Hagel: ‘We Must Be Clear That The U.S. Does Not Seek Regime Change In Iran’
Hagel: ‘We Must Be Clear That The U.S. Does Not Seek Regime Change In Iran’
Conservatives are using a U.N. report released today to instigate a confrontation with Iran. Drudge headlines “Iran Nuke showdown.” AEI writes, “Now is the time to ratchet up the pressure.” In a speech at the University of Nebraska, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) tamped down on such rhetoric, arguing the way forward must involve diplomatic engagement. The first step, he argued, is to make clear we do not see “regime change in Iran”:
The United States must be resolute and clear-headed in our dealings with Iran…just as the Administration has been in the latest round of the Six Party Talks regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons. The agreement that Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill reached on February 13 with his colleagues from China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and Russia reflects the power of adept diplomacy, supported through regional coordination, strengthened by financial pressure, and our military presence in South Korea, Japan and across the Asia-Pacific region.
The United States must employ similar, wise statecraft to redirect deepening Middle East tensions toward a higher ground of resolution. We must be clear that the United States does not seek regime change in Iran. We must be clear that our objections are to the actions of the Iranian government…not the Iranian people.
In the last month, the Bush administration has deployed an additional carrier group to Iran, stormed Iranian government offices in Iraq, and accused the “highest levels” of the Iranian government of funneling weapons into Iraq. Today, Hagel warned that “careless rhetoric” and “flawed intelligence” risk triggering a military confrontation with Iran:
The United States needs to weigh very carefully its actions regarding Iran. In a hazy, hair-triggered environment, careless rhetoric and military movements that one side may believe are required to demonstrate resolve and strength…can be misinterpreted as preparations for military options. The risk of inadvertent conflict because of miscalculation is great.
The United States must be cautious and wise not to follow the same destructive path on Iran as we did on Iraq. We blundered into Iraq because of flawed intelligence, flawed assumptions, flawed judgments, and questionable intentions.
Read the full speech here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
71 Responses to “Hagel: ‘We Must Be Clear That The U.S. Does Not Seek Regime Change In Iran’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Talks loudly and carries…. water.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:21 pmTruth has said all you can say on this thread. Might as well shut it down…
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmOh George, are you listening? My problem with Hagel though is he says one thing and then does the complete opposite of what he believes. he was against the surge before he was for it. I really don’t trust him or any other repug that talks the game like that.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmLike the Bushies care - Hagel et. al. are where all of us were 5 years ago - now we know better but Hagel thinks e can reason with them. Which means, we’re going to war with Iran.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pmLast week, Perrspectives documented the controversy and contradictions surrounding the administration’s case to provide Iranian meddling in Iraq (”Fool Me Once: Bush and Iran”). Today, Newsweek provides the backstory.”
For the details, see:
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm“Newsweek: Off-Script on Iran.”
No, of course not. We just will be looking for WMDs, Al-Qaeda connections and will be greeted as liberators…
I think I saw this movie…
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:33 pmWhere have I heard this before? If there’s one country on this planet that needs regime change…
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:35 pmYup.
Hagel talks the talk and walks the walk, backwards.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm…my head is spinnin’
Never mind me, just passing thru, have this tune stuk in the membrane.
Carry on, please.
O’ Never mind the old guy a few rows up, with the big letters stuck to his head, he does that alot.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:36 pmHagel talks the talk and walks the walk, backwards.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I’m actually glad he’s saying these things. The sheeple just hear this part of what he’s saying, and they need to hear it. They don’t follow up on how he votes like we do, but if they start thinking in a different way, it’s something.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm“In a hazy, hair triggered environment”
and
“The risk of inadvertant conflict because of miscalculation is great”
…Sounds like a set-up to me…
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pmI see your point Zooey, but at the end of the day, it is the votes that really matter.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pmI’m actually glad he’s saying these things. The sheeple just hear this part of what he’s saying, and they need to hear it. …
Comment by Zooey — February 22, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
but that assumes this will be carried on the nightly news…
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pmslim chance that the foxbots will hear it…
…
lemme see FOX noise, latest noise - 900 pound squid reeled in.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253658,00.html
Wow BORe is alot heavier than he looks.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm“tamped down” is good enough. “on” is superfluous.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pmIran is saying they are willing to unconditional talks, And why should they shut down their reactors if the west does not shut down their reactors ??
Why does America talk to North Korea
Bush simply cannot Attack Iran if he cannot talk first
Remember when the Iraq war started , Bush gave saddam 24 hours to leave Iraq
How can Bush all of a sudden attack Iran overnight without warning - impossible
The best news I have heard for some time is if bush Uses Nukes . Then Congress can be arrested in any country in Europe ,
Please read this
Congress’ Liability in a Nuclear Strike on Iran
Every one of the 535 members of the 110th Congress is liable to face criminal indictment from the International Criminal Court in de Hague if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons in the impending conflict with Iran.
I dont think there will be a nuclear strike if you read above link - It really settled my mind tremendously
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmTobey you know the answers.
We talk to NK because they are an actual threat. We don’t talk to underequipped countries that have lots of oil. See.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:52 pmEvery one of the 535 members of the 110th Congress is liable to face criminal indictment from the International Criminal Court in de Hague if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons in the impending conflict with Iran.
Following an indictment, every country that is a State Party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be required to take into custody any members of Congress that are temporarily on their soil and surrender them to the Court. None of the Western European State Parties to the ICC have signed bilateral “Article 98 agreements” with the United States that would give immunity to U.S. citizens.
The reasons why members of Congress are liable to face criminal indictment by the ICC in the aftermath of a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran are:
The crimes will be in the category of “most serious crimes of international concern”;
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pmThe U.S. Congress funded the creation of the weapons to commit the crimes, and paid the salaries of the servicemembers that pushed the buttons;
The U.S. Congress was aware that conditions were such that the crimes could occur in the ordinary course of events;
The U.S. Congress had the authority and ability to prevent the crimes from occurring, and failed to take reasonable measures within its power to do so;
At least some members of Congress actively aided, abetted and assisted in the commission of the crimes.
I can’t imagine how anyone can get upset with the religion of peace as represented by the holocaust denying, nuclear bomb wanting, terrorist supporting mullahs of Iran. This is just a big misunderstanding, they only want to live in peace and destroy Israel and bomb American cities, why can’t the conservatives see that?
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pmPatrick,
NK is a larger threat, and we pretty much ignore them, why?
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm“Most Serious Crimes of International Concern”
Is there any doubt that a U.S. nuclear strike against a non-nuclear-weapon country and its foreseeable consequences would qualify as a “serious crime of international concern”?
The Rome Statute of the ICC does not mention nuclear weapons explicitly. However it includes (Article 8) under punishable “war crimes” “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict.” The International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has ruled that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.”
The specific points of Article 8 that would be applicable in indictments of members of Congress are:
Article 8. 2. (a) (iii) “Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health”
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pmibid (iv) “Extensive destruction… not justified by military necessity…”
ibid (b) (iv) “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment…”
ibid (xvii) “Employing poison or poisoned weapons”
ibid (xx) “Employing weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering…”
I think we just signed some kind of agreement with NK, perhaps that is ignoring them. I agree with you that we probably would be better off than signing bogus agreements with Communist dictatorships, Carter and Clinton did and it turned disaster.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 pmHow many soldiers does the ICC have? What is their moral authority to arrest anyone?
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pmJoe Wilson - June 14, 2003
“The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90’s which was called, “A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm.” And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem.”
19:46: http://next.epic-usa.org/ epicdev2/ _media/ 2003forumaudio/ 28-lecture-wilson-32.mp3
“On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there’s a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon’s life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we’ve had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it’s a terribly flawed strategy.”
13:33: http://next.epic-usa.org/ epicdev2/ _media/ 2003forumaudio/ 29-lecture-qa-32.mp3
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pmScott Ritter, former weapons inspector and author of Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, says it is a deception that the U.S. government is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program or that they mean to use diplomacy to put an end to it, but instead is determined to have regime change in that country regardless. He also discusses some of the likely consequences if America does attack. MP3 file inside, 60 min:
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmhttp://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/02/20/scott-ritter/
Ron Paul recently warned about a new gulf of Tonkin event and Brzezinski has also warned that a terrorist attack could be blamed on Iran. Hersh has said that “something bad is going to happen”,
and the PNAC/AEI agenda is still active as ever. A war with Iran would be a disaster.
Joe you still drinking tea when you are supposed to be investigating nuclear materials purchases?
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmWhat have they done, Chuck?
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:09 pmpatrick try to understand this
Iran’s president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” has caused a welcome little storm. The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government’s intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.
I took my translation - “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” - from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole’s website where it has been for several weeks.
But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
If the Iranian president made a mistake and used “safheh” rather than “sahneh”, that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse “stage of history” with “page of history”. The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.
read the article before you quote isreali and the new york times translations
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pmone partial indicator that this otherwise rabid war monger is not insane.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pmthis would indicate only war profiteering as a motive?
Listen to these radio programs about what’s coming for Iran.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 pmAbout Brzezinski’s bombshell before Congress:
http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim070205-1.mp3
http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim070205-2.mp3
And about Putin’s comments in Germany about recent US arms buildup in Eastern Europe:
http://kurtnimmo.com/mp3s/tarpley_02_10_07.mp3
And it’s not like the Iranian president’s opinions really matter when it comes to the military, he has no executive power..
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 pmFurthermore, radioactive fallout from a U.S. nuclear strike against Iran that spreads and kills citizens of an ICC State Party would make U.S. citizens involved in such action subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Cyprus and Jordan are State Parties to the ICC and not far from Iran. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear earth penetrator “would produce massive amounts of radioactive fallout and potentially kill millions of civilians” spreading “more than a thousand miles.” According to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, “the operational commander could warn of a nuclear attack on an HDBT (hard and deeply buried target) or could time such an attack to take advantage of wind conditions that would reduce expected casualties from acute and latent effects of fallout by factors of up to 100, assuming that the wind conditions were known well enough and were stable.” However, what if wind conditions are not known well enough or are not stable?
A crime may be referred to the ICC by any State Party (not necessarily the victim state), or the Prosecutor may begin an investigation on his own initiative. Subsequently the ICC would issue an arrest warrant if “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.” Article 59 of the Rome Statute instructs any State Party which has received a request for arrest to “immediately take steps to arrest the person in question.” Then, “the person shall be delivered to the Court as soon as possible.”
The list of 23 European countries that could take custody of visiting members of Congress indicted by the International Criminal Court is given here, to assist members of Congress in their travel planning. And don’t forget the 22 Latin American and Caribbean states.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pmAn unreserved “Hooray” for an article in which someone really has done their homework. Now we can get rid of this “wiped off the map” slander once and for all.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 pmAnd furthermore, we’ve got these phony baloney jobs to protect, gentlemen!
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pmHagel will likely announce for president in the next two weeks. So remember that when you hear him say the right things about Iraq and Iran. He is a water-carrier for the White House. He disagrees with them right now because it is popular to do so, but he is a republican. That means, he will screw the little guy and the middle guy at every opportunity.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmCan the ICC Act on the Threat Alone?
The International Court of Justice has ruled that not only the use, but also the threat of use of nuclear weapons is “contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.”
President Bush has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran, when, in response to the question “Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?” he answered “All options are on the table.”
If Bush is threatening to use Congress’ nuclear weapons in an illegal way, and Congress does not make any move to rein in the authority of Bush to do so, it follows that members of Congress are implicitly aiding, abetting and assisting in the threat.
Does a threat rise to the level of gravity needed for consideration by the International Criminal Court (Article 17 (d))? John Bolton in his role as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has called on the ICC to charge Ahmadinejad for his “threats” against Israel. The European Jewish Congress is said to be preparing to file a complaint with the ICC against Ahmadinejad for that reason.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm#6,
I think I saw this movie…
Comment by Juan C — February 22, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Yeah, I agree. I rarely watch a movie more than once. And certainly never a poorly made one. I have already seen this script.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:23 pmBush 1 = 41
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:27 pmBush 2 = 43
total (19)84
Interesting…I posted a response early on in this thread, which supported Hagel in his consistent criticism of Bush’s policy in Iraq (but also stating I would never vote for him due to his voting 90% on party lines)…and my post disappeared.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pmWhoops..still there after all..#14.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 pmThe risk of inadvertent conflict because of miscalculation is great.
I believe that that is precisely the GWB admin’s intent.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm#41
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pmNo doubt in my mind.
All talk and no action makes Chuck Hagel a
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pmDull BoyHypocrite.I’m sure this has been discussed elsewhere, and if so, my apologies. What if the incompetent administration of this war—the blunders, cronyism, looting, and shortsightedness—are in fact by design? I’m the first one to brand Bush and his thugs as intellectually bankrupt criminals incapable of such machinations, but I’m starting to see Iran as the end game in this PNAC wet dream, and if you all will excuse the “Syriana”-ish qualities of this argument, it seems possible that creating chaos in Iraq would supply an environment in which Iran might provoke an American response. Shared border, Shia-led government, Sunni and Shia insurgencies, overtures from Maliki to Ahmadinejad…they all seem potentially tempting to Iran, for whom Iraq has been a secular counterbalance for over a generation. Perhaps Shrub’s masters have concluded that if the hook is adequately baited, Iran will eventually bite, thereby giving us the “justification” (burning-of-the-Reichstag style) to attack.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:52 pmPatrick1, you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pmIran should seek ‘regime change’ in the USA. They REALLY would be greeted as liberators.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pmPatrick doesn’t recognize any authority except that of his dear leader. Patrick knows his leader is infallible, so all critics must be wrong. His leader decides what is moral, so nobody has moral authority over him. It’s all very simple, really.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pmCareful BlueArkansa. You are getting real close to false flag events and 9/11 there.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pmBlue Arkansas, with 14 permanent bases and a Vatican-sized embassy compound, I’d say that the goals of the PNAC, a permanent military presence in the heart of the middle east, has already been accomplished.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pmAh, but the decider, the dictator, the wanabee, the failure will ……… decide?
Good luck Chuck. But your out on a limb. Your collegues don’t agree.
It might be time to go “Independent”. You would have some (alot of)company.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pmThe AIE article ends with this line:
“Now is not the time to talk. If Washington and Europe truly believe in the primacy of multilateralism and diplomacy, now is the time to ratchet up the pressure.”
Is it just me or did your brain just do a pretzel? Are they saying that their idea of diplomacy is to be even more threatening to Iran? Oh, and perhaps their idea of ‘multilateralism’ is recruiting a bunch of other countries to help you threaten them? I mean damn, I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear bomb either but, then again, I wish no-one had freaking nuclear bombs!
But wishing won’t take that troubling reality away unfortunately. Do any of those ships lurking in the Persian Gulf have nuclear weapons on them? Sure am glad there’s not a bunch of ships pointing weapons at us over in the Long Island Sound!
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pmNebraska needs another William Jennings Bryant type. We all do.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pmCan someone please just go and get Bush, put him somewhere until ‘09 before this nightmare gets any worse?
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pmwith all the seriousness of the Iran situation I still can’t stop laughing at my first reaction to that picture.
for the life of me it looks like chuck is bracing to grab himself some fine phat ass.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pmI’m glad to read that Chuck Hagel is speaking this way. I would never vote for him, because his political beliefs are contrary to mine, but ANY time ANY Republican says these things is good for the country. I know he reneged on the resolution to debate vote the first time, and I was so mad I wrote to him and chewed him out. In this speech, however, he sounds diplomatic and less hawkish than Hillary. And also, maybe I shouldn’t feel this way, but I think this administration’s finger on the nuclear button is scarier than Iran’s finger on the nuclear button.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:10 pmIf there are ANY American Pentagon/NSA personnel or Bushite warmongering criminals monitoring this board/thread…
…I sincerely hope you dumb a*s sons-of-bi*ches know that…
…China and Russia, and Jihadists worldwide are waiting with baited breath for you to jump Iran…
…death by a thousand paper cuts is no doubt very slow…
…but painful nonetheless…
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 pmTobey - If it fits the blue print of PNAC then Bush is planning to go after Iran. We heard lie after lie aboutr Iraq and then there we were with Shock and Awe….
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:10 pmI trust nothing Bush says, maybe believe the opposite and live in terror of what that demented brain damaged fool will do next.
Sometimes there is a tremendous difference between rhetoric and reality. Ahmadinejad seems to be using rhetoric to gain support (like every president we have ever had). Iran is a long way from having one nuclear weapon. The reality is Israel has hundreds. Some say more than France. Israel has the capability to have these nuclear missles on subs directly off the Iranian coast and to totally destroy Iran in minutes. Iran knows this and is not suicidal.
Iranian experts say Ahmadinejad as president doesn’t even have the power to attack Israel if he had a nuclear weapon and if he wanted to use it.
It is not a wild delusion to think that the Bush administration would attack an oil-rich country in the Middle East that was a threat to no one—all based on false pretenses. In case you haven’t caught the news recently, they have already done it.
I wish people would stop saying “an intelligence failure”. If something enables you to do precisely what you want to do (get the Congress and American people to go along with the needless, counterproductive invasion of Iraq), then it is not a failure, it is a success.
I agree with all BlueDog says.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pmThe US has taught the world that you get invaded by the US if you do NOT have nuclear weapons (read Stephen Kinzer for 100+ examples). And you do not get invaded if you DO have nuclear weapons (Cuba in 1962, USSR, North Korea & Pakistan today).
Do you think this might give countries like Iran an incentive to get nuclear weapons? DUH!!!!
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pmHagel always talks big, but then Cheney calls him up threatening to shoot him in the face, so then Hagel shuts-up and does what Bush asks of him.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 amIran merely asks to develop. Whoever would not like this to happen, should pay Iran whatever Iran asks fo…Whatever amount of money Iran believes they would lose if they are not allowed to develop as a nation..
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 amOh, gods, regime change in Iran is unstopable now!
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 amI ask again, how many soldiers does the ICC have and what is their moral authority to arrest anyone?
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 amPatrick,
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmAccording to the UN charter (signed by the US, thus making it the law of the US), this invasion would have only been legal if the UN Security Council approved. When we found out (remember we tapped their phones) the vote in the Security Council would be three for the US and twelve opposed (not to mention Big5 vetoes) the US pulled out and invaded anyway. If you don’t think this is illegal, try reading the UN charter yourself.
The UN Security Council did authorize it. But the UN has no authority to arrest anyone. As I mentioned they don’t have the moral authority and certainly not the ability to enforce it.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pmThis one is for Democrat Soldier who the other day was telling me I should read a book because I stated the Taliban were in Pakistan.. which according to him was impossible because he didn’t of it from Comedy Central.
Well , what’s your reaction to this?
Talibanistan expands beyond the tribal areas
Western Pakistan’s decent into a Taliban state becomes more and more apparent as each day passes. For well over the past year we warned that not only were the tribal areas and Quetta falling to the Taliban, but the Taliban was seeking to expand its influence into the settled regions of Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province.
The Taliban, sufficiently emboldened by the Pakistani government’s unwillingness to meaningfully deal with with the threat, is now publicly flexing its muscle in the settled regions of the Northwest Frontier Province.
The Taliban have issued “threatening letters” and made phone calls to “schools and foreign banks” in Peshawar, the capital of the Northwest Frontier Province, ordering them “to shut down or face violent consequences,” reports ABC News’ The Blotter. A school and a business have already complied. “The Beaconhouse School, an English-language co-ed private school, shut the doors of its Peshawar campus in response to the threat,” notes The Blotter. “The Standard Chartered Bank also closed a Peshawar office.”
The Taliban threats are not limited to foreign institutions. As the news of threats against foreign schools and businesses materialized, the Taliban issued threats against local girls schools. Veils are now mandatory, according to the Taliban. “The principal of Mardan Government High School received a letter from an unidentified man, who had written that the school would be bombed within seven days if students and teachers did not start wearing veils,” Pakistan’s Daily Times reported yesterday. “It is believed that the letters are being sent by associates of Al Qaeda leader Abu Farah, who was arrested from the same area.” Two schools shut down due to the threat. This follows the murder of a female Pakistani provincial minister from Punjab for failing to wear a veil.
The Taliban threats to foreign and domestic institutions follows a series of suicide, roadside bombings, as well as attacks on government institutions in Islamabad, Peshawar, Mir Ali, Bajaur, Dera Ishmail Khan, Darra Adamkhel, Bannu, and Tank. The targets include police, the military, non-governmental organizations, doctors, the courts, government welfare centers and markets. This is occurring as the Taliban and al-Qaeda launch attacks into Afghanistan from their established bases and command centers in Bajaur and North and South Waziristan.
Despite the obvious signs of the Taliban and al-Qaeda expansion from the isolated tribal areas, the Musharraf government continues to seek reconciliation with the Taliban. President Pervez Musharraf will propose that the opposition in parliament approach the Taliban to “negotiate peace with militants.” The opposition is led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman, whose Muttahida Mujlis Amal political party rules in the Northwest Frontier Province and is openly supportive of the Taliban.
The Musharraf government has tried negotiating with the Taliban in North and South Waziristan several times in the past, and each time to Taliban violated the terms of the agreement. The ‘peace deals’ have resulted in the establishment of Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries now have a very real sanctuary in North and South Waziristan, as well as in Bajaur, where peace talks were scuttled after the U.S. and Pakistani military bombed a al-Qaeda camps. President Musharraf apparently believes a deal can be done with the Taliban, despite all evidence to the contrary.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmChuck Hagel, GRANDSTANDING like the two-faced repugnant-repub he is. A presidential bid is in the making, and Hagel must disguise himself like the ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing he of course, is. I, like Johnny Carson’s THE GREAT KARNAK(tm), KNOW ALL AND SEE EVERYTHING including where the skeletons in Hagel’s closet are secreted and where the bones are buried!!!!! STAY TUNED, ALL!!!!!
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/ my_playlists?p=17EAF5B74BC133D5
Anyone interested in the efforts of a few brave “moderate Muslims” in trying to ring the alarm in the West about the danger we face from thier faith will find this conference very enlightening.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:23 pmThe future:
UK: Police protect girls forced to convert to Islam
Watcher 2/23/2007 3:56 PM
(London) Extremist Muslims who force vulnerable teenage girls to convert to Islam are being targeted by police, Met chief Sir Ian Blair has revealed. Police are working with universities to clamp down on “aggressive conversions” during which girls are beaten up and forced to abandon university courses.
The Hindu Forum of Britain claims hundreds of mostly Sikh and Hindu girls have been intimidated by Muslim men who take them out on dates before terrorising them until they convert.
Sir Ian spoke about the problem at a conference organised by the forum.
A Met spokesman said: “Neighbourhood officers work with university authorities in London and we would encourage anyone targeted in this way to seek help and support and where necessary use third party reporting facilities if they do not want to contact police directly.” Ramesh Kallidai, of the Hindu Forum of Britain, said: “Some girls are petrified because they are constantly being phoned up, having their door knocked. “One girl was beaten up on the street and others have been forced to leave university.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 pmPatrick,
In #64, I said that when the US bugged the phones of the UN Security Council and realized that the final vote would be 3-12 AGAINST the US’s proposal for invasion—they withdrew the proposal. (There is also the detail that it would only take one “NO” from one of the Big5 for the proposal to be defeated.)
In #65, you said:
“The UN Security Council did authorize it.”
What in the *#!@ are you talking about? Do you live in some alternative universe? Do you work alongside Winston Smith in the Ministry of Truth? Did you have a dream and think it was real?
February 24th, 2007 at 6:23 pm[…] warned this week that the administration’s rhetoric and flawed intelligence give rise to a heightened potential for a mistake: In a hazy, hair-triggered environment, careless rhetoric and military movements that one side may […]
February 24th, 2007 at 8:42 pm