In exclusive interview, Obama says Iran is a 'state sponsor of terror'
Source: Al Arabiya News
Gulf countries are right to be concerned about Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, U.S. President Barack Obama said on Wednesday, talking exclusively to Asharq al-Awsat, which marks his first ever interview with an Arab newspaper.
Iran clearly engages in dangerous and destabilizing behavior in different countries across the region. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. It helps prop up the Assad regime in Syria. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It aids the Houthi rebels in Yemen. So countries in the region are right to be deeply concerned about Irans activities, especially its support for violent proxies inside the borders of other nations, Obama told the newspaper.
The president was speaking ahead of the Camp David on Thursday, in which he will host GCC leaders.
The countries in the region are right to be deeply concerned about Irans activities, especially its support for violent proxies inside the borders of other nations
<snip>
Read more: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/05/13/Obama-says-Iran-is-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-.html
840high
(17,196 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)for a treaty to deal with Iran's nuclear material, you would think a sane person would not trash that effort with needlessly inflamatory statements.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)President Obama was trusted by liberals with Iran...but apparently not with a trade agreement?!
Some folks on DU think trashing Obama somehow helps them in their quest for Sanders/Warren, because trashing is easier than reasoned debate and miles ahead of learning something new.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and in my eyes, sucking up to Netanyahu. A true peacemaker does not seek to antagonize the party he seeks piece with. I don't trust Obama on a number of issues since he has demonstrated his principles are "pragmatic" and change with the prevailing winds of political expediency.
I do not "trash" Obama, I call him out on the facts. Things like criticizing torture, then refusing to punish people guilty of torture, then turning a blind eye to people being tortured on your watch.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)so that is a straw man argument. I gave a specific, factual example of Obama's moral failing. Care to rebut that?
Sgt Preston
(133 posts)I take it that this is a typically British understatement.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Palestinian refugees who live there. It doesn't get a lot of press or play, but Iran does want regional hegemony and even though they've got some of the worst bubble-gum-and-baling-wire military hardware going, they have never been shy about using cannon fodder as a substitute for technology. In order to move forward, they're going to have to give peace a chance, a bit, anyway, and maybe take their fingers out of a few pies.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I try not to judge too harshly.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)region"
I wonder if everyone in the room was struck by the irony, given that we are there because we blew up Iraq. Two faces, one people.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)We are the chief exporter of terrorism in the world.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Temporary schizophrenia, one hopes.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)he was mentally ill when he is merely speaking the truth. Or are you denying the well known fact that Iran has financed hamas, hezbollah and islamic jihad for decades now? Why do you think the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russian and China are trying to prevent them from having nukes?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)or just plain willful hypocrisy. The hypocrisy is apparent in view of the fact that the Saudis support terrorist organizations and have their own proxy nuclear capability through Pakistan. Israel is guilty of the same, even more so in terms of actual possession of nuclear weapons. In either case, one hopes that this sort of schizophrenic policy is only temporary.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)should treat all countries exactly the same regardless of whether it's in our country's interest or not. We don't and shouldn't. And that is nowhere near the definition of schizophrenia.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The food poisoning and schizophrenia references were examples of metaphor, not an actual medical diagnosis.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Not President Obama. He said they sponsor terrorists. That is nothing but the truth. You also may want to look up the definition of metaphor.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Mostly it's been Israel playing the bad cop pressing Iran against the wall. But, all those "nothing's off the table," and "red line" utterances from Bush and Obama and Hillary simply repeat the code words laid down by Netanyahu. The message sent is the same as the musical stylings of this gent:
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that the past two presidents, along with Hillary Clinton, are nothing but pawns for Netanyahu?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The potential nuclear deal does mean that the US is allied with Iran or thinks it is a good actor. Obama, Kerry and other P5 +1 countries have said that the nuclear deal would deal with ONLY that issue because Iran potentially getting a nuclear bomb was considered to be the number one danger.
Obviously, there are those that hope that after the nuclear deal, other efforts could be made to change Iran's behavior -- obviously the first thing would be to get them to stop backing terrorism in the region. Here, they are not alone. The Sunni countries have sponsored their own share of terror.
It may be that the nuclear agreement, if it happens, does nothing other than improve the chances that Iran does not get a bomb in the next decade. It would be fantastic if all sides stepped back from supporting terrorism, but there is no one I have heard who has actually expressed that as likely to happen or even likely to be the next goal.
There is nothing contradictory to saying that you don't want a country that is behind a lot of terrorism to have a nuclear bomb. The US even has some sanctions imposed for reasons other than a possible nuclear program -- and they stay in place.
bananas
(27,509 posts)MAY 22, 2010
Holding contradictory ideas at the same time
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that the true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. Without casting aspersions on the quality of mind of political analysts who express themselves on Iran and the state of U.S.-Iran relations, very few would pass the FSF test. When dealing with Iran and the United States, it is dangerously easy to fall into the comparative victimization trap, in which one side is victim and the other victimizer. The fact that both sides may be both victims and victimizer seems too difficult to hold in the mind at the same time.
<snip>
This is a false dichotomy. It is the window dressing of two opposing agendas: one has long pushed for regime change in Iran, even if that requires active Western encouragement; the other has promoted negotiation of all outstanding issues on the basis of mutual respect. The first is unwilling to concede any positive attributes to Iran; the other is inclined to mute negative images since they not only impede progress toward any negotiated settlement but could represent, a la Iraq, the justification for military action.
In my view both are wrong. These are indeed two contradictory ideas that must be held in the mind at the same time. Serious engagement with Iran should not imply giving Iran a free pass for its abusive behavior. In fact, experience with other repressive regimes not only suggests that it is possible to pursue mutually beneficial security objectives while remaining highly critical of abuses, but that the very act of drawing such a regime into the international community may lead it to revise its behavior out of its own self-interest. It was possible to devise nuclear arrangements with the Soviet Union while simultaneously negotiating the Helsinki Accords that gave rise to the modern human rights movement and arguably had a powerful effect on the treatment of dissidents by the then-USSR.
Political imperatives in the West and in Iran drive each side to selectively construct its image of the other. We (the West and Iran) justify our own behavior by emphasizing only the acts and the traits of the other that make us appear righteous in our own eyes or in the eyes of our constituents. That is all too human. It is easy to understand and difficult to change. But it is a recipe for perpetual strife.
Of course, that's not to be confused with DoubleThink:
Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949); doublethink is part of newspeak. In the novel, its origin within the typical citizen is unclear; while it could be partly a product of Big Brother's formal brainwashing programmes,[2] the novel explicitly shows people learning Doublethink and newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to "fit in", or gain status within the Party to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize let alone mention any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to blasphemy, and could subject that someone to possible disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members.
JI7
(89,264 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)
Contrary to popular belief, schizophrenia isn't a split personality or multiple personality. The word "schizophrenia" does mean "split mind," but it refers to a disruption of the usual balance of emotions and thinking.
Schizophrenia is a chronic condition, requiring lifelong treatment.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizophrenia/basics/definition/con-20021077
http://www.dnalc.org/view/899-DSM-IV-Criteria-for-Schizophrenia.html
Two or more symptoms, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1 month period:
...Delusions
...Hallucinations
...Disorganized speech
...Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
...Negative symptoms
Social/occupational dysfunction
Continuous signs of disturbance persist for at least 6 months
[notice Schizophrenia had THREE definitions, only the first of the three list Delusions, Hallucinations, Disorganized speech, Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior, or Negative symptoms as symptoms of the disease]
Schizophrenia Subtypes
...PARANOID TYPE
......Preoccupation with one or more delusions or frequent auditory hallucinations
......None of the following are present: disorganized speech, disorganized or catatonic behavior, flat or inappropriate affect
...DISORGANIZED TYPE
.......Disorganized speech, disorganized behavior, and flat or inappropriate affect are prominent
...CATATONIC TYPE
.....Dominated by at least 2 of the following
.......... immobility as evidenced by catalepsy (including waxy flexibility) or stupor
Excessive motor activity
..........Extreme negativism (motiveless resistance to instruction or maintenance of rigid posture) or mutism
..........Peculiarities of voluntary movement
..........Echolalia or echopraxia
...RESIDUAL TYPE
.....Absence of prominent delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, and grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
.....Continuing evidence of the disturbance as indicated by the presence of negative symptoms or 2 or more symptoms in an attenuated form UNDIFFERENTIATED TYPE
http://www.dmacc.edu/instructors/tkwilson2/AbSchizophreniaDSM.pdf
The classic way to view Schizophrenia is if normal is 1 + 1 = 2, someone with Schizophrenia will think 1 + 1 = B, for B is the second letter in the alphabet.
Split personality is a completely different problem.
Please note that "Severe" in medical terms is NOT the same as "Serious".
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/severe
Severe diseases are non-contagious diseases whose physical and social symptoms can have a severe impact on sufferers' abilities to lead normal everyday lives. A person with Crohn's disease, for example, is not only likely to experience severe stomach aches and uncontrollable urges to go to the bathroom, they usually have to map any social outings around the availability of public toilets, significantly restricting their lives.
Although these types of diseases usually do not require hospitalisation, they often involve a high level of dependency on families, friends and other carers, as well as regular treatment by specialist physicians. For example, someone with epilepsy will, on average, require over two carers.
http://www.ucb.com/rd/info-centre/severe-diseases
Wilms
(26,795 posts)McKim
(2,412 posts)The same thing can be said of the USA. We create state sponsored terrorism in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan every day.
nikto
(3,284 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)"This is a totally radical regime that is the premier sponsor of state terrorism in the world and Obama's about to give them nuclear weapons," Cheney said. "I can't think of a more terrible burden to leave the next president than what Obama's creating here."
On "The Daily Show" Thursday, Jon Stewart, wearing a detective hat, wanted to prove the former vice president wrong.
"Really?" he asked. "You can't think of an administration that left a more terrible burden?"
He showed a clip Cheney on the board of Halliburton in 1998, arguing that the United States should lift sanctions in Iran, and a 2004 Houston Chronicle report noting that, before Cheney left Halliburton to become Bush's running mate, Halliburton opened an office in Tehran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/17/jon-stewart-on-why-cheney-and-not-obama-is-softer-on-iran/
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)...
Many believe Obama's comments were meant to comfort some Arab rulers who have shown dismay over what they believe is Washington's efforts to normalize ties with the Islamic Republic.
The meeting was expected to discuss nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries -- the US, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany -- and the crises in Syria and Yemen.
The newspaper also reported that Obama isn't taking the Saudi kings decision to skip the Camp David meeting too hard.
According to Obama, the main aim of the Camp David meeting is to further strengthen our close partnerships, including our security cooperation, and to discuss how we can meet common challenges together. That includes working to resolve the conflicts across the Middle East that have taken so many innocent lives and caused so much suffering for the people of the region.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/05/13/410927/Obama-antiiran-rhetoric
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,505 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)to have a President who isn't afraid of REAL, unscripted interviews and fortunate Iran and Saudi Arabia are historic enemies.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The United States does not stoop to sponsoring terrorists. Hell no. We commit the terror ourselves. We even have a name for it, "Shock and Awe."
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)The US having some of the dirtiest hands over the last fifty or sixty years. Has any country destabilized as many countries and regions as the US over the last fifty years? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure what he's saying about Iran is based on truth, but what makes Iran special in this case?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Hamas, Hezbollah: national liberation armies
Al Qaeda, ISIS: terrorist organizations
National liberation armies, like regular armies, may engage in terroristic acts, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing as terrorists. That's mainly a propaganda exercise for the benefit of Israel.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)At the time, Israel's main enemy was the late Yasser Arafat's Fatah party, which formed the heart of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Fatah was secular and cast in the mold of other revolutionary, leftist guerrilla movements waging insurgencies elsewhere in the world during the Cold War. The PLO carried out assassinations and kidnappings and, although recognized by neighboring Arab states, was considered a terrorist organization by Israel; PLO operatives in the occupied territories faced brutal repression at the hands of the Israeli security state.
Meanwhile, the activities of Islamists affiliated with Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood were allowed in the open in Gaza a radical departure from when the Strip was administered by the secular-nationalist Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Egypt lost control of Gaza to Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which saw Israel also seize the West Bank. In 1966, Nasser had executed Sayyid Qutb, one of the Brotherhood's leading intellectuals. The Israelis saw Qutb's adherents in the Palestinian territories, including the wheelchair-bound Sheik Ahmed Yassin, as a useful counterweight to Arafat's PLO.
"When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake," one Israeli official who had worked in Gaza in the 1980s said in a 2009 interview with the Wall Street Journal's Andrew Higgins. "But at the time nobody thought about the possible results."
Higgins's article is worth reading in full. He goes on to outline the type of assistance the Israelis initially gave Yassin, whom the PLO at one time deemed a "collaborator," and Gaza's other Islamists:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/
hack89
(39,171 posts)you can split all the fucking hairs you want but that is what terrorists do.