Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Tehran "Denies" Harboring al-Qaeda Fugitives


Recommended Posts

From the Tehran Times:

Rumsfeld's Statements Are Undocumented: FM Spokesman

TEHRAN -- Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamidreza Asefi here Saturday rejected as 'baseless' U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's claims that Tehran was allowing militants from Al-Qaeda terror network to move into its territory.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has extradited all foreign nationals, who were linked or were suspected of links to Al-Qaeda in any form, to their country of origin and is still seriously pursuing this policy," he said.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is among the forerunners in the fight against terrorism and this fundamental policy became crystal clear in several junctures in Afghanistan, and the world acknowledged this as being key to the return of peace and stability into Afghanistan," Asefi added.

"Iran has acted transparently in the fight against terrorism and the undocumented statements of American officials will not dent Iran's positive record," he said.

On a visit to Al Udaid Aid Base in Qatar on June 11, Rumsfeld reiterated U.S. charges that Iran was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and sending terrorists to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, beside allowing militants from the Al-Qaeda terror network and Afghanistan's defeated Taleban militia to move into its territory.

Washington has propped up its bellicose stance against the Islamic Republic, with U.S. President George W. Bush accusing Iran as part of an 'axis of evil' along with Iraq and North Korea.

Tehran was key to the ouster of hardline Taleban and help in the establishment of the interim Afghan government.

Iran in February said that it had arrested 150 infiltrators, suspected of links to hardline Taleban and Al-Qaeda, at its borders with Pakistan.

It identified them as being nationals of Arab, African and European countries, with some holding French, British, Belgian, Spanish and Dutch passports, who were extradited to their countries.

Asefi also condemned Israeli tank attacks on a fruit market in Jenin killing 10 Palestinians shopping in the market.

Four children were among the victims of the vicious tank attacks.

He said that the tank attacks against the shopping center is an indication of the Israeli state terrorism and proved that the Zionist regime does not observe the very basic international law.

He said that occupation of Palestinian territories and depriving the owners of the state from returning to their home has become the sticking point in the Middle East, adding that suppression of the liberation movement in Palestine will reinvigorate their resolve to reach their rights.

Asefi called on the international community to take immediate action to end the Israeli inhumane practices against Palestinian children living in the occupied territories.

What's funny is that I frankly believe their denial. Note that they don't deny that al-Qaeda fighters have crossed into Iran from Afghanistan. Rather, they simply deny harboring them by saying that they extradite them. I believe them. I'll bet they are "extraditing" them right back into their countries of origin, where they can reunite with similarly "extradited" bretheren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What aggravates me is the fact that we give them indication of our intensions which will obviously put them in a "ready" state!!! Currently, I feel that the rest of the world views us as a "superpower of political rhetoric" rather, than a light of freedom and democracy unto the aspirations of man.


Given that statement here is MY foreign policy and strategy:

1. Close our borders to ANY immigrants of Arabic desent or ties

to militant Islamic regimes NOW.

2. We MUST support Isreal at ALL costs.

3. I don't care how we do it, we must take out Arafat AND

Hussein NOW and do it "extensively".

4. We must divert our purchases of oil from the middle east to

other oil producing nations.

5. Congress MUST pass a law that recognizes ENGLISH as our

national language and require ALL immigrants to be fluent

BEFORE granting US citizenship.

6. Severely place manpower and technological surveilance

including weapons for protection around our nuclear power-

plants and facilities.

7. Propose ammendments to the current NAFTA agreement or

suspend our compliance with such.

8. "Contract out" our intelligence gathering for our local and

national shipping ports and lanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SkinsHokie Fan

Your point number 2 above is the main problem. That will only strain the situation even more in the middle east. Its not as if though we dont already support Isreal at all costs. But making it overtly obvious will just fuel the fire in the middle east.

This is OT I know but what has always confused me is the strong support of Isreal conservatives have. The thing that I dont understand is Jews in America voted 80 percent for Al Gore while Muslims in America voted 80 percent for George Bush and 90 percent for George Bush in Florida (54,000 out of 60,000 Muslim votes in FL went for Bush) Without the Muslim vote in 2000 something scarier would then Osama Bin Laden would exist: President Al Gore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SHF- you may have pointed to something that my father and I both think is the underpinning for a political transformation in America- the growing political conservatism of American Jews. You're correct that Jews have traditionally tended to vote Democrat. However, the insistence of institutions, particularly the media, to support the Palestinians and to apologize for their violence, and to attack "Israeli aggression" in the process, I think will force a lot of Jews to reconsider their political affiliations.

Frankly our country has much more in common with the values of Israel over those of our Arab "allies" who seem unwilling to practice what they morally preach about Islam. We may well be moving toward an era where we begin to isolate those nations that refuse to move against Islamic terrorism despite the fact that we have previously had close ties with them. The Saudi's are one such nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckydevi: I'm NOT saying that ALL Arabs are bad people. I'm speaking of protection, and with our "melting pot" of society and our OVERABUNDANCE OF GREEDY TRIAL LAWYERS JUST ITCHING TO GET FREE PUBLICITY AND A FAT CHECK, tell me......what would you do?:?: :?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

luckydevi- I know you like to agitate, but a trite, one sentence response hardly does this issue or DT's post justice, especially when it makes a statement that's unsupported by anything that DT wrote. And BTW, Persians (Iranians) aren't Arabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best ways of increasing US power and helping to defend ourselves.

1. Don't trust Pakistan

2. Develop closers ties with India (They have 1 billion people who dislike radical muslims)

3. Work toward developing ties with the moderate segments of the Iranian government, especially the younger generation. Also stop trying to provoke them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth would we want closer ties with Iran, a country that has actively supported and continues to support terrorism against our allies, as opposed to Pakistan which has cooperated with us in Afghanistan and within its own borders? I'm not smitten with either country's track records on this, but at least the one is working with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We cannont trust PAKISTAN nor IRAN. We can use both of them, but we cannot trust them at all. They are MUSLIMS before they are US allies. They are more loyal to their fellowship, then to us.


Muslims in the US voted for George Bush b/c of the Lieberman (JEW) factor. They put all issues aside, and judged Lieberman NOT FOR WHAT HE BELIEVED in but for the fact that he is a JEW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SkinsHokie Fan


Muslims in America did not vote Bush soley on the Liberman factor. I will not deny saying it was not factor but it definitley was not the sole defining factor. Late in 1999 several Muslim groups (organizations like CARE etc) decided that Muslims would vote in a block i.e do exactly what happened and that was vote for one party or the other and get all or close to all muslims to do so. This decision had been circulating around via newsletters in Muslim organizations since the end of 1999. A few key things in 2000 happened such as Grover Norquist setting up meetings with then Candidate Bush and Muslim leaders and the falling apart of a permament peace settlement at Camp David. Hence the decision to vote for Bush was based on comments he made that appealed to Muslims and the fact that over the Clinton-Gore years Muslims felt a bias towards Isreal in American foriegn policy. The Liberman factor certianly had a role in this decision to vote for Bush as a block but it was not the sole factor nor was it spontaneous after Liberman had been added to the ticket.

Luckydev- I am not sure what you are trying to say if you can elaborate for me I would appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by luckydevi

Skin come on now. That like saying Jews in this country Support Israel because Palenstine is mostly Muslim.

American Jews, by and large, support Israel because it is the only country in the world where the vast majority of its population is Jewish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I do agree that Dubya extended a hand out to the muslim community. I still believe if Lieberman was not on the democratic ticket; Muslims would not have been as 'unified' on their vote. Liebermann was the primary reason, not the only reason, but the primary reason Muslims voted for Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly have no idea what motivated American Muslims to vote for any candidate in 2000. It doesn't surprise me thought that certain Muslims at least were turned off by Clinton's constant pimping of that issue at the top of his foreign policy agenda, and then associating Gore with that.

However, regarding Lieberman, I'd point out that the Dems touted that he was the first Jewish candidate on a presidential ticket, which of course was meant to ensure that the traditionally Democrat Jewish vote remained with them. Frankly, I think that that was the deciding factor why he was chosen in a tight election, in addition to the fact that Gore wanted a man perceived as being a moral standard bearer in light of his 8 years as Clintons Veep.

If the Dems made religious affiliation a political issue, they shouldn't be surprised that people of other religions decided to vote away from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...