Monday, June 27, 2011

Iranian Conference: Anti-Terrorism Must Be Limited; Terrorism--Not So Much

I really have sympathy for Iran and their The International Conference on Global Fight against Terrorism. After all, given the ridiculous premises they were forced to work with as it bent over backwards to condoned the murder of civilians, is it any wonder their conclusions are so preposterous?

Here are some of the conclusions the conference came to--hat tip Dr Aaron Lerner

International Conference on Global Fight against Terrorism

Tehran, 25-26 June 2011
o The participants underlined, as also reiterated by Iran's Supreme Leader, the need for providing a consensual definition for terrorism without prejudicing or affecting, in any manner, the recognized rules and principles of international humanitarian law. It was emphasized that legitimate struggles of peoples under colonial rule or foreign occupation for their inalienable right of self-determination should not be labeled as terrorism;

o The importance of countering terrorism in a transparent, rule of law based, and non-discriminatory manner was emphasized. It was underlined that counter-terrorism measures shall be adopted and carried out in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law. The participants rejected selective or double-standard approaches in dealing with terrorism and
terrorist groups and warned that such approaches could undermine international trust and cooperation in countering terrorism globally;
So let me get this straight: fighting terrorism must be done in accordance with the UN Charter and International law--but apparently no such limitation is placed on the noble freedom fighters of Hamas and Hezbollah who target civilians (in the name of legitimate struggle, of course).
o The participants expressed their sympathy with victims of terrorism, including State terrorism. The participants expressed their deep concern over excessive and/or disproportionate use of military force in the name of countering terrorism which has claimed the lives of an increasing number of innocent civilians, and stressed the importance of addressing the plight of these victims. The participants applauded the initiative of the Conference to commemorate the victims of acts of terrorism.
That's touching: though there is no attempt to limit the lengths that these "legitimate struggles" may take at the very least, victims will be commemorated. That of course is only fair, since the terrorists themselves have stadiums named after them. Oh wait, those victims of terrorism would not include the women and children guilty of being Israeli.
o The participants highlighted the unequivocal denunciation by all divine religions of acts of terrorism and indiscriminate violence against innocent people and the high importance these religions attach to human life and dignity as well as peaceful coexistence among nations. The participants rejected any vicious attempt to associate or attribute terrorism to a particular culture, religion or nationality and expressed their concern over certain circles' attempts to associate intolerance, extremism, terrorism and violence to religions, particularly Islam, and condemned any offensive or provoking act against Divine values and religious sanctities;
Here we have to agree with Iran--after all, as Bernard Lewis writes in The Crisis of Islam, it actually does turn out that Islam condemns terrorism--including targeting civilians, missiles and nuclear weapons:
...Because holy war is an obligation of the faith, it is elaborately regulated in the sharia. Fighters in a jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoner, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce, and to honor agreements.

...The medieval jurists and theologians discuss at some length the rules of warfare, including questions such as which weapons are permitted and which are not. There is even some discussion in medieval texts of the lawfulness of missile and chemical warfare, the one relating to mangonels and catapults, the other to poison-tipped arrows and the poisoning of enemy water supplies. On these points there is considerable variation. Some jurists permit, some restrict, some disapprove of the use of these weapons. The stated reason for concern is the indiscriminate casualties that they inflict. [emphasis added]

...At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point--as far as I am aware--do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders.[emphasis added]
Someone get Ahmadinejad a copy of the Koran.

You really have to admire Iran.
After all, who but a sponsor of terrorism could have put together such a conference and shepherded it to its predetermined conclusion.

Technorati Tag: and .


NormanF said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
NormanF said...

There is no such moral restraint in Islam. The rape of enemy women is permitted and enemy men can have their penises cut off and stuffed in their mouths. They are not exactly decorous in waging absolute war on their enemies and all means are permitted. Indeed Mohammed is quoted in Bukhari, the most prestigious of the Hadiths, which as equal weight with the Koran as saying, "I have been made victorious through terror."

The slaughter of infidels is allowed. Ask the Beni Qarayza if they are still around and that's a common chant in the Middle East these days: "Jews, remember Khaybar, Jews, remember Khaybar! The Army Of Mohammed is coming!" And I don't think they mean chivalrous warfare.

12:38 AM