Iran: We Will Attend Iraq Conference
Security Meeting Will Be Tehran's First Official Sit-Down With U.S. Envoys Since 2004
-
Play CBS Video Video New Approach To Iran And Syria Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled a shift in the White House's policy on diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria. Jim Axelrod reports.
-
Video Bush Introduces Negroponte CBS News RAW: President Bush said new Deputy Secretary Of State John Negroponte has the "talent and experience" necessary to hold the post as he presented his choice to a receptive crowd.
-
-
President Bush, right, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice listen to Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, not pictured, speak at the State Department on Feb. 27, 2007. (AP)
-
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaks to the media during a press conference in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, March 6, 2007. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)
-
-
Photo Essay Hunting The Insurgency CBS News' Cami McCormick goes on patrol with U.S. troops in southern Baghdad
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
A deputy foreign minister will lead the Iranian delegation to the conference of Iraq's neighbors and the Big Five of the U.N. Security Council. The meeting will be the first public encounter between U.S. and Iranian envoys since late 2004.
"We hope the conference will result in sending a clear message that the countries of the region are standing alongside the government and nation of Iraq," Mottaki told a news conference.
Mottaki said the chief Iranian delegate would be the deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, Abbas Araghchi.
On Monday, Mottaki said his government was finalizing its decision on whether to attend the conference. He indicated that Iran was in favor of participating but it did have reservations.
"With the aim of helping the government and people of Iraq, an Iranian delegation will attend the Baghdad conference," Mottaki said Wednesday in the first unequivocal commitment to the event.
The Iraqi government invited countries to the conference last week. The United States quickly said it would attend, making a diplomatic shift after months of refusing to talk to Iran about calming the conflict in Iraq.
Mottaki said Monday that his government had "some concerns" about the conference. He did not spell these out, but it is thought Iran fears that both the U.S. and Iraqi delegations might accuse Iran of supporting Shiite armed groups in Iraq.
The United States has recently hardened its line on Iran, both diplomatically and militarily.
President George W. Bush has stepped up accusations that Iran is backing Shiite militants in Iraq. The U.S. military has detained a number of Iranians in Iraq and strengthened its naval presence in the Gulf.
Washington is also leading a push for stronger sanctions against Iran over its defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that it stop enriching uranium, a process that provides material for nuclear reactors or atomic warheads.
The last time U.S. and Iranian envoys met in public was in late 2004 at a meeting of 20 nations in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik to discuss Iraq's future. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharrazi, did not hold formal talks, but Egypt sat the two officials next to one another at a dinner. Powell said the two mostly had "polite dinner conversation."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 81 CommentsThe history of Islam has seen a number of false prophets, some of them go back to as early as the age of Muhammad, such as Musaylimah, al-Ansi, Tulayha ibn Khuwaylid and Sajah.[4]
In recent history the figure of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been the subject of much controversy in this regard. He is considered a false prophet by Main-stream Orthodox Muslims.[5] The followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, though, revere him as a saint and call themselves Ahmadi Muslims. Ahmadis have been been declared non-Muslims by the government of Pakistan,[6] and their beliefs considered heretical and outside of Islam.[7] Ahmaids claim to be within the fold of Islam and deny the allegations leveled against them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet
didn't the bible warn of muhammad and other false prophets?
Matthew 7:15
Matthew 24:11
Matthew 24:24
Mark 13:22
Luke 6:26
2 Peter 2:1
1 John 4:1
http://bibleresources.bible.com/keywordsearchresults.php?keyword=false+prophets&multiplemethod=phrase&version1=9&numpageresults=25&sortorder=bookorder
If you know anything about the bible, then you should know that vengeance and retribution are not yours.
You would do well to study Deuteronomy 32:35.
Oh, and perhaps you could explain Matthew 5:43-46 to me.
Or at the very least, explain it to yourself.
Sounds like you carry way too much hate in your heart to be considered anything but unchristian.
You sure are paranoid. Do you sleep ok at night? I mean, with the evil muslims under your bed, ready to take a pot shot at you every opportunity they get.
It must really be sad being you - the hatred you have in your heart is eating you away.
You should accept god into your heart singingrick - maybe then love will fill your heart and the hatred you feel for others will fade.
God will help you singingrick - don't turn him away like you have been doing - accept him - he loves you.
I'll pray that he forgives you.
Are you still preaching your message of hatred?
Singingrick, if you keep it up, god is going to cut you down.
http://www.memritv.org/Transcrip
t.asp?P1=991
Posted by singinrick at 01:03 AM : Mar 08, 2007
And ignorance like yours is more damaging to your cause then any foreign propaganda. You're like "Refer madness". So over the top with your obvious bullsh*it that even most people who might agree with your goals won't support you because they're embarrassed to be associated with you. They may like what the circus does, but they don't want to be one of the clowns like you. You drive people away from your causes.
Um...that would be "win" a war in Iran. He's already lost the one in Iraq....and Afghanistan.
Posted by diplomacy3 at 12:00 AM : Mar 08, 2007
The problem is that Bush does not want diplomacy to succeed. He wants a war. A regime change in Iran is the only thing he'll settle for and they won't do it without a war. Unfortunately because Bush has bogged us down and stretched us so thin in Iraq, the only way to "win" a war in Iraq would be to use battlefield tactical nuclear weapons. A polite little name for bombs that are actually several times more powerful then the Hiroshima bomb. While no sane person would use them against populations (which he'll have to do since Iran's nuclear facilities are widely scattered and we don't know where they all are), Bush will. Bush is what's known as a madman. Nuts. Insane. Drunk with power. He is drooling for the excuse to push that button because of a combination of war lust and an insane conviction that god wants him to bring democracy to the middle-East, no matter what the cost. He is mentally ill. He will do it.
We hope diplomacy would prevail. War with Iran means more recession and uncertainty at home than the oil rich countries.
Posted by Scott4261 at 07:15 PM : Mar 07, 2007
Starting a war would also be just about the only thing Bush could do that would drive the younger Iranians away from Western thinking and right back into the arms of the fundamentalists. They love many things about the west, but if Bush forces a choice on them they'll turn nationalist in a heartbeat. Like most people they love their country most of all. Also the Iranian army is not going to roll over and play dead like the Iraqi one did. A war with them will be incredibly bloody and turn the rest of the civilized world against us. It would be the most stupid thing this incredibly stupid president could do.
is TRUTH! It is difficult to imagine a less honest,disingenious American ruling clique. The GOP does have an interesting history. The Grant
Administration was rife with deceit and theft. The era of the Robber Barons which lasted until the late 19th Century began again with fury during the 1920's when the corruption led to the Tea-Pot Scandals and due to lack of regulation of
fianance led to the Great Depression.
Ahmadinejad really has very little power after the last elections in Iran. And in case you righties don't know: the majority of Iran's population is under 35 and very westernized. To start a war with Iran would be a colossal mistake.
Remember that diplomacy was practiced by every modern era president before this one. We'd better be praying to God that this works.
Don't tell them that & expect to walk out with a good deal & return again.
Posted by j-whitman at 05:48 PM :
That might be a posibillity.I probably didn't see terrorist activity because I saw what I wanted to see.You know I mean.LOL
I won't say it's not possible though because of the UAE liberal business law.There is no money monitoring at all.They don't see where somebody is getting money from,how his or her wealth is increasing and there is no tax or duty on anything at all period.This must've created a good enviroment for money laundering.
I didn't think that it's a center for terrorist funding because terrorists are mostly religious fanatics and the govt of Dubai is not religious at all.
, I've heard that something likd 90% of the region is Muslim, And I agree they are not all bad, just like all Americans aren't bad.. A lot of insurgents came from the UAE & 96% of our casualties are by Sunni's... In Dubai City you can also buy military weapons by the case.
.. Our intellegence just doesn't justify Bush's actions against Iran... It's too argumentive even for our intelligence agencies to accept.
Thomas Jefferson knew about fascist nazi islam..... he killed plenty of them....
In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+Thomas Jefferson barbary
http://http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q= Thomas Jefferson islam
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q= Thomas Jefferson muslim
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 81 Comments