ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Elements in U.S. administration destroying chances for constructive Iran-U.S. talks: Ahmadinejad


NEW YORK - (Washington Post) - In an interview with the Washington Post released on Sunday, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, while in New York for a UN General Assembly meeting last week, said that some neocons in the Bush administration are blocking constructive talks between Tehran and Washington. Following is an excerpt of the interview.

Q: Do you think it would be in Iran's best interest to move toward a normal relationship with the United States?

A: We are interested in having talks with everyone. We believe that talks are much better than threats and confrontation. We are currently holding talks with many countries. I have said before that the United States is no exception, but the U.S. administration -- that is, a section of the U.S. administration -- does not create the right circumstances. It destroys chances for constructive talks.

Q: Why don't you let the IAEA inspectors back in, as the U.N. Security Council demanded last summer?

A: The Security Council's involvement is, in fact, illegal. We are working under the framework of the IAEA, and the cameras are on our sites. Could you please show me at least one report by the IAEA on the United States' nuclear facilities?

Q: What is your analysis of Hezbollah in Lebanon today? What has been the impact of the war?

A: Everybody has said that the attacks of the Israeli government against Lebanon were pre-planned. The question is: The planes that leveled Lebanon, the laser bombs, where did they come from? Who provided the Zionists with the armaments? Who prevented a cease-fire in the beginning?

I think a section within the U.S. administration must take a new look at the Middle East. They should not assume that they can fix the problems of the Middle East through war.

Q: In your meeting with the Iraqi prime minister last week, did any ideas emerge as to how to stabilize the situation in Iraq?

A: Saddam was a detested individual, no doubt, and although he was supported by a group of American politicians during the eight-year war with Iran, we nonetheless were happy when he left. This paved the way for the American government to improve their relations with the people in the region, but they lost the opportunity -- they decided to occupy Iraq in search of oil and their own interests. . . . The Iraqi nation has deep roots -- an ancient, civilized culture -- it cannot accept to remain under occupation. It cannot accept that its authorities are told on a daily basis what to do by American authorities. In the past years, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. Even worse than what it was under Saddam.

Everybody in Iraq is unhappy. Iraq has a government now that has risen as a result of the vote of the people and it has a constitution and a parliament. Let them run and administer the country. Our policy is to support the government of Iraq, to create security for the country.

Q: It seems as if a Shiite majority has emerged with the bulk of power in Iraq. Is this good from Iran's point of view?

A: We are friends with the entire nation of Iraq. Our nation is like an extended family of the Iraqi nation. . . . We are not like American politicians who divide people and fracture.

Q: [Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki has said that the most important job for him is to control the militias. Will you help Prime Minister Maliki control the militias?

A: Mr. Maliki is a friend of ours. Our nations are very close. The country that is hurt most by the insecurity in Iraq is our country.

Everyone in the region says Iran is now the most powerful country -- that the result of the U.S. invasion is that Iran is more powerful than it has ever been.

Q: Do you think there is a problem with Iran being a powerful country? Are you implying that the Americans went there to strengthen Iran? No, but don't you think that is the end result?

A: Iran is a powerful country. A powerful Iran will benefit the region because Iran is a country with a deep culture and has always been a peaceful country. If the Americans had not imposed the shah, Iran could have been a far more powerful country.

Q: You've made statements about the Holocaust, saying maybe it was exaggerated. Is that your opinion?

A: It's not the numbers that are important here. It's a very fundamental question: When we allow all researchers to do research freely, why don't researchers have the right to research this history as well? Let's remember that 60 million people were killed as a result of World War II. So let's put everything in context and let's research it further. . . . We know this was a historical event that has happened. But why is it that people who question it, even in the smallest sense, are persecuted and attacked?

Q: Are you willing to take any steps to suspend uranium enrichment?

A: We think that the American politicians should change their attitudes. If they think that by threatening Iran they'll have results, they are wrong. I'll ask you: Who cut ties with Iran? It was the U.S. government. Who imposed the war with Saddam on us? So who is the one who has to give the positive signal, us or the U.S. government?

Q: What do you want the United States to do for you and what are you willing to do in turn for the U.S.?

A: I sent a very detailed and caring letter [to President Bush]; I truly mean it when I say that I hope Mr. Bush will change his behavior and attitude. It doesn't make us happy that sentiments against him rise on a daily basis around the world. This can be reversed. It's the attitude and the approach of some American politicians that ruins things. They want to return Iran to what it was before the revolution, under the shah, when it was really a puppet for the United States. That's history. It will never come back. The Iranian nation is a free and independent nation with an elected government, a parliament and a constitution.

In Lebanon, a War's Lethal Harvest

Why is Israel not charge with war crimes for this?

Because Israel is protected by America. Israel can ignore UN resolutions with impunity but let one Muslim country ignore one and we're ready to invade them.

Israel can kill as many women and children as she wants and it will be ignored. Expose their crimes and you will be labeled anti-semitic or neo-nazi. Let one suicide bomber kill women and children and it will make headlines all around the world.

Israel can have nuclear weapons and the UN is not allowed to conduct any type of inspection. But not so with Iran.

Do you think Muslims do not see this double standard?

MORAL OF THE STORY

Don't mess with Israel.

They're a bunch of pragmatists.

MORAL OF 9/11

Don't mess with Islamists...

( ^^^ sarcasm!)

THE MORAL OF 9/11

Don't mess with the USA except by killing only a small number of Americans at any one time.

They're a bunch of reluctant pragmatists.

Blatham
Thwe magazine front pages explain why I read a lot of the foreign press to find out what is really going on in the world.

BBB

Precisely. We are out of our own loop.

More accurately: y'all are looped.

Something occured to me the first time i saw this thread, and i think that as the "discussion" has devolved into Ican't delusions of being clever, this might be a good time to stir the turd.

Look at this title:

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Nothing would delight the rightwingnuts more than the thought of millions of American suckers drafted to go off to fight a world war against Islam--against godless, commie, terrorist, islamo-fascist, new caliphate, suicide bomber Islam.

This thread didn't even start until three days after the two boys from IDF were snatched by Hezbollah. But what was their first thing to occur to Fox when she finally noticed what the rest of the world had been watching for half a week? World War III--that consumation so devoutly desired by all right-thinking, righ-leaning, right-voting, unthinking true American patriots.

Who, naturally, will refuse to go and actually huck a rifle in some foreign shithole themselves.

Cycloptichorn

Hey, buddy, why do you hate America?

I'm willing to fight those Islamo-fascists to the last drop of your blood--what more do you want?

Ah, yes, outsource wherever and whenever possible.

OIC FMs endorse Iran nuclear program


UNITED NATIONS, New York (IRNA) -- Foreign ministers of member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on Tuesday called for disarmament and expressed support for Iranian peaceful nuclear program.

The foreign ministers held their annual coordination meeting on the sidelines of the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly.

The foreign ministers studied the problems facing Islamic states and called for solidarity of the Islamic nations to deal with the challenges.

They adopted common stance of the member states to thwart the hardships to which the Islamic states are exposed.

IRNA reporter at the United Nations said that the OIC foreign ministers released a statement calling for nuclear disarmament and annihilation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

The statement expressed concern about the pressure being exerted on Iran for the national nuclear program to generate electricity and said that out-of-balance pressure on Iran will have consequences on security of the Middle East and the entire world.

The OIC foreign ministers held Israeli regime accountable for possessing nuclear weapons and called on the international community to bring the Israeli stockpile of nuclear arms under supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The statement condemned in the strongest terms the Zionist regime's crimes against Lebanese and Palestinian nations and called for alleviating the sufferings of people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, you guys appear desperate to avoid rational discussion.






Who thinks that a credible source?

ican, right. Only Bushies are a credible source. Everyone else is "with the terrorists". The Organization of the Islamic Conference is an inter-governmental organization grouping fifty-seven States. They represent about 1.4 billion Muslims. But Bushie knows best. Kill em all and let

You seem hysterical. Take a few deep breaths and see if that will help.

I said zero about Bushies being credible sources. I questioned the credibility of The Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Source

The report also stated: "There was no apparent military basis for the action and it seems that its intention was to satisfy a desire for revenge."

B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights : Act of Vengeance: Israel's Bombing of the Gaza Power Plant and its Effects

I'm sorry, but I just don't see spelling out 'appropriate action' in the case of war. It is absurd to make rules for how one must defend himself/herself from those who intend bodily harm so long as the attacker is the one targeted. Are there to be specific rules about what a woman can and cannot do to defend herself against a rapist or anybody against a serial killer? Or do you just do what you can do at the time?

What is Israel allowed to do when a person is kidnapped? If they cannot target the specific kidnapper, are they allowed to do nothing? They have to just take it? Obviously if they start going through the neighborhood destroying property to get the kidnappers, they will be condemned. But if they fire at one target intended to impose significant punishment to get the attention of those who can get the kidnappers, they are condemned.

So again, as in the case of the war against Hezbollah, Israel is condemned for ANYTHING it does short of doing essentially nothing. To me, destruction of a power plant is a rather humane method of making the point: you mess with us, and we won't just sit here and take it. We will respond with force. So you better keep your people in line and not mess with us.

If the Palestinians wanted to avoid such retaliation, they should advise Israel that they will deal with any Palestinians committting crimes against Israel. They will see that the kidnapped soldier is returned and the kidnappers punished. And we're very sorry this happened and it won't happen again.

Otherwise, if Israel is not allowed to respond to attacks with force, it is a sitting duck for everybody who hates Israel.

Until these people condemning Israel can say what Israel is specifically allowed to do to defend itself, I say Israel should be able to do just about anything within reason when Israel is attacked.