The Geneva-based UN Watch has reportedly issued a call for UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon to distance the international organization from an "anti-terrorism" conference in Iran that claims to have the backing of both Ban and the United Nations.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, sent letters to Ban and US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice regarding the conference -- “International Conference on Global Fight Against Terrorism," which took place this past weekend, the Jerusalem Post reports.


Characterizing the conference as the "height of cynicism," Neuer cited Iran’s prominent role in sponsoring and training terrorists from Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as aiding the Syrian regime in its efforts to suppress current demonstrations against it.

"The opening message by Iranian Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei attacked the United States, Britain and some Western governments, as having a 'black record in terrorist behaviors,' 'satanic world powers,' and 'terrorist organizations' such as the Zionism International Agency," Neuer’s letter to Ban read.

Khameni also stated on the conference’s website that the "creation and growth of the wild and blind terrorism is basically the result of the wicked policy of America and England," the newspaper reports.

The conference’s website shows cartoons depicting, among other provocative images, a bloody fingerprint in the colors of the American flag, as well as the Statue of Liberty holding a stick of dynamite in her iconic hand.

Neuer wrote that his organization was “alarmed” that the homepage of the conference features a UN logo -- implying UN sponsorship -- but also “appears to have received a special message from you that was read out in person by a UN representative in Tehran," according to his letter.

"The UN believes that it is important for all nations to work together in the fight against terrorism," a UN spokeswoman told the newspaper.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/27/watchdog-group-urges-un-to-distance-itself-from-irans-anti-terror-summit/#ixzz1Qe4BqgPk

Like they have room to talk with all the civil rights violations and human rights crimes and war crimes and over the years. Not to mention THEY are a proven sponsor or terrorism and supplying money, people and weapons to Al-Qaeda, The Taiban, TTP, Hezbullah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihadist Front and many others.

We need to take them out and fast. They are dangerous and are a main contributor to terrorism.

Of course, they speak truth, they become our enemy. Makes perfect sense to me........but go back to sleep, nothing to see here......

Yes I recall how the cia over threw the democraticly elected government in Iran and replaced him with the Shaw. Not suprised at all how they hate us after the shaw brutalized them for decades with the aid and support of the US.

You and Kleisto have it exactly right.

I didn't know that, but doesn't surprise me. When did that happen?

In any case, we're the ones doing the terrorizing, be it on our own people or on other countries who aren't like us, not the other way around.

If you are a person living in a rural area and a bomb goes off killing innocent civilians in your neighborhood is that considered terrorism against your neighborhood?


If you are a person living in a urban area and a bomb goes off killing innocent civilians in your neighborhood is that considered terrorism against your neighborhood?




I think based on this definition many of the United States foreign policy actions can and should be considered terrorist. (CIA drones DO kill innocents . . . we call this collateral damage, not terrorist bombings.)

We really should take a non-interventionist approach to most of what goes on in the world. We do not, and it is my belief the motivations for our actions while seemingly innocent are really based on acquiring resources to prop up our current standard of living. If we where honest, and fair, and did not use our might to grab up resources for US businesses then we would see our place in the world diminish . . . and rightly so. It really is only fair to trade openly with the countries who have the resources we seek, but that would leave many of the rich less rich.

That should be cause for shame. Is this a complete description of the United States of America: No. So many elements of the US are against this, but do not currently have the political pull to achieve a change so entrenched are the current factions of this single party system.

So much money is funneled into agencies which have NO checks in places from the common citizen. The very top of the executive branch is the only place that can see into these organizations and they are the very group that has the power to sanction, justify, spin, and ultimately be responsible for the actions of these groups. After all we have to protect our secrets . . its all about "national security":power/resource grab)

Essentially there is no incentive for the executive branch to call out the CIA on there activities. There is no oversight of the decisions made by the people in power, that removes our ability to democratically manage our foreign policy. That means the average person must be that much more involved in what REALLY goes on in the world to even have a clue who to vote for to really get the change we need.

If and when the dogs of war used to secretly advance the resource grab of rich politicos get caught many times they are pardoned by the very people who sanctioned there activities.

If a country is too weak to fight back against the tyranny of our American business (Shell Oil in Nigeria anyone?) it goes unchecked, right or wrong, our leaders could care less about justice, its power they seek both democrats and republicans. It is up to us the citizens of this great country to fight for liberty, not just liberty for us to consume as much as we can, but liberty for ALL, which means consuming less, more demand at fair prices, and less billionaires with 20 mansions 15 yachts ect.

(Does any of this mean that the Ayatollah isn't into big power grab via terrorism himself? . . . NOT AT ALL!)

There is a difference between trying to attack terrorists who are
launching rockets trying to hide behind civilian shields....

And bombing a bus just after it has picked up most of its
passengers so it is targeted on purpose to kill or maim a
busload full of innocent young people.

Or hijacking planes and flying them with full fuel tanks into
large office buildings during work hours...

Know what I mean?

No, not really. Those terrorists commit the same sort of atrocities that soldiers do. They just don't wear uniforms. Terror is just warfare for the poor, and warfare is terrorism for the rich.

Yes, I agree. Motivation does play a role . . . but when the motivation of Haliburton executives is just to make more money, and when we decide to overthrow a government to grab for oil regardless of the causalities, is this not a different form of terror? One more subtle but none the less engineered to make passive those that would oppose the objectives of the powerful?

Our own foreign policies of greed have tainted the real moral pursuits of our country men.

Killing people who have neither the ability nor desire to snatch up power by destroying those that oppose them is always wrong.

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[1]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name Operation Ajax.[2] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[3]

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat