Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10157124.html

Iran labels US army 'terrorists'

In a significant move, Iran's Foreign Ministry on Sunday joined the country's Parliament in labeling the US Army and Central Intelligence Agency as terrorist organizations.

"The label of terrorist is suitable for the military and security forces of the United States," Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in his weekly brief.

The motion comes after a US Senate resolution on Wednesday which called for Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be labelled a terrorist organization.

Hosseini said the resolution was an “unprecedented act” and giving any indication to this issue is “a threat and danger to global peace and security,” which would “weaken international bodies."


I found this funny - I suppose the obvious question is what the definition of terrorist is.

However, Iran is not the only body that say the US is a sponsor and perpetrator of terrorist acts (according to the US definitions it uses when branding others). Noam Chomsky, for example, has written a lot about the state sponsored terrorist activities - from the Far East to South America.

Cheers,
Shafique

Bring back the shah of Iran i say - he liked the Yanks

mind you so did Saddam and OBL once upon a time

Our third grade teacher was a terrorist! And she had no religion or heart! And should have had no country!










Well, Its been at least 7 years and I still have nightmares!

shafique wrote:http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10157124.html

Iran labels US army 'terrorists'

In a significant move, Iran's Foreign Ministry on Sunday joined the country's Parliament in labeling the US Army and Central Intelligence Agency as terrorist organizations.

"The label of terrorist is suitable for the military and security forces of the United States," Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in his weekly brief.

The motion comes after a US Senate resolution on Wednesday which called for Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be labelled a terrorist organization.

Hosseini said the resolution was an “unprecedented act” and giving any indication to this issue is “a threat and danger to global peace and security,” which would “weaken international bodies."


I found this funny - I suppose the obvious question is what the definition of terrorist is.

However, Iran is not the only body that say the US is a sponsor and perpetrator of terrorist acts (according to the US definitions it uses when branding others). Noam Chomsky, for example, has written a lot about the state sponsored terrorist activities - from the Far East to South America.

Cheers,
Shafique

I would agree with them.

The CIA were a key part in the 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq. I also believe they have a certain chap under there payroll who is hiding in a Cave somewhere;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/s ... 44,00.html

the USA is more of an "oppressionist" to me. The word "terrorist" is too raw for them I think.

yujinn wrote:the USA is more of an "oppressionist" to me. The word "terrorist" is too raw for them I think.

Yujinn - terrorist should be used when civilians are targetted or killed in order to spread fear to achieve a goal. The US has been guilty of sponsoring and carrying out assassinations and general terror acts in places Cambodia, Cuba and many other countries.

This is the reason that the US academic Noam Chomsky says that the US is guilty of the charge of terrorism. It is guilty because it has carried out exactly the same acts as the countries it accuses.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

yujinn wrote:the USA is more of an "oppressionist" to me. The word "terrorist" is too raw for them I think.

Yujinn - terrorist should be used when civilians are targetted or killed in order to spread fear to achieve a goal. The US has been guilty of sponsoring and carrying out assassinations and general terror acts in places Cambodia, Cuba and many other countries.

This is the reason that the US academic Noam Chomsky says that the US is guilty of the charge of terrorism. It is guilty because it has carried out exactly the same acts as the countries it accuses.

Cheers,
Shafique

Examples given of the countries may well be termed as terrorists activities by US but it does not fit into today's terrorism definition which is linked with a religion and is done on the name of islam. Those days we had two superpowers in the world and countries are divided and US propoganda machinaries like hollywood movies depicted the same and we all watched those movies with lot of interest, can we do the same today I guess not?

daniyaal wrote:
Examples given of the countries may well be termed as terrorists activities by US but it does not fit into today's terrorism definition which is linked with a religion and is done on the name of islam. Those days we had two superpowers in the world and countries are divided and US propoganda machinaries like hollywood movies depicted the same and we all watched those movies with lot of interest, can we do the same today I guess not?

So killing innocent civilians is ok if you don't do it 'in the name of religion' but say it is because you are fighting a 'bad guy'?

Hmmm.

Let's just say I disagree.

Cheers,
Shafique

Oh dear, off course not!!!. I simply meant that those "terrorists" acts were not taken in the same context as in todays world. As far as the terrorism or terrorists acts are concerned, the world today has been divided on religion lines. Wherever other types of terrorists acts are being carried out, we (countries) do not respond to it in the same mannger. Again 9/11 changes the definition of terrorism and makes it so clear to us all muslims, isn't it?

Cheers

See the posts in the thread about why only muslim terrorists are labelled 'Islamic'.

My arguement is that the religious labelling has artificially created the impression of the religious divide you talk about.

When examined objectively I find that the majority of terrorist acts aren't due to religious grievances or justified by religion. On the contrary, religous authorities around the globe all denounce terrorism and appear to be united on this one point.

I look behind the hype and do not consider fighters who are fighting to liberate their occupied countries and target military personell as terrorists. I do consider Israel as a terrorist state as it persists in holding civilians captive without trial, continues to occupy land illegally, continues to flout Human Rights conventions by for example employing collective punishment and also because it continues to assassinate people (whilst calling it 'targeted killings').

Also the terrorist acts committed by the US have continued after the fall of the Communist bloc.

I suggest you read Noam Chomsky's 'Hegemony or Survival' - it will open your eyes.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:My arguement is that the religious labelling has artificially created the impression of the religious divide you talk about

I am missing the point here then, can you tell me who has created this so called artificial labelling that you have concluded with proof?

shafique wrote:When examined objectively I find that the majority of terrorist acts aren't due to religious grievances or justified by religion. On the contrary, religous authorities around the globe all denounce terrorism and appear to be united on this one point.

This is like painting the picture with roses, What ever has happened in the past decade and continue to happen has everything to do with religion, whether it is palestine, kosovo, bosnia, kashmir etc. You mean to say these people have taken up arms NOT becuase they were muslims and being subjected in their own countires, but becuase of social issues (which are also forced upon them as they are monority muslims in those countries).

I also like to know which muslim religious authorities denounce terrorism in true sense, all of them do so under the pressure of their govt authoities who are in turn under the pressure of western govts, that is the real truth.

Laslty am not supporting these acts, all i am saying is that as time passes, each day the hatred against the west is building up within the common people, and the fact of matter is muslims govts and their people are united against the west and believe me if there was another 9/11 (GOD forbid) both these parties would be sort of happy not becuase of the innocent deaths but becuase of reap what you sow.

Walk in the streets of saudi, pakistan for one, and you would find common man hating the west and this phenomenon is growing and on is doing any thing to stop or prevent it. Govs are just doing enought to prove their loyalty to us and others. Other muslim organization you talked about, well to me they are just doing Lip service.

In my opinion, the practical approach would be to try to bring some sense into the common people in the every friday sermons by the Imams (of muslim countries and not by opening some web sites like in UK etc which is again done to have a clean chit from the local authorities that we are clean as we live in uk and we are with you denouncing the terrorists acts).
The other day I was passing by the street and I heard the imam performing Taraweeh (night ramadan prayer) and he was was literally cursing the US and asking god to do all sorts of bad things to it. What I told you is ground reality and what you are trying to paint does not exist in the majority which I hope and pray will penetrate and we should focus our thoughts and deeds on other issues to build this torn ummah.

Cheers

Ok - I'll try and keep this short and to the point

Labels:
In this thread I am specifically talking about the label 'Islamic Terrorism' - which is equating the religion with terrorism. You will notice I say I don't have a problem with 'Muslim Terrorists' etc - but only have an issue with 'Islamic'.


All Islamic authorities have denounced terrorism as against Islam. Targeting civilians is against Islam. Terrorism, by definition, therefore is not Islamic.

Your question implies that you think differently and that authorities only denounce terrorist acts when forced by governments! Wow.

I don't equate civil war with terrorism, and yes I do still maintain that religion is not the main cause of terrorist acts. Taking suicide bombings for example - this was perfected and used extensively by Tamil Tigers who are a secular organisation.

Even if you take Al Qaeda, Bin Laden has made it clear that their gripe is not with 'the West' or with Christianity - he makes the point that no one is targeting Sweden, for example. He has made it clear that his organisation is targetting those who have caused or helped the oppression and killing of people in Palestine etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

Its not about what you think personally I never questioned your say, All I shared was what a common person thinks. You can go on and on and talk about differentiating islamic and muslim terrorits and tamil tigers example but on the street the opinions on both sides are very clear.

From the west it will always be Islamic terrorists and for a commoner muslim there will be hatred and sort of justified belief and somewhere soft corner for Qaeda and other similar people.


I have friends on both types of 1 side. i.e. I have friends who are educated like yourself and who talks against killing innocent civilians and who denounce Qaeda and of similar organizations and I also come across with people are are not educated , working as labours, in the shops, streets and whenever there is a news of N number of people bombed in iraq or afghanistan or other similar places by west allied forced, you should listen to their opinion which is completely goes in favour of qaeda doctrine.

I am not trying to debate here on the ligitamcy of terrorist definition, All i am saying is that after 9/11 there was a period of reconciliation between the west and muslims , however lately all parties are reverting back and we are heading towards an all out war.


Cheers