In exclusive interview, Obama says Iran is a 'state sponsor of terror'

[bananas]

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 Iran’s 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 Iran’s 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]

1. What? He changed his mind?

[Fred Sanders]

6. Link to his alleged former state of mind or just another empty attack on your own President?

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Well, as hard as he was pushing

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]

13. How is the agreement being "trashed"? Iran thinks America is Satan..and still negotiates! What??

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]

15. My opinion is it is needlessly inflamatory

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]

17. It is true that the lack of absolute perfection in policy and rhetoric by Obama is unacceptable.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. I am not looking for perfection,

so that is a straw man argument. I gave a specific, factual example of Obama's moral failing. Care to rebut that?

[Sgt Preston]

36. "Lack of perfection"?

I take it that this is a typically British understatement.

[JoePhilly]

20. The knee jerk outrage around here never gets old.

[MADem]

28. Well, he's correct. The shit Hizb'allah has done in Lebanon has turned the stomachs of many

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]

2. So is America. I always remember that one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I try not to judge too harshly.

[jtuck004]

3. "Iran clearly engages in dangerous and destabilizing behavior in different countries across the

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]

39. I certainly was.

We are the chief exporter of terrorism in the world.

[jtuck004]

40. I have GOT to quit thinking we no longer invest in people. We do. And it may be the death of us.n/t

[leveymg]

4. It's something they put in his food.

Temporary schizophrenia, one hopes.

[leftynyc]

10. Why would one hope

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]

16. The ability to hold two mutually contradictory notions in one's head is indicative of schizophrenia

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]

18. You seem to think we

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]

19. It is not in the US interest to threaten war with Iran over policies we tolerate of KSA and Israel

The food poisoning and schizophrenia references were examples of metaphor, not an actual medical diagnosis.

[leftynyc]

22. Who is threatening war with Iran?

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]

27. It's been a game of good cop-bad cop for over a decade.

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]

35. Are you actually claiming

that the past two presidents, along with Hillary Clinton, are nothing but pawns for Netanyahu?

[karynnj]

37. But these are not mutually contradictory

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]

41. Gary Sick quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald: "the true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two

http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/623033030/holding-contradictory-ideas-at-the-same-time

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]

11. have you followed yemen

[happyslug]

30. Schizophrenia is NOT split personality.

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Schizophrenia is a severe brain disorder in which people interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some combination of hallucinations, delusions, and extremely disordered thinking and behavior.

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

SCHIZOPHRENIA
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".

The term “severe” is not synonymous with serious, as an event may be of acute distress but relatively minor medical significance (e.g., a severe headache). Seriousness serves as a guide for defining regulatory reporting obligations.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/severe

There is no official medical definition of a severe disease so the following is our definition as we use it:

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]

5. That's interesting.

[McKim]

7. Sounds More Like the USA to Me

The same thing can be said of the USA. We create state sponsored terrorism in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan every day.

[nikto]

9. Awww ... He just says that to give the Neocons a hard-on

[jakeXT]

12. Tradition ?

"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]

14. Obama to Saudi Arabia: Iran supports terrorism

...

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 king’s 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]

25. none of them have coasters under their drinks! maybe those are glass table covers I hope.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

21. They are. So is the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan..... So where do we go from here? nt

[Sunlei]

24. All the facts, President Obama stated in the interview are on the mark. We (the USA) are fortunate

to have a President who isn't afraid of REAL, unscripted interviews and fortunate Iran and Saudi Arabia are historic enemies.

[HassleCat]

26. We are far better

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]

31. We used to outsource

[PersonNumber503602]

29. I think we'd be hard pressed to find any country that has clean hands

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]

32. unlike the violent proxies of Saudi and the other Gulf nations, like say ISIS?

[Comrade Grumpy]

33. Obama elides the difference between a terrorist group and a national liberation army.

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]

34. Israel isn't talking much about the history of Hamas

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]

38. Hamas carried out a prolonged suicide bombing campaign against civilians

you can split all the fucking hairs you want but that is what terrorists do.