Tehran says U.S., not Iran, sponsors terrorism
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - Iran on Friday rejected a U.S. State Department report that accused Tehran of increasing its support for terrorism overseas to levels not seen for two decades, saying it is the United States that backs terrorists in the Middle East.
"Iran itself has been the victim of state-sponsored terrorism, which has claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Iranian people," said Alireza Miryousefi, spokesman for Iran's U.N. mission.
Iran has been actively engaged in counterterrorism activities by all possible means and is a party to many counterterrorism international legal instruments," he said.
The State Department report on Thursday cited a series of actual and planned attacks in Europe and Asia linked to Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanon-based ally, including a July 2012 bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli citizens and a Bulgarian, and wounded 32 others.
Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/uk-usa-terrorism-iran-idUKBRE94U17B20130531
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mallard
(569 posts)Their denials fall on hand-covered ears. They will not be dealt with except as enemy ever again. It's too late. They are the bad guys. They will be blamed for what's likely to happen to their country in the years ahead.
Iraq has gotten out of control. That's obviously Iran's fault too. Look how close they are?
The list of groups who can never againbe treated as fellow-human keeps getting longer.
John2
(2,730 posts)Iraq is that way because of an illegal War perpetrated by George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress. They continue to do the same thing with regime change in the Middle East. They have the same sights on Iran and North Korea. It all started with George W. Bush Evil Axis Speech. It is affecting our Domestic Policies also. The same War is going on against the poor in this country and rigging the Electoral system. The difference is that I separate this being America's fault on to who is really responsible for all this to one Party mainly in the United States.
The U.S. hasn't had a Liberal Government in Decades because the Left has essentially been silenced by the one percent at the top, which controls the media and everything else. Congress is bought and paid for in this country. The wealthy and corporations write the laws. President Obama responds to the wealthy not the poor. He has not appointed anyone from the Liberal spectrum in his Administration, but they are all from Wall Street or the Right. He appeases them and gives lip service to the Left. His Foreign Policies are Rightwing and his Domestic Policies are appeasement to the Right which includes a Policy of compromises. If the War on the Poor and Middle class continues, by the dictates of the Wealthy and Right, They could find themselves in a rebellion if people in this country continue to suffer at these Policies. Just keep your eyes on the state of North Carolina. Continue to prosecute your illegal Wars against the will of the people. If you thought the rebellion against the Vietnam War was just an anomaly, you ain't seen nothing yet! That lady from Code Pink will get even more recruits!
Behind the Aegis
(53,938 posts)And what in the world does NC have to do with any of this?
John2
(2,730 posts)The North Carolina Government is bought and paid for. McCrory is carrying on a War with the poor and middle class by placing tax burdens on people that can't afford them. One example is his policy of usurping Federal Government programs for assistance to those groups in favor of enriching the wealthy. North Carolina also has a lot of military bases, which helps the North Carolina economy also.
North Carolina is just a microcosm of what is happening on the Federal Level with the U.S. Government. The Foreign Policy for Regime Change was hatched by rightwing groups within the Republican Party. It did not come from the Left or Democratic Party. The Democrats, conservative Democrats of course, have been trying to better the rightwing Republicans on National Security for Decades. They have been trying to be more Hawkish than the Republicans which moves Foreign Policy to the Right.
The Middle East Policy concerning the country of Israel for example has moved from Peace Processes to War and regime change because neither Party wants to be seen weak on the protection of Israel. That is even if it hurts the United States in Worldview. The Democrats are afraid to stand up to Israel because of politics and losing the Jewish vote to rightwing Republicans. Look at the nomination process for Hagel. There were more Republicans against Hagel than Democrats, and it concerned something he said about Israel. When people or Politicians even criticize Israel, they are immediately accused of being anti-semitic. Somebody like me is not afraid to stand up to Israel, but if I was a Politician, you can be sure they would attack me for speaking freely.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)It is not the majority of American Jews who favor extreme right wing policies with regards to Israel. Most of the American Jewish population is far closer to the position of JStreet, which has called for a two state solution and has been stronger than the American government in objecting to the the settlements. There are many young Jews who reject the 2 state solution, abhor what they see as Apartheid and are activists in groups like Jewish Voice for Peace. They include many who in other times would seek to be part of Institutional Judaism. They point to a discontinuity between what they learned and accepted as Jewish values and what is happening in Israel. This group is one that Israel can not afford to lose. There are also some cracks in what was kneejerk support - last year a major New York City synagogue's rabbis signed a statement against some Netanyhu action. An act that startled many.
There is NO movement of American Jews towards right wing Republicans. Other than African Americans, they and Hispanics have been the most consistent, strong Democratic supporters. Not to mention, they are among the most liberal of Democratic supporters.
Obama HAS criticized POLICIES that Israel has taken - as have many others. You take it a step further and appear - in many posts - to attack Israel for existing. Not to mention, it was NOT American Jews who had a problem with Hagel, other than the small very vocal group of neo-cons - it was right wink conservatives and Republicans who have challenged nearly every Obama appointment. With Hagel, there were comments that the Republicans in the Senate were angry that he endorsed his friend, Bob Kerrey over a tea party Republican and they were concerned that Hagel being a Republican gave Obama cover. Note they did NOT fight John Kerry in the same way - and other than being far more diplomatic - there was almost NO difference in their positions. It was Kerry who was the highest ranking American to go to Gaza to personally see the conditions and who has spoken out against them.)
resistance from the Jewish community on the Left, then they are either suppressed or slient. They are like a ghost to me. You question my debate about Israel's existance? I do not automatically give you Israel's existance being obtained legally, based on how it occurred after World War II.
I have a History Degree. When you can show me the existance of the current country, that you claim is Israel after or During what was known as the Roman Empire, point out the source lady? I will gladly relinguish the point to you.
Before the U.S. ever got involved with the current state of Israel, it was known as the Palestinian Mandate under British Governance and later abdicated to the U.N. It was done so by U.S. pressure. We can debate this point all you like. Everything occurring in the Middle East today was predicted by the British and U.S. meddling. We go very deep on this subject. I'll end this by asking you one more question that will be revealing. Are you going to claim now, that Israel never praticed or implemented a Policy of racial cleansing in the Palestinian Territories, which constitute War Crimes? Answer that will you please?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)This surprises you? Leftist voices are silenced on every issue in this country. The right wingers own all of the magazines, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations in the US. All we have are billboards and the internet. On a recent tour of DC I was astounded by how many billboards are adorned with the message of the young/liberal Jews toward the ME issue. You never get to hear these things from Big Media, which is all neocon all the time. I am always troubled when Dems fall for Big Media bullshit.
John2
(2,730 posts)misunderstood by Jewish people or Arabs. I think the U.S. rightwing Policies has made a mess out of the Middle East. A country that had racist policies within their own country was advocating freedom and preaching about Democracy in the Middle East? We were still fighting for these same rights in the United States at the same time. The U.S. had no right to lecture the British about the Middle East at the time. the British did not want any more Jewish settlers into the Middle East. They had a good reason for it because they knew the Middle East.
There were people in the U.S. Congress on the Right supported Apartheid Africa also the ANC and labeled them Terrorists. Our Congress followed that Policy for a long time until the American people on the local level rejected it. The Right has resorted to calling Americans with a different opinion from them traitors and Communists for a long time. Now it is you are against Israel and you are Anti-Semitic.
Guess which side of the Political Spectrum, didn't want to allow dislocated Jews from World War II into the U.S. because of their liberal ideas. I understand the Jewish people connection to the ancient civilization of Israel, but that was a long time ago. There was no military superiority on either side, until the U.S. entered the picture. What exists now is an escalation, because it was inevitable, the Arabs would eventually gain the same technology. If Israel possesses nuclear weapons, then it is because of the U.S. If there is nuclear weapons in the region, then it is Israel that first introduced it. The U.S. does not even demand Israel open up their facilities for inspection because of some refusal to sign a treaty. That has never stopped the U.S. before when it comes to threatening U.S. interests. It is how stupid the Congress and President are making the rest of us look. It is why I feel the need to speak out against them. We are not like the people of Nazi Germany. We are a people that fought and died for freedom in this country.
I can sympathize with the Holocaust, but don't use it, to justify another one. I said that I'm a student of History. I know darn well, the Jewish Holocaust is not the only one in the History of World Civilizations, but the Right is very good at distorting facts.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)groups. I did not name them - as you would say they do not speak for the Jewish community itself. So, I addressed the voices of the Jewish community. I gave you two (of many possibilities) organizations. J Street, which is very mainstream and Jewish Voices for Peace. J Street has gained enough recognition that various Israeli officials have met with them recently. The J Street group included many rabbis - including some that are pretty prominent in their denominations. I could have given you the websites, but as someone with a history degree I assume that you know exactly how to find them. It may be that you are not Jewish, know very few Jews and have not followed anything within the Jewish community. You then have the chutzpah to say that Jews are silent or suppressed. I am a Jew and know this is false on both counts. (Another group that brings together Israeli Jews and Palestinians is Seeds of Peace - google that! )
I know the history of Israel - and I agree that after the since the Roman Empire there was no country called Israel (or a Jewish country). There were always some Jews that remained. I know that how Israel was formed, but the fact now is that it exists and has existed for 50 years. The Zionist movement started when it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Nothing I said made any claim that contradicts this - so it seems that you are creating a strawman alternative argument because you really do not have a leg to stand on because you clearly do not know anything about the opinions in the Jewish community.
I think Israel's policies in the territories are abysmal and can be called similar to apartheid, I do not agree that there is racial cleansing.
John2
(2,730 posts)I knew about your voices during the Clinton Administration and before one of your leaders was assassinated by the extremists in Israel. When Clinton left office, the Middle East Peace process was pushed to the back in favor of a rightwing agenda.
I understand the influence the United States have, because the very existence of Israel would not have came about if it was not for the United States. Instead of pushing the Peace Process, the United States provided Israel with more lethal weapons. I did not think initially, that it was very hard to solve the problems of the Middle East, if the U.S. had used their power correctly. Instead, the U.S. made it worst. Just because Israel has existence today, does not mean that existence is secured today.
Israel has to exist by Immigration Policies. It is only a country of 11 million people and only 7 million are Jews. Israel needs strict immigration Policies, to exist as a Pure Jewish State. A true Democracy would threaten Israel's existence. Simple math tells the story. It is a country surrounded by millions of Arabs.
Now I agree the U.S. has an obligation to protect the people of Israel because our Government created the mess. The only way they can achieve that is guaranteeing two states and the acceptance of Arabs. This means even going back to the original U.N. accords before Ben Gurion violated the authority of the U.N. There was no agreement for him to declare an independent state.
I'll be frank with you. The danger is Israel being wiped off the map or a Genocide through another World War. You know what the Western Media is saying but it is good to know the other sides intentions concerning their seriousness about the state of affairs, as they exist. The other side is not afraid to take on the U.S. or Israel in a World War. I do not down play the threat, given by the Supreme Authority in Iran given to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan.
Let me give you an example, the threat was, if the U.S. or Israel commits to military action in Syria, that is Iran's red line. and Jordan will be the first to go. Then it will be Qatar. It is also rumored they also have assurances from other countries supporting Syria, that feel threatened by NATO and the United States. In that perspective, it will be World War III and the stakes will be high. Those stakes usually favor the people that live in the region and not a country that exists an ocean away.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)"Iran itself has been the victim of state-sponsored terrorism, which has claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Iranian people..."
What is he talking about?
Igel
(35,293 posts)There's a claim and then there's the "evidence." The claim's only as good as the evidence, unless we're talking about beliefs and wishes.
Two possibilities.
Every Balochi independence or smuggler attack (or any kind of dissent movement that leads to violence) is considered to be US-backed, if it's not UK-backed. They've had a number of bombings and other "incidents", esp. in the SE part of the country where the Balochis aren't always too happy with the fossilized results of Persian imperialism and colonialism. The Kurds from time to time have been restive, as well, as have the Azeris (to a much lesser extent) and Arabs that remain part of the old Persian empire. (I keep using terms like "empire" because many Americans are somehow convinced that imperialism is a modern Western thing and barely or fails to exist in other parts of the world.)
The other is that the Iranian government is assuming that Saddam was a US puppet. Iran goes hot and cold on this. Sometimes they insist on Islamic unity--then Saddam had to be a Western/US puppet. The Iranians lost a lot in Saddam's little war (although let's face it, it's not like that war didn't start as the result of some local power politics encoded in a treaty that the Iraqis had little liking for, signed when Iraq was weaker and Iran stronger).
rastaone
(57 posts)The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), or People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, is an Iranian dissident group that has been formally designated for the last 15 years by the US State Department as a "foreign terrorist organization". When the Bush administration sought to justify its attack on Iraq in 2003 by accusing Saddam Hussein of being a sponsor of "international terrorism", one of its prime examples was Iraq's "sheltering" of the MEK. Its inclusion on the terrorist list has meant that it is a felony to provide any "material support" to that group.
Nonetheless, a large group of prominent former US government officials from both political parties has spent the last several years receiving substantial sums of cash to give speeches to the MEK, and have then become vocal, relentless advocates for the group, specifically for removing them from the terrorist list. Last year, the Christian Science Monitor thoroughly described "these former high-ranking US officials - who represent the full political spectrum - [who] have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK." They include Democrats Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, and Lee Hamilton, and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fran Townsend, Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, and Andrew Card. Other prominent voices outside government, such as Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel, have been enlisted to the cause and are steadfast MEK advocates.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Via state-sponsored terrorism?
Is that what he is talking about in your opinion?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)What a bizarre question. A lot of people around here seem to just make up their own world history.
Really strange. It's no fun 'discussing' or 'debating' with people who can't even acknowledge the fundamental facts of reality.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I just wanted to get a sense of what, in particular, he was referencing.
Modern events (as suggested by the person who mentioned the MEK) or more distant history (i.e. 1953).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That was the state-sponsored terrorism in question?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,312 posts)After all, Ahmadinejad was put in there to out-craze GW Bush.
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)as far as I can tell
