EU undercuts US sanctions with Syrian tradedeal.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Since international law has no force, it can't be considered law in any tradition sense of the word. Thus, no state has any more "rights" than an individual has in an anarchy.

Indeed.

But there are rules that have been established by States out of common interest (treaties, conventions). These agreements bind your sovereignty as long as you respect them.
The only problem is that you'll considerably weaken your diplomatic position if you repeatedly betray the deals you've agreed to.

Besides, the International Law does exist on paper. And on paper, all UN members have agreed with it. And the UN can send troops to countries that oppose the charter. It can be pretty serious, like in Iraq 1991.

[GePap]

Anarchy is NOT the default situation-much like nature abhors a vacuum people abhor anarchy. The reason tyranny has been the regular form of government thorughout human history is becuase people prefer knowing they will be a peasant tommoroow than thinking they might be dead.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the UNSC was the first step against pure anarchy. Plus, of course, the fear of anarchy all states have does limit their behavior. If everyone begun to break the law inside any state, the state would collapse.

2 things keep people in line-the threat of force and their own inhibitions, with the second one actually being more important-otherwise more states would seek nukes, and chemical weapons and such, since they really could, if you examine reality.

What's your point? As it is, there is effectively a state of international anarchy, despite such organizations as the UN. Thus, you have no more "rights" than others choose to allow you.

[Sirotnikov]

1. Don't be a drama queen about Iran. NO, they would not cut my head off-the fact the Iranina theorcracy and we have bad relations are based on history, NOT religion-we have had fine relations with the even MORE strict Saudi monarchy than the Clerics in Iran. So give me a break.

You'd be surprised to hear what they think of you:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=FD03FE9381B542DD9EDD78E27972DD78&ci=13014&ClipMediaID=19019

You seem to live in a world lacking any ideology or religious motivation. The Iranian Shiites consider the US and everything US related to be "The Big Devil".

That is beyond "real politik". Its religious belief.

You're welcome to spew your theories about how fanatics are also reasonable humans like us...

[Kuciwalker]

I thought it was "The Great Satan"...

[Sirotnikov]

unlike the Palestinians, it's not like Israeli violence is performed by rogue groups.

Palestinian violence performed by "rogue groups"?

Here's an exhibition at a 'rogue Nablus university"

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=75AD7567A410460887803E2AA057DBD9&ci=12908&ClipMediaID=18919

Here's a PA summer camp:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=224A060FE93541A2A905E1FB334F30B7&ci=12948&ClipMediaID=18959

Here's a kindergarten graduation ceremony in Gaza (the kindergarten is sponsored by Islamic groups)

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=0F973E7ECDBD43EDAA28F5899AC04401&ci=13678&ClipMediaID=19650

Here's a previous PA communications minister talks about the birth of the intifada

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=BDDF16B010E44A598870118EE3AE76DE&ci=13017&ClipMediaID=19022

Here's a palestinian TV show message against violence:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=DF24D6EDDC51438D9AB323994AFCD36B&ci=18125&ClipMediaID=23932

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


You seem to live in a world lacking any ideology or religious motivation. The Iranian Shiites consider the US and everything US related to be "The Big Devil".

That is beyond "real politik". Its religious belief.

You're welcome to spew your theories about how fanatics are also reasonable humans like us...

First of all, Iran's population is more pro-US than that of any other state in the ME sans Israel-remember the big sympathy demostrations right after 9/11 held in Iran (and not in the Arab world).

If anyone is making a mockery of religion and not getting what belief and faith are, it is you, not I. That they have a strong faith and that they think it should be the basis of government is certainly not a western belief anymore, but that does not mean they whish to conquer the infidel or kill all the Americans. IN fact, your belief is backed by prejudice-mine, by 20 years of actual behavior on the regime's part.

So again, if you want to advance a position, why don;t you try to come up with examples of behavior and not boogeyman stories?

[Sirotnikov]

but that does not mean they whish to conquer the infidel or kill all the Americans.

That is the main idea of the "new shiites" - first kill the infidels - later deal with non-shiites.

Your claims about a pro-US Iran are laughable, since even the liberal movement is anti-US, and only college boy reformists are pro-US because they hope the US would help a revolution.

But the majority of Iranians are not pro-US, and those in power are especially anti-US.

The US isn't the great Satan because of "bad history" - it is part of their philosophy.

Iran could gain quite alot by opnening up to the west and an alliance with Israel, just like before the revolution. The reason they don't do it is because they hate our infidel asses.

Your attempt to attribute logical motivation to fundies is admirable yet funny.

The new shia is all about "jihad" and "spread of the revolution" above values of "daawa" and "winning hearts".

That is not to say the Iranian government is unreasonable or unlogical in their strategy or tactics. Infact they are very

But their grand goals have been and remain to be to defeat Israel and the USA.

This video shows it very clearly:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=FD03FE9381B542DD9EDD78E27972DD78&ci=13014&ClipMediaID=19019

[Sirotnikov]

why don;t you try to come up with examples of behavior

I would, but i can't. That is not to say I don't have examples. I just can't.

But your assumption that the Iranians hate you because of 'bad blood' is laughable.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

unlike the Palestinians, it's not like Israeli violence is performed by rogue groups.

Palestinian violence performed by "rogue groups"?

Thanks for the documents.

I didn't intend to dismiss the many wrongs, the violence performed by Arafat and his ilk, but I realize my wording didn't show it. I consider Arafat to have a very grave responsibility in the resurrection of the intifada.

What I mean, however, is that "lawful" violence on the Palestinian side is far, very far from being the only source of violence in Palestine. The most vicous and bloodthirsty Palestinian groups are the religious zealot ones. They are absolutely not under Arafat's direct control, even if arrangements can exist between the rogue groups and Arafat's remnants of authority.

Even if Arafat genuinely wanted terrorism to stop (which I don't believe, as he seems keen of milking as much political gain from the situation as possible), he would have it much, much harder than if Sharon wanted Israeli violence to stop. Heck, Arafat would seriously risk what power he has left.

How often are terrorist actions perpetrated by Arafat's faction? And how often are terrorist actions perpetrated by rogue factions? Now compare this with how often violence is performed by Civilian Israelis (or stray soldiers), compared to the military, and you'll get my point.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
[q]
Your claims about a pro-US Iran are laughable, since even the liberal movement is anti-US, and only college boy reformists are pro-US because they hope the US would help a revolution.

But the majority of Iranians are not pro-US, and those in power are especially anti-US.

The US isn't the great Satan because of "bad history" - it is part of their philosophy.

Iran could gain quite alot by opnening up to the west and an alliance with Israel, just like before the revolution. The reason they don't do it is because they hate our infidel asses.

Your attempt to attribute logical motivation to fundies is admirable yet funny.

The problems we have with Iran stem from our supporting an unpopular ruler and supporting a state that they don't like. Otherwise they would have the Swiss just as much as us. Had we supported the popular movement we would be in like flynn.

Your weakness is that you fail to see the logic behind actions of people who are different. Just because you don't understand them you see them as illogical. That will be your downfall.

[Pax]

Syro,
Furthermore, if you read the Iranian and Syrian newspapers a good portion of them logically detail there point of view, why they feel the way they do and what must be done to correct the situation short of killing all the infidels or conquering the western world.
I read the translated articles on a regular basis.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

but that does not mean they whish to conquer the infidel or kill all the Americans.

That is the main idea of the "new shiites" - first kill the infidels - later deal with non-shiites.

Your claims about a pro-US Iran are laughable, since even the liberal movement is anti-US, and only college boy reformists are pro-US because they hope the US would help a revolution.

But the majority of Iranians are not pro-US, and those in power are especially anti-US.

The US isn't the great Satan because of "bad history" - it is part of their philosophy.

Iran could gain quite alot by opnening up to the west and an alliance with Israel, just like before the revolution. The reason they don't do it is because they hate our infidel asses.

Your attempt to attribute logical motivation to fundies is admirable yet funny.

The new shia is all about "jihad" and "spread of the revolution" above values of "daawa" and "winning hearts".

That is not to say the Iranian government is unreasonable or unlogical in their strategy or tactics. Infact they are very

But their grand goals have been and remain to be to defeat Israel and the USA.

This video shows it very clearly:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.a...pMediaID=19019

You know, the sad bit is that you buy this tripe propaganda more than the people it is supposedly meant to attract.

Iran could gain quite alot by opnening up to the west and an alliance with Israel, just like before the revolution. The reason they don't do it is because they hate our infidel asses.

I actually don;t know what sort of smiley to use here..rolleyes is not appropriate, neither is sad. But neither is lol...

You scare me Siro, you scare me because while you certainly are reasonable, I think you deep down believe what you say because that is how you think: we reflect ourselves on the outer world-if we are willing to believe a gorup is like that, it is becuase we believ that possible, but not even that, likely. And we do so because we accept and share that world view.

"The new Shia" does not exist. Anymore than the "New Jews", or the "New german".

Where is the vidence of what you say> You keep pointing to videos-where oh were are the universalistic shiite global terror organizations? The fact is they don;t exits. AQ is made up of Sunni extremists, not Shiites. Those videos you always link to and think is proof seem to be the extent of it, and if reality and behavior is to be our guide, they don;t seem to be working that well.

But the majority of Iranians are not pro-US, and those in power are especially anti-US.

This is patently false. The vast mayority of Iranians are under 25-they have always lived under the revolution-but unlike what you think, they don;t believe the videos. Every single author, columnist, film maker who travels to Iran finds a people much more pro-American than even you, pro-American becuase they dislike their rulers. Iran is probably the only country in the world in which most people think the Iraq war is going well becuase they assume the opposite of what thier regime tells them must be true. As I said before, you buy the extremist videos more than young Iranians. As for those in power-sure, they don't like the US, but hate? They hate the US no more than the US hates Iran, though not as much as you seem to hate.

Maybe Siro you shjould stop watching videos, and start watching the news, reading the papers. Why for example do you think that Iran is the only state in the ME outside of Israel that commonly exports it's films? That simple fact says far more about Iran than the videos you watch on the net.

[Tripledoc]

Israel’s Secret Agenda: Funding Arab Terrorism

Why would Israel provide covert support for Islamic fundamentalist extremists? The answer to this provocative question points toward a dirty little secret that the major media in America is keeping under wraps.

Exclusive To American Free Press

By Michael Collins Piper

There is a solid record of evidence pointing to ward a longtime — albeit little-known — role by Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, in providing financing and tactical support for the very “Muslim extremists” presumed to be Israel’s worst enemies. The truth is that Muslim extremists have proven useful (if often unwitting) tools in advancing Israel’s own geopolitical agenda.

Although many Americans are now aware that Osama bin Laden’s early efforts against the Soviets in Afghanistan were sponsored by the CIA, the media has been reticent to point out that this arms pipeline—described by Covert Action Information Bulletin (Sept ember 1987) as “the second largest covert operation” in the CIA’s history—was also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of Deception), under the direct supervision of the Mossad.

Ostrovsky noted: “It was a complex pipeline since a large portion of the mujahadeen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.”

Former ABC correspondent John K. Cooley, in Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, provides some confirmation for Ostrovsky’s allegations. He writes:

Discussion of the input of outsiders to training and operations in Afghanistan would be incomplete without mention of Iran and the State of Israel. Iran’s major role in training and in supply is a matter of historical record. As for Israel, the evidence is much sketchier. . . .

Whether or not units of Israel’s elite special forces trained the Muslim warriors, who would soon turn their guns against Israel in Muslim organizations like Hamas, is a well-guarded Israeli secret.

Several Americans and Britons who took part in the training program have assured the author that Israelis did indeed take part, though no one will own to having actually seen, or spoken with, Israeli instructors or intelligence operatives in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

What is certain is that of all the members of the anti-Soviet coalition, the Israelis have been the most successful in concealing the details and even the broad traces of a training role; much more than the Americans and British. . . .

In addition, it should be noted that Sami Masri, a former insider in the infamous—supposedly “Islamic”—Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) told journalists Jonathan Beaty and S. C. Gwynne (both of Time magazine) that BCCI “was financing Israeli arms going into Afghan tan. There were Israeli arms, Israeli planes, and CIA pilots. Arms were coming into Afghanistan and [BCCI was] facilitating it.”

However, there’s much more to the story of the Mossad’s ties to the so-called Islamic terror networks that are the stuff of American nightmares today.

In his follow-up book, The Other Side of Deception, ex-Mossad figure Victor Ostrovsky unveils the disturbing fact that the Mossad had a secret history of supporting radical Islamic groups for its own purposes.

Pointing out that Arab- and Muslim-hating hard-liners in Israel and its Mossad believe that Israel’s survival lies in its military strength and that “this strength arises from the need to answer the constant threat of war,” the Israeli hard-liners fear that any peace with any Arab state could weaken Israel and bring about its demise. In that vein, Ostrovsky writes:

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region.

Even columnist Jack Anderson, a devoted news conduit for the Israeli lobby, has bragged of Israel’s skill: He wrote as long ago as Sept. 17, 1972:

"The Israelis are also skillful at exploiting Arab rivalries and turning Arab against Arab. The Kurdish tribes, for example, inhabit the mountains of northern Iraq. Every month, a secret Israeli envoy slips into the mountains from the Iranian side to deliver $50,000 to Kurdish leader Mulla Mustafa al Barzani. The subsidy insures Kurdish hostility against Iraq, whose government is militantly anti-Israel."

In an April 25, 1983, column Anderson pointed out that one secret State Department report speculated that if Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat were to be dislodged, “the Palestinian movement will probably disintegrate into radical splinter groups, which, in combination with other revolutionary forces in the region, would pose a grave threat to the moderate Arab governments.”

Then, according to Anderson’s account, the State Department reported:

"Israel seems determined to vent this threat . . . and can be expected to greatly expand its covert cooperations with revolutionary movements."

Anderson added that “two well-placed intelligence sources” had explained that this meant that it was in Israel’s interests to “divide and conquer” by setting various Palestinian factions against one another. This would then help destabilize all of the Arab and Islamic regimes in the Middle East. Anderson then stated flat out that the sources said: “Israel had secretly provided funds to Abu Nidal’s group.”

British journalist Patrick Seale, an acknowledged authority on the Middle East, devoted an entire book, entitled Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire, outlining and documenting his thesis that Nidal was largely a surrogate for the Mossad all along.

Today Nidal (reportedly in retirement in Egypt) has been replaced by Osama bin Laden in media headlines as “the world’s most wanted terrorist.”

And, like Nidal’s efforts to divide the Arab world, particularly the Palestinian cause, bin Laden’s activities seem to have a congruence of interests with those of Israel, although this is something that the major media has not been ready to acknowledge.

While bin Laden has never attacked an Israeli or Jewish target, even The Washington Post pointed out on Sept. 30 that bin Laden’s primary goal is bolstering “a destabilizing brand of Islamic fundamentalism in a long list of existing Middle East and Central Asia regimes.”

That same Post article revealed that—contrary to the general public view that somehow bin Laden is in league with favorite Israeli targets such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi — a former bin Laden associate testified that bin Laden was quite hostile to both the Iraqi leader and the Libyan leader. This again is quite in line with Israel’s attitude toward the two Arab icons.

And in light of recent questions about the real nationalities and identities of the purported hijackers who brought down the four planes that created havoc on American soil on Sept. 11, Anderson’s aforementioned Sept. 17, 1972, column pointed out something that should be noted:

Israeli agents — immigrants whose families had lived in Arab lands for generations — have a perfect knowledge of Arab dialects and customs. They have been able to infiltrate Arab governments with ease.

As American Free Press reported on Oct. 22, there are some doubts as to whether those who have been identified as the hijackers on Sept. 11 were the hijackers.

Writing in The New Yorker on Oct. 8, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, pointed out that “many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found.”

Hersh has also noted that a senior military officer had suggested to him that “a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.”

Hersh did not point any fingers anywhere, but a reader familiar with Hersh’s past history of pinpointing intrigue by Israel’s Mossad could perhaps read between the lines and guess as to which foreign nation Hersh’s source might, however obliquely, be alluding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comments:

In 2002 Abu Nidal was found dead in Bagdhad. With three bullet shots to his head the claim made by the Iraqis that he commited suicide is unlikely.

Seymour Hersh was the journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre in 1972. Recently he published a piece in the New yorker which claimed that the atrocities in Abu Gharaib were directed by Rumsfeld.

I think more and more is pointing towards the existience of a secret alliance between Israel and Iran. The above article, and recent events concerning the CIA sting operation against one of neocon puppet Chalabis advisors.

Also in BBC journalist John Simpsons biography on Saddam it is suggested that Israel provided various form of intelligence to the Iranians during their war with Iraq.

Kissinger in his book diplomacy repeatedly states the importance that the Us seeks to engage Iran and indeed considers Iran a potentially important ally in the future.

The recent call for a 'demcratization' of the Middle East by the Bush administration is also thinly veiled support for the theocratic forces in the middle East.

[Pax]

This is a very interesting article.