelloh. Thanks...
