49:29
|
[12 July 13] US to send Egypt more F-16 fighter jets - English
The United States Department of Defense plans to send four more F-16 fighter jets to Egypt in the coming weeks, according to American officials.
\"There is no current change in the plan to...
The United States Department of Defense plans to send four more F-16 fighter jets to Egypt in the coming weeks, according to American officials.
\"There is no current change in the plan to deliver F-16s to the Egyptian military,\" an unnamed U.S. official told Reuters on Wednesday.
Another American official said the deliveries were likely next month. Eight more F-16 fighter jets were slated to be delivered in December.
Washington\'s plan comes despite the overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in a military coup last week.
The Obama administration said it is still reviewing whether or not to label the ouster of Morsi by the military a coup.
On Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Washington will not stop providing military aid to Egypt despite the Morsi ouster.
\"We think it would not be in the best interests of the United States\" to change its aid program at this time, Carney said.
According to U.S. law, financial assistance to any country whose elected head of state is deposed in a military coup is prohibited.
Republican Senator John McCain also said U.S. aid to Egypt should be cut off in accordance with U.S. law.
\"It is difficult for me to conclude that what happened was anything other than a coup in which the military played a decisive role,\" McCain said.
More...
Description:
The United States Department of Defense plans to send four more F-16 fighter jets to Egypt in the coming weeks, according to American officials.
\"There is no current change in the plan to deliver F-16s to the Egyptian military,\" an unnamed U.S. official told Reuters on Wednesday.
Another American official said the deliveries were likely next month. Eight more F-16 fighter jets were slated to be delivered in December.
Washington\'s plan comes despite the overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in a military coup last week.
The Obama administration said it is still reviewing whether or not to label the ouster of Morsi by the military a coup.
On Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Washington will not stop providing military aid to Egypt despite the Morsi ouster.
\"We think it would not be in the best interests of the United States\" to change its aid program at this time, Carney said.
According to U.S. law, financial assistance to any country whose elected head of state is deposed in a military coup is prohibited.
Republican Senator John McCain also said U.S. aid to Egypt should be cut off in accordance with U.S. law.
\"It is difficult for me to conclude that what happened was anything other than a coup in which the military played a decisive role,\" McCain said.
5:09
|
Iranians Protest Against US Admin - Sanctions are acceptable but not humiliation - All Languages
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/10/04/327557/iran-protesters-slam-us-israel-threats/
Iranian people have taken to streets in the capital, Tehran, following Friday Prayers to condemn US and...
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/10/04/327557/iran-protesters-slam-us-israel-threats/
Iranian people have taken to streets in the capital, Tehran, following Friday Prayers to condemn US and Israeli threats against the Islamic Republic.
The demonstrators criticized US President Barack Obama for following the warmongering rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against Tehran.
They blamed Obama for repeating the military threat against Iran despite Tehran’s call for peace and dialog with the West, including the United States.
The protesters also slammed Netanyahu and his warlike remarks, which they said were designed to distract attention from the Tel Aviv regime’s internal crises and international isolation.
On September 27, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his American counterpart held a phone conversation in the first direct communication between an Iranian and a US president since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979.
The two presidents stressed Tehran and Washington’s political will to swiftly resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear energy program, which the United States, Israel and some of their allies claim to include a military component. Tehran has categorically rejected the baseless allegation against its nuclear energy program.
On September 30, Netanyahu met with Obama and asked him to toughen the sanctions against the Islamic Republic if Tehran continues what he called a nuclear weapons program.
Following the White House meeting, Obama threatened Iran with military action and claimed that Iran is calling for diplomatic negotiations over its nuclear energy program under the pressure of the illegal sanctions Washington has imposed on Iran.
On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran will not allow Israel to interfere in the process of negotiations between Tehran and six world powers over the country’s nuclear energy program.
He said Tel Aviv is seeking to spoil the positive atmosphere created regarding Tehran’s nuclear energy program following the recent visit by Iran President Hassan Rouhani and an Iranian delegation to New York to attend the annual UN General Assembly session.
More...
Description:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/10/04/327557/iran-protesters-slam-us-israel-threats/
Iranian people have taken to streets in the capital, Tehran, following Friday Prayers to condemn US and Israeli threats against the Islamic Republic.
The demonstrators criticized US President Barack Obama for following the warmongering rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against Tehran.
They blamed Obama for repeating the military threat against Iran despite Tehran’s call for peace and dialog with the West, including the United States.
The protesters also slammed Netanyahu and his warlike remarks, which they said were designed to distract attention from the Tel Aviv regime’s internal crises and international isolation.
On September 27, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his American counterpart held a phone conversation in the first direct communication between an Iranian and a US president since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979.
The two presidents stressed Tehran and Washington’s political will to swiftly resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear energy program, which the United States, Israel and some of their allies claim to include a military component. Tehran has categorically rejected the baseless allegation against its nuclear energy program.
On September 30, Netanyahu met with Obama and asked him to toughen the sanctions against the Islamic Republic if Tehran continues what he called a nuclear weapons program.
Following the White House meeting, Obama threatened Iran with military action and claimed that Iran is calling for diplomatic negotiations over its nuclear energy program under the pressure of the illegal sanctions Washington has imposed on Iran.
On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran will not allow Israel to interfere in the process of negotiations between Tehran and six world powers over the country’s nuclear energy program.
He said Tel Aviv is seeking to spoil the positive atmosphere created regarding Tehran’s nuclear energy program following the recent visit by Iran President Hassan Rouhani and an Iranian delegation to New York to attend the annual UN General Assembly session.
Did Obama Lie about FATWA?? - Nuke Free World By Rehbar - English & Persian
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the...
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
Reading Obama’s Iran speech
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10PM GMT
2
Phyllis Bennis, The Nation
Related Interviews:
‘Rouhani’s remarks in US, conciliatory’
\\\\\\\'Rouhani speech, perfectly appropriate\\\\\\\'
Related Viewpoints:
Ziocons fume over Rouhani UN speech
All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign.
There were lots of problem areas in the speech-President Obama was right when he said that US policy in the Middle East would lead to charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy-its protection of Israeli violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human rights, its coddling of military dictators-remains rank with hypocrisy and inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it.
But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global-especially Middle East and most especially Syria-related-politics that have taken shape in the last six or eight weeks. And on Iran, that was good news. Yes the president trotted out his familiar litany that “we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” But this time, there was no “all options on the table” threat. He added explicitly that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” The reference to Iran’s right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding claim among many US hawks and the Israeli government that Iran must give up all nuclear enrichment.
Respecting Iran’s right to “access” nuclear energy is still a bit of a dodge, of course-Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes not just access but “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran is a longstanding signatory to the NPT, and is entitled to all those rights. Obama referred only that “we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities” under the NPT, while saying nothing about Iran’s rights under the treaty. But the high visibility US recognition of any Iranian right to nuclear power-in the context of a new willingness to open talks-is still enormously important.
It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington’s. He recognized that Iranian mistrust of the United States has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” In fact, his identification of the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh as a product of the Cold War may have been part of an effort to distance himself and his administration from those actions. (It’s a bit disingenuous, of course. The primary rationale for the coup was far more a response to Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union.)
Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions. He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the Iran nuclear issue knows that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran would never build or use one, and the fatwa, or legal opinion, was issued at least as far back as 2005. This isn’t new. But for President Obama to mention those judgments in the context of “the basis for a meaningful agreement” is indeed new.
Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore the real significance-that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa, etc., it would not be so easy for Iran’s leaders to win popular support for a decision to embrace the bomb.
There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President Obama’s speech at the United Nations-his embrace of American exceptionalism and his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing, and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran’s participation in international talks on Syria. There is a serious danger that any move towards rapprochement with Iran would be matched with moves to pacify Israeli demands-almost certainly at the expense of Palestinian rights.
But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington now answering the new approach of Tehran.
More flexibility will be required than the United States is usually known for. The usual opponents-in Congress, in Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies-are already on the move, challenging the new opening. But these last weeks showed how a quickly organized demonstration of widespread public opinion, demanding negotiations instead of war, can win. We were able to build a movement fast, agile and powerful enough to reverse an imminent military attack on Syria and instead force a move towards diplomatic solutions to end the war. This time around, the demand to deepen, consolidate and not abandon diplomatic possibilities is on our agenda-and perhaps once again we can
More...
Description:
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
Reading Obama’s Iran speech
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10PM GMT
2
Phyllis Bennis, The Nation
Related Interviews:
‘Rouhani’s remarks in US, conciliatory’
\\\\\\\'Rouhani speech, perfectly appropriate\\\\\\\'
Related Viewpoints:
Ziocons fume over Rouhani UN speech
All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign.
There were lots of problem areas in the speech-President Obama was right when he said that US policy in the Middle East would lead to charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy-its protection of Israeli violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human rights, its coddling of military dictators-remains rank with hypocrisy and inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it.
But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global-especially Middle East and most especially Syria-related-politics that have taken shape in the last six or eight weeks. And on Iran, that was good news. Yes the president trotted out his familiar litany that “we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” But this time, there was no “all options on the table” threat. He added explicitly that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” The reference to Iran’s right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding claim among many US hawks and the Israeli government that Iran must give up all nuclear enrichment.
Respecting Iran’s right to “access” nuclear energy is still a bit of a dodge, of course-Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes not just access but “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran is a longstanding signatory to the NPT, and is entitled to all those rights. Obama referred only that “we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities” under the NPT, while saying nothing about Iran’s rights under the treaty. But the high visibility US recognition of any Iranian right to nuclear power-in the context of a new willingness to open talks-is still enormously important.
It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington’s. He recognized that Iranian mistrust of the United States has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” In fact, his identification of the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh as a product of the Cold War may have been part of an effort to distance himself and his administration from those actions. (It’s a bit disingenuous, of course. The primary rationale for the coup was far more a response to Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union.)
Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions. He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the Iran nuclear issue knows that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran would never build or use one, and the fatwa, or legal opinion, was issued at least as far back as 2005. This isn’t new. But for President Obama to mention those judgments in the context of “the basis for a meaningful agreement” is indeed new.
Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore the real significance-that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa, etc., it would not be so easy for Iran’s leaders to win popular support for a decision to embrace the bomb.
There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President Obama’s speech at the United Nations-his embrace of American exceptionalism and his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing, and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran’s participation in international talks on Syria. There is a serious danger that any move towards rapprochement with Iran would be matched with moves to pacify Israeli demands-almost certainly at the expense of Palestinian rights.
But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington now answering the new approach of Tehran.
More flexibility will be required than the United States is usually known for. The usual opponents-in Congress, in Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies-are already on the move, challenging the new opening. But these last weeks showed how a quickly organized demonstration of widespread public opinion, demanding negotiations instead of war, can win. We were able to build a movement fast, agile and powerful enough to reverse an imminent military attack on Syria and instead force a move towards diplomatic solutions to end the war. This time around, the demand to deepen, consolidate and not abandon diplomatic possibilities is on our agenda-and perhaps once again we can
4:42
|
[23 Oct 2013] Iran cancer patients, hemophiliacs main victims of US sanctions - English
Will the United States lift its illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran? Well, it seems like it won\'t unless Washington stops listening to Israel. But who is mainly affected by the sanctions? Reports...
Will the United States lift its illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran? Well, it seems like it won\'t unless Washington stops listening to Israel. But who is mainly affected by the sanctions? Reports from Iran\'s health sector show cancer patients and hemophiliacs are hurt far more than the country\'s nuclear program. The sanctions have hindered Iran\'s international financial transactions. And that has made the importation of vital medicines extremely difficult. The country\'s pharmaceutical industry is also unable to produce those medicines because of a shortage of raw materials. But after the latest round of nuclear talks with Iran, the United States hinted that it\'s ready to ease the pressure. However, Washington is under immense pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia not to lift its illegal embargo, which is hurting ordinary Iranian citizens.
More...
Description:
Will the United States lift its illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran? Well, it seems like it won\'t unless Washington stops listening to Israel. But who is mainly affected by the sanctions? Reports from Iran\'s health sector show cancer patients and hemophiliacs are hurt far more than the country\'s nuclear program. The sanctions have hindered Iran\'s international financial transactions. And that has made the importation of vital medicines extremely difficult. The country\'s pharmaceutical industry is also unable to produce those medicines because of a shortage of raw materials. But after the latest round of nuclear talks with Iran, the United States hinted that it\'s ready to ease the pressure. However, Washington is under immense pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia not to lift its illegal embargo, which is hurting ordinary Iranian citizens.
23:33
|
[17 Nov 2013] The Debate - US Afghan Security Pact - English
Afghan president Hamid Karzai has given a thumbs up to extend the presence of US troops beyond 2014. However he has also said that the Loya Jirga or the assembly of elders must approve the security...
Afghan president Hamid Karzai has given a thumbs up to extend the presence of US troops beyond 2014. However he has also said that the Loya Jirga or the assembly of elders must approve the security pact between Kabul and Washington. Many Afghan citizens want Washington to leave their country. The central issue for the assembly is the issue of immunity for American troops that will remain in the country after the withdrawal of its allies\' forces by the end of 2014. What will this do to Afghanistan? And why does the US want to stay in Afghanistan, when more and more Americans are dissatisfied with the deteriorating socio-economic conditions back home?
More...
Description:
Afghan president Hamid Karzai has given a thumbs up to extend the presence of US troops beyond 2014. However he has also said that the Loya Jirga or the assembly of elders must approve the security pact between Kabul and Washington. Many Afghan citizens want Washington to leave their country. The central issue for the assembly is the issue of immunity for American troops that will remain in the country after the withdrawal of its allies\' forces by the end of 2014. What will this do to Afghanistan? And why does the US want to stay in Afghanistan, when more and more Americans are dissatisfied with the deteriorating socio-economic conditions back home?
4:34
|
[21 Nov 2013] Loya Jirga discussing presence of US forces beyond 2014 - English
Afghan tribal elders have convened in the capital Kabul to debate the fate of the US forces in the war-torn country beyond 2014.
The participants in the gathering known as Loya Jirga are...
Afghan tribal elders have convened in the capital Kabul to debate the fate of the US forces in the war-torn country beyond 2014.
The participants in the gathering known as Loya Jirga are discussing the draft of a long-awaited bilateral security deal between Kabul and Washington. The draft agreed on Wednesday appears to meet US demands on some thorny issues. Among them are US troops\' unilateral operations, their authority to enter Afghan homes and immunity from prosecution. In his opening speech at the meeting, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said 15000 foreign forces would remain in Afghanistan if the deal is inked. The presence of US-led forces in Afghanistan has generated deep anti-US sentiments among Afghans who accuse Washington of violating their country\'s sovereignty and killing civilians.
More...
Description:
Afghan tribal elders have convened in the capital Kabul to debate the fate of the US forces in the war-torn country beyond 2014.
The participants in the gathering known as Loya Jirga are discussing the draft of a long-awaited bilateral security deal between Kabul and Washington. The draft agreed on Wednesday appears to meet US demands on some thorny issues. Among them are US troops\' unilateral operations, their authority to enter Afghan homes and immunity from prosecution. In his opening speech at the meeting, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said 15000 foreign forces would remain in Afghanistan if the deal is inked. The presence of US-led forces in Afghanistan has generated deep anti-US sentiments among Afghans who accuse Washington of violating their country\'s sovereignty and killing civilians.
0:49
|
[01 Dec 2013] Karzai: US cutting military supplies to force him to sign security pact - English
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the US of refusing to provide his country with military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to sign a...
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the US of refusing to provide his country with military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to sign a controversial security pact with the US. Washington has denied the allegation, and repeated that, unless the deal is signed promptly, it could withdraw most of American forces from Afghanistan. Relations between Kabul and Washington have deteriorated in recent weeks over President Karzai\'s refual to sign the security pact. The deal allows several thousands of US troops to remain in Afghanistan after a 2014 pullout deadline for foreign forces. Karzai has set several conditions to sign the pact which has been approved by the country\'s grand council, Loya Jirga. These include a stop to raids on Afghan civilian homes, among others.
More...
Description:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the US of refusing to provide his country with military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to sign a controversial security pact with the US. Washington has denied the allegation, and repeated that, unless the deal is signed promptly, it could withdraw most of American forces from Afghanistan. Relations between Kabul and Washington have deteriorated in recent weeks over President Karzai\'s refual to sign the security pact. The deal allows several thousands of US troops to remain in Afghanistan after a 2014 pullout deadline for foreign forces. Karzai has set several conditions to sign the pact which has been approved by the country\'s grand council, Loya Jirga. These include a stop to raids on Afghan civilian homes, among others.
4:16
|
[02 Dec 2013] Karzai: US cutting military supplies to force him to sign security pact - English
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the U-S of refusing to provide his country with fuel and military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to...
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the U-S of refusing to provide his country with fuel and military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to sign a controversial security pact with the U-S. Washington has denied the allegation, and repeated that, unless the deal is signed promptly, it could withdraw most of American forces from Afghanistan. Relations between Kabul and Washington have deteriorated in recent weeks over President Karzai\'s refual to sign the security pact. The deal allows several thousands of U-S troops to remain in Afghanistan after a 20-14 pullout deadline for foreign forces. Karzai has set several conditions to sign the pact which has been approved by the country\'s grand council, Loya Jirga. These include a stop to raids on Afghan civilian homes, among others.
More...
Description:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the U-S of refusing to provide his country with fuel and military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to sign a controversial security pact with the U-S. Washington has denied the allegation, and repeated that, unless the deal is signed promptly, it could withdraw most of American forces from Afghanistan. Relations between Kabul and Washington have deteriorated in recent weeks over President Karzai\'s refual to sign the security pact. The deal allows several thousands of U-S troops to remain in Afghanistan after a 20-14 pullout deadline for foreign forces. Karzai has set several conditions to sign the pact which has been approved by the country\'s grand council, Loya Jirga. These include a stop to raids on Afghan civilian homes, among others.
0:49
|
[02 Dec 2013] Karzai accused the US of refusing to provide his country with fuel and military supplies - English
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the U-S of refusing to provide his country with fuel and military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to...
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the U-S of refusing to provide his country with fuel and military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to sign a controversial security pact with the U-S. Washington has denied the allegation, and repeated that, unless the deal is signed promptly, it could withdraw most of American forces from Afghanistan. Relations between Kabul and Washington have deteriorated in recent weeks over President Karzai\'s refual to sign the security pact. The deal allows several thousands of U-S troops to remain in Afghanistan after a 20-14 pullout deadline for foreign forces. Karzai has set several conditions to sign the pact which has been approved by the country\'s grand council, Loya Jirga. These include a stop to raids on Afghan civilian homes, among others.
More...
Description:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused the U-S of refusing to provide his country with fuel and military supplies.
He has said in a statement that the move is aimed to put pressure on him to sign a controversial security pact with the U-S. Washington has denied the allegation, and repeated that, unless the deal is signed promptly, it could withdraw most of American forces from Afghanistan. Relations between Kabul and Washington have deteriorated in recent weeks over President Karzai\'s refual to sign the security pact. The deal allows several thousands of U-S troops to remain in Afghanistan after a 20-14 pullout deadline for foreign forces. Karzai has set several conditions to sign the pact which has been approved by the country\'s grand council, Loya Jirga. These include a stop to raids on Afghan civilian homes, among others.
0:42
|
[24 Dec 2013] US slammed for condemning government over Aleppo bombing - English
Syria\\\'s official news agency, SANA, has lashed out at the US for condemning the government for airstrikes in the northern city of Aleppo.
SANA says Washington views the unrest in Syria in a...
Syria\\\'s official news agency, SANA, has lashed out at the US for condemning the government for airstrikes in the northern city of Aleppo.
SANA says Washington views the unrest in Syria in a partial, biased way, ignoring crimes committed by militants fighting the government. On Monday, Washington condemned as QUOTE \\\"indiscriminate\\\" the bombings of Aleppo which have reportedly been taking place for the past nine days. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says 15 people have been killed in the latest airstrikes, bringing the total death toll to over 360 during the period. The group blames the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the bombings. Damascus has not made any comments yet. Press TV can not independently verify the group\\\'s claims.
More...
Description:
Syria\\\'s official news agency, SANA, has lashed out at the US for condemning the government for airstrikes in the northern city of Aleppo.
SANA says Washington views the unrest in Syria in a partial, biased way, ignoring crimes committed by militants fighting the government. On Monday, Washington condemned as QUOTE \\\"indiscriminate\\\" the bombings of Aleppo which have reportedly been taking place for the past nine days. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says 15 people have been killed in the latest airstrikes, bringing the total death toll to over 360 during the period. The group blames the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the bombings. Damascus has not made any comments yet. Press TV can not independently verify the group\\\'s claims.
12:00
|
[21 Jan 2014] The Debate - israeli Settlement (P.1) - English
Israel approves plans to build more than two thousand new settler units in Jerusalem al-Quds and the occupied West Bank. As Israeli soldiers hand out more eviction orders to Palestinian families,...
Israel approves plans to build more than two thousand new settler units in Jerusalem al-Quds and the occupied West Bank. As Israeli soldiers hand out more eviction orders to Palestinian families, we\'re asking is Tel Aviv under enough international pressure to stop its settlement activities that the UN has called illegal? Are the US-brokered talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority doomed? I\'m Homa Lezgee and you\'re watching the Debate.
Guests:
- Political Activist & Commentator, Kevin Ovenden (London).
- Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Richard Weitz (Washington).
Subjects:
1- Some observers say Israel\'s settlement expansions at this point in time are in fact meant to undermine talks since Israel is not interested in a two-state solution...do you agree?
2- Is a two-state solution possible?
3- Israel\'s economy minister Naftali Benner has said a two-state solution will harm Tel Aviv and that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state will destroy Israel\'s economy...what does that say about Israel\'s willingness for talks to get anywhere?
4- There was some friction between Tel Aviv and Washington when an Israeli minister said John Kerry\'s proposal on the Jordan Valley wasn\'t worth the paper it was written on and suggested that Kerry was naïve. How have the settlement expansions effected US-Israeli relations?
5- Is the US going to put enough pressure on Israel to stop the settlement expansions?
6- \"Israel teaching the US a lesson since the Obama administration is being a bit too serious\"...
7- What do you think about the EU position against settlements? Will a growing boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign help?
8- Should Israel be taking the academic and economic sanctions more seriously?
9- Similarities between Israel and South African apartheid regime...
10- How long is this stalemate going to last? How long can Israel continue to defy international law?
More...
Description:
Israel approves plans to build more than two thousand new settler units in Jerusalem al-Quds and the occupied West Bank. As Israeli soldiers hand out more eviction orders to Palestinian families, we\'re asking is Tel Aviv under enough international pressure to stop its settlement activities that the UN has called illegal? Are the US-brokered talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority doomed? I\'m Homa Lezgee and you\'re watching the Debate.
Guests:
- Political Activist & Commentator, Kevin Ovenden (London).
- Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Richard Weitz (Washington).
Subjects:
1- Some observers say Israel\'s settlement expansions at this point in time are in fact meant to undermine talks since Israel is not interested in a two-state solution...do you agree?
2- Is a two-state solution possible?
3- Israel\'s economy minister Naftali Benner has said a two-state solution will harm Tel Aviv and that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state will destroy Israel\'s economy...what does that say about Israel\'s willingness for talks to get anywhere?
4- There was some friction between Tel Aviv and Washington when an Israeli minister said John Kerry\'s proposal on the Jordan Valley wasn\'t worth the paper it was written on and suggested that Kerry was naïve. How have the settlement expansions effected US-Israeli relations?
5- Is the US going to put enough pressure on Israel to stop the settlement expansions?
6- \"Israel teaching the US a lesson since the Obama administration is being a bit too serious\"...
7- What do you think about the EU position against settlements? Will a growing boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign help?
8- Should Israel be taking the academic and economic sanctions more seriously?
9- Similarities between Israel and South African apartheid regime...
10- How long is this stalemate going to last? How long can Israel continue to defy international law?
9:54
|
[21 Jan 2014] The Debate - israeli Settlement (P.2) - English
Israel approves plans to build more than two thousand new settler units in Jerusalem al-Quds and the occupied West Bank. As Israeli soldiers hand out more eviction orders to Palestinian families,...
Israel approves plans to build more than two thousand new settler units in Jerusalem al-Quds and the occupied West Bank. As Israeli soldiers hand out more eviction orders to Palestinian families, we\'re asking is Tel Aviv under enough international pressure to stop its settlement activities that the UN has called illegal? Are the US-brokered talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority doomed? I\'m Homa Lezgee and you\'re watching the Debate.
Guests:
- Political Activist & Commentator, Kevin Ovenden (London).
- Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Richard Weitz (Washington).
Subjects:
1- Some observers say Israel\'s settlement expansions at this point in time are in fact meant to undermine talks since Israel is not interested in a two-state solution...do you agree?
2- Is a two-state solution possible?
3- Israel\'s economy minister Naftali Benner has said a two-state solution will harm Tel Aviv and that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state will destroy Israel\'s economy...what does that say about Israel\'s willingness for talks to get anywhere?
4- There was some friction between Tel Aviv and Washington when an Israeli minister said John Kerry\'s proposal on the Jordan Valley wasn\'t worth the paper it was written on and suggested that Kerry was naïve. How have the settlement expansions effected US-Israeli relations?
5- Is the US going to put enough pressure on Israel to stop the settlement expansions?
6- \"Israel teaching the US a lesson since the Obama administration is being a bit too serious\"...
7- What do you think about the EU position against settlements? Will a growing boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign help?
8- Should Israel be taking the academic and economic sanctions more seriously?
9- Similarities between Israel and South African apartheid regime...
10- How long is this stalemate going to last? How long can Israel continue to defy international law?
More...
Description:
Israel approves plans to build more than two thousand new settler units in Jerusalem al-Quds and the occupied West Bank. As Israeli soldiers hand out more eviction orders to Palestinian families, we\'re asking is Tel Aviv under enough international pressure to stop its settlement activities that the UN has called illegal? Are the US-brokered talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority doomed? I\'m Homa Lezgee and you\'re watching the Debate.
Guests:
- Political Activist & Commentator, Kevin Ovenden (London).
- Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Richard Weitz (Washington).
Subjects:
1- Some observers say Israel\'s settlement expansions at this point in time are in fact meant to undermine talks since Israel is not interested in a two-state solution...do you agree?
2- Is a two-state solution possible?
3- Israel\'s economy minister Naftali Benner has said a two-state solution will harm Tel Aviv and that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state will destroy Israel\'s economy...what does that say about Israel\'s willingness for talks to get anywhere?
4- There was some friction between Tel Aviv and Washington when an Israeli minister said John Kerry\'s proposal on the Jordan Valley wasn\'t worth the paper it was written on and suggested that Kerry was naïve. How have the settlement expansions effected US-Israeli relations?
5- Is the US going to put enough pressure on Israel to stop the settlement expansions?
6- \"Israel teaching the US a lesson since the Obama administration is being a bit too serious\"...
7- What do you think about the EU position against settlements? Will a growing boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign help?
8- Should Israel be taking the academic and economic sanctions more seriously?
9- Similarities between Israel and South African apartheid regime...
10- How long is this stalemate going to last? How long can Israel continue to defy international law?
11:00
|
[29 Jan 2014] The Debate - Fuelling the Carnage (P.1) - English
As if the Syrian talks in Geneva did not face enough challenges, a new one came into the picture, when US Congress approved continued support for what it called moderate Syrian rebels, raising the...
As if the Syrian talks in Geneva did not face enough challenges, a new one came into the picture, when US Congress approved continued support for what it called moderate Syrian rebels, raising the question again about a good and a bad terrorist. It also upped the bar on what type of aid: previously from non-lethal like night goggles, to small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll ask doesn\'t this contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks?
Guests:
- National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Brian Becker (WASHINGTON).
- Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb (WASHINGTON).
Subjects:
1. From non-lethal aid, like nigh vision goggles and army uniforms, to a variety of small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets.
- Funded by the U-S Congress, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30: THAT MEANS FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS.
- Also the issue that arms may fall into the hands of \"bad terrorists\", something US experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria.
2. What about the good terrorist/bad terrorist scenario: this differentiation just can\'t apply, especially to the terrorists inside Syria, which the US calls the moderate Syrian rebels?
3. American military aid, now with explicit congressional approval: Doesn\'t it contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Whatever happened to US Sec. of State John Kerry saying repeatedly that there is no military solution?
- Russia is working with the US to find a political solution, and suddenly US arms supplies, which contradicts the initiative
4. On terrorists: John Kerry said during opening of Geneva talks: in reference to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad: \"The Assad regime is a magnet for terrorists. The regime\'s brutality is the source of the violent extremism in Syria today: Is the US completely turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists?
5. Timeline: Beg. Dec.: the US and Britain announced that they had suspended non-lethal aid: Why? Reports that their aid supplies could end up in hostile hands. Then in late December, reversed that decision: Yet US Congress \"secretly\" approved sending small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets, also in Dec.: the US was not telling the truth, or given that this was done in secret, did not want it to be made public?
6. On the Syrian talks in Geneva: According to the divided opposition: the Syrian delegation has accepted the establishment of a transitional government body for the first time: Were it true, how what are the chances for the divided opposition to accept the govt. red line: Assad\'s departure?
7. Syria\'s divided opposition criticized a document presented by the Syrian govt which presented a statement of principles, calling for Syria \'s sovereignty to be respected, rejecting \"foreign interference\" and \"terrorism.\"?
8. Are we looking at u-turn from Turkey on Syria: AS we speak, PM Erodogan is in Iran holding talks with Ian\'s leader, its pres. and FM?
9. What may have happened if Iran was present?
More...
Description:
As if the Syrian talks in Geneva did not face enough challenges, a new one came into the picture, when US Congress approved continued support for what it called moderate Syrian rebels, raising the question again about a good and a bad terrorist. It also upped the bar on what type of aid: previously from non-lethal like night goggles, to small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll ask doesn\'t this contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks?
Guests:
- National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Brian Becker (WASHINGTON).
- Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb (WASHINGTON).
Subjects:
1. From non-lethal aid, like nigh vision goggles and army uniforms, to a variety of small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets.
- Funded by the U-S Congress, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30: THAT MEANS FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS.
- Also the issue that arms may fall into the hands of \"bad terrorists\", something US experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria.
2. What about the good terrorist/bad terrorist scenario: this differentiation just can\'t apply, especially to the terrorists inside Syria, which the US calls the moderate Syrian rebels?
3. American military aid, now with explicit congressional approval: Doesn\'t it contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Whatever happened to US Sec. of State John Kerry saying repeatedly that there is no military solution?
- Russia is working with the US to find a political solution, and suddenly US arms supplies, which contradicts the initiative
4. On terrorists: John Kerry said during opening of Geneva talks: in reference to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad: \"The Assad regime is a magnet for terrorists. The regime\'s brutality is the source of the violent extremism in Syria today: Is the US completely turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists?
5. Timeline: Beg. Dec.: the US and Britain announced that they had suspended non-lethal aid: Why? Reports that their aid supplies could end up in hostile hands. Then in late December, reversed that decision: Yet US Congress \"secretly\" approved sending small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets, also in Dec.: the US was not telling the truth, or given that this was done in secret, did not want it to be made public?
6. On the Syrian talks in Geneva: According to the divided opposition: the Syrian delegation has accepted the establishment of a transitional government body for the first time: Were it true, how what are the chances for the divided opposition to accept the govt. red line: Assad\'s departure?
7. Syria\'s divided opposition criticized a document presented by the Syrian govt which presented a statement of principles, calling for Syria \'s sovereignty to be respected, rejecting \"foreign interference\" and \"terrorism.\"?
8. Are we looking at u-turn from Turkey on Syria: AS we speak, PM Erodogan is in Iran holding talks with Ian\'s leader, its pres. and FM?
9. What may have happened if Iran was present?
0:44
|
[11 Feb 2014] Obama once again stressed on enforcing the existing sanctions on Iran - English
Us President Barack Obama has once again stressed the need to enforce existing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear energy program.
Obama has repeated his anti-Iran remarks during a joint press...
Us President Barack Obama has once again stressed the need to enforce existing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear energy program.
Obama has repeated his anti-Iran remarks during a joint press conference with visiting French President Francois Hollande in Washington. He says the U-S and France both insist on the sanctions even as they know this would endanger the possibility of a diplomatic solution. He says the U-S has recently intensified its measures to identify and punish individuals and companies that violate the existing anti-Iran sanctions. Obama went further to threaten that sanctions may be tightened if the talks between Iran and the P5+1 group fail. The French president\'s visit to the U-S follows the visit to Iran of a French business delegation which sparked criticism from Washington.
More...
Description:
Us President Barack Obama has once again stressed the need to enforce existing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear energy program.
Obama has repeated his anti-Iran remarks during a joint press conference with visiting French President Francois Hollande in Washington. He says the U-S and France both insist on the sanctions even as they know this would endanger the possibility of a diplomatic solution. He says the U-S has recently intensified its measures to identify and punish individuals and companies that violate the existing anti-Iran sanctions. Obama went further to threaten that sanctions may be tightened if the talks between Iran and the P5+1 group fail. The French president\'s visit to the U-S follows the visit to Iran of a French business delegation which sparked criticism from Washington.
11:00
|
[12 Feb 2014] The Debate - Syria Situation (P.1) - English
\"As talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a...
\"As talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a stance that was shared by France as well. Why does the US continue to think that arming the opposition will lead to a positive outcome, never mind what they call the moderate opposition? In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss the prospects of the Geneva conference, which the Syrian delegation says the focus should be terrorism, not the transitional governing body, and why the prospects of parallel talks between Russia, US and int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi also look to lead no-where.
Guests:
- Journalist & Political Commentator, Richard Millet (LONDON).
- Author & Historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley (WASHINGTON).
Subjects:
1. The US is adamant in its arming of the opposition, the moderate one: Does the US even know who the moderate opposition is, why this persistence, again, making this announcement again during Geneva talks?
2. Another repeated announcement, by the US: the threat of foreign fighters 7,000 of them from some 50 countries, including Europe, with some American, tied to al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, who aspire to attack the United States
3. This piece of news did not make it to major for a variety of reasons: that the intel. Western intelligence agencies have visited Damascus for talks on combating terrorist groups: Faisal Mekdad told state TV BBC that there was a schism between Western security officials and politicians who are pressing President Bashar al-Assad to step down; the growing numbers of foreign terrorists from Europe means there are common concerns
4. On the Geneva negotiations: the divided SNC: today we presented our main document which includes the steps and principles in transitional process: 22 points: formation of transitional governing body, made by the 2 parties...and some other points. The Syrian delegation response: comprehensive document detailing the horrendous deaths by the hands of these foreign backed insurgents: Why such resistance against first rooting out terrorism inside Syria/
5. Parallel talks seemed like a good idea: Originally a Russian proposal, floated again, to originally include Turkey Saudi Arabia and IRan, along with the US and Russia: now narrowed to the US and Russia, with int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, slated for Friday?
6. Get Iran involved in the peace talks: Increase chances for a solution: Geneva track record obviously proves these talks have failed, except for the evacuation of some civilians trapped in Homs: What\'s the hold-up?
7. Reaction: Syria Media advisor: Botheina Sha\'aban: The West and Israel wanted to change regional balance and power to their own benefit: the outcome of the conflict: a proxy war, with Turkey Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the main supporters of the war under western and US influence: Has this failed, or is that still the goal?
More...
Description:
\"As talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a stance that was shared by France as well. Why does the US continue to think that arming the opposition will lead to a positive outcome, never mind what they call the moderate opposition? In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss the prospects of the Geneva conference, which the Syrian delegation says the focus should be terrorism, not the transitional governing body, and why the prospects of parallel talks between Russia, US and int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi also look to lead no-where.
Guests:
- Journalist & Political Commentator, Richard Millet (LONDON).
- Author & Historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley (WASHINGTON).
Subjects:
1. The US is adamant in its arming of the opposition, the moderate one: Does the US even know who the moderate opposition is, why this persistence, again, making this announcement again during Geneva talks?
2. Another repeated announcement, by the US: the threat of foreign fighters 7,000 of them from some 50 countries, including Europe, with some American, tied to al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, who aspire to attack the United States
3. This piece of news did not make it to major for a variety of reasons: that the intel. Western intelligence agencies have visited Damascus for talks on combating terrorist groups: Faisal Mekdad told state TV BBC that there was a schism between Western security officials and politicians who are pressing President Bashar al-Assad to step down; the growing numbers of foreign terrorists from Europe means there are common concerns
4. On the Geneva negotiations: the divided SNC: today we presented our main document which includes the steps and principles in transitional process: 22 points: formation of transitional governing body, made by the 2 parties...and some other points. The Syrian delegation response: comprehensive document detailing the horrendous deaths by the hands of these foreign backed insurgents: Why such resistance against first rooting out terrorism inside Syria/
5. Parallel talks seemed like a good idea: Originally a Russian proposal, floated again, to originally include Turkey Saudi Arabia and IRan, along with the US and Russia: now narrowed to the US and Russia, with int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, slated for Friday?
6. Get Iran involved in the peace talks: Increase chances for a solution: Geneva track record obviously proves these talks have failed, except for the evacuation of some civilians trapped in Homs: What\'s the hold-up?
7. Reaction: Syria Media advisor: Botheina Sha\'aban: The West and Israel wanted to change regional balance and power to their own benefit: the outcome of the conflict: a proxy war, with Turkey Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the main supporters of the war under western and US influence: Has this failed, or is that still the goal?
10:08
|
[12 Feb 2014] The Debate - Syria Situation (P.2) - English
\"As talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a...
\"As talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a stance that was shared by France as well. Why does the US continue to think that arming the opposition will lead to a positive outcome, never mind what they call the moderate opposition? In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss the prospects of the Geneva conference, which the Syrian delegation says the focus should be terrorism, not the transitional governing body, and why the prospects of parallel talks between Russia, US and int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi also look to lead no-where.
Guests:
- Journalist & Political Commentator, Richard Millet (LONDON).
- Author & Historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley (WASHINGTON).
Subjects:
1. The US is adamant in its arming of the opposition, the moderate one: Does the US even know who the moderate opposition is, why this persistence, again, making this announcement again during Geneva talks?
2. Another repeated announcement, by the US: the threat of foreign fighters 7,000 of them from some 50 countries, including Europe, with some American, tied to al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, who aspire to attack the United States
3. This piece of news did not make it to major for a variety of reasons: that the intel. Western intelligence agencies have visited Damascus for talks on combating terrorist groups: Faisal Mekdad told state TV BBC that there was a schism between Western security officials and politicians who are pressing President Bashar al-Assad to step down; the growing numbers of foreign terrorists from Europe means there are common concerns
4. On the Geneva negotiations: the divided SNC: today we presented our main document which includes the steps and principles in transitional process: 22 points: formation of transitional governing body, made by the 2 parties...and some other points. The Syrian delegation response: comprehensive document detailing the horrendous deaths by the hands of these foreign backed insurgents: Why such resistance against first rooting out terrorism inside Syria/
5. Parallel talks seemed like a good idea: Originally a Russian proposal, floated again, to originally include Turkey Saudi Arabia and IRan, along with the US and Russia: now narrowed to the US and Russia, with int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, slated for Friday?
6. Get Iran involved in the peace talks: Increase chances for a solution: Geneva track record obviously proves these talks have failed, except for the evacuation of some civilians trapped in Homs: What\'s the hold-up?
7. Reaction: Syria Media advisor: Botheina Sha\'aban: The West and Israel wanted to change regional balance and power to their own benefit: the outcome of the conflict: a proxy war, with Turkey Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the main supporters of the war under western and US influence: Has this failed, or is that still the goal?
More...
Description:
\"As talks continue in Geneva, we\'ll continue to strengthen the moderate opposition\" that was what President Barak Obama said while hosting France in a lavish ceremony in Washington, a stance that was shared by France as well. Why does the US continue to think that arming the opposition will lead to a positive outcome, never mind what they call the moderate opposition? In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss the prospects of the Geneva conference, which the Syrian delegation says the focus should be terrorism, not the transitional governing body, and why the prospects of parallel talks between Russia, US and int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi also look to lead no-where.
Guests:
- Journalist & Political Commentator, Richard Millet (LONDON).
- Author & Historian, Webster Griffin Tarpley (WASHINGTON).
Subjects:
1. The US is adamant in its arming of the opposition, the moderate one: Does the US even know who the moderate opposition is, why this persistence, again, making this announcement again during Geneva talks?
2. Another repeated announcement, by the US: the threat of foreign fighters 7,000 of them from some 50 countries, including Europe, with some American, tied to al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, who aspire to attack the United States
3. This piece of news did not make it to major for a variety of reasons: that the intel. Western intelligence agencies have visited Damascus for talks on combating terrorist groups: Faisal Mekdad told state TV BBC that there was a schism between Western security officials and politicians who are pressing President Bashar al-Assad to step down; the growing numbers of foreign terrorists from Europe means there are common concerns
4. On the Geneva negotiations: the divided SNC: today we presented our main document which includes the steps and principles in transitional process: 22 points: formation of transitional governing body, made by the 2 parties...and some other points. The Syrian delegation response: comprehensive document detailing the horrendous deaths by the hands of these foreign backed insurgents: Why such resistance against first rooting out terrorism inside Syria/
5. Parallel talks seemed like a good idea: Originally a Russian proposal, floated again, to originally include Turkey Saudi Arabia and IRan, along with the US and Russia: now narrowed to the US and Russia, with int. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, slated for Friday?
6. Get Iran involved in the peace talks: Increase chances for a solution: Geneva track record obviously proves these talks have failed, except for the evacuation of some civilians trapped in Homs: What\'s the hold-up?
7. Reaction: Syria Media advisor: Botheina Sha\'aban: The West and Israel wanted to change regional balance and power to their own benefit: the outcome of the conflict: a proxy war, with Turkey Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the main supporters of the war under western and US influence: Has this failed, or is that still the goal?
11:00
|
[25 Feb 2014] The Debate - Israeli Apartheid Week (P.1) - English
The Tenth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week has kicked off: an international event that raises awareness about Israel\'s apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and to build support for the growing...
The Tenth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week has kicked off: an international event that raises awareness about Israel\'s apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and to build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss why this event has gained popularity around the world, and why perhaps at no other juncture in time, today Israel has become more isolated than ever before. Does the threat of economic boycotts will affect Israel\'s continued occupation of Palestinian territories? What should be done to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands?
Guests
- Political Commentator, Randy Short (Washington).
- President, Middle East Research Center, Richard Hellman (Washington).
More...
Description:
The Tenth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week has kicked off: an international event that raises awareness about Israel\'s apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and to build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss why this event has gained popularity around the world, and why perhaps at no other juncture in time, today Israel has become more isolated than ever before. Does the threat of economic boycotts will affect Israel\'s continued occupation of Palestinian territories? What should be done to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands?
Guests
- Political Commentator, Randy Short (Washington).
- President, Middle East Research Center, Richard Hellman (Washington).
11:53
|
[25 Feb 2014] The Debate - Israeli Apartheid Week (P.2) - English
The Tenth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week has kicked off: an international event that raises awareness about Israel\'s apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and to build support for the growing...
The Tenth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week has kicked off: an international event that raises awareness about Israel\'s apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and to build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss why this event has gained popularity around the world, and why perhaps at no other juncture in time, today Israel has become more isolated than ever before. Does the threat of economic boycotts will affect Israel\'s continued occupation of Palestinian territories? What should be done to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands?
Guests
- Political Commentator, Randy Short (Washington).
- President, Middle East Research Center, Richard Hellman (Washington).
More...
Description:
The Tenth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week has kicked off: an international event that raises awareness about Israel\'s apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and to build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll discuss why this event has gained popularity around the world, and why perhaps at no other juncture in time, today Israel has become more isolated than ever before. Does the threat of economic boycotts will affect Israel\'s continued occupation of Palestinian territories? What should be done to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands?
Guests
- Political Commentator, Randy Short (Washington).
- President, Middle East Research Center, Richard Hellman (Washington).
3:04
|
2:38
|
[20 March 2016] Líder iraní: EEUU busca restablecer su hegemonía sobre Irán - Spanish
El Líder de la Revolución Islámica de Irán, el ayatolá Seyed Ali Jamenei, ha resaltado que el Gobierno estadounidense busca restablecer su hegemonía sobre Irán.
“Ellos (los...
El Líder de la Revolución Islámica de Irán, el ayatolá Seyed Ali Jamenei, ha resaltado que el Gobierno estadounidense busca restablecer su hegemonía sobre Irán.
“Ellos (los estadounidenses) se están moviendo en esta dirección con el fin de ser capaces de restablecer su hegemonía”, advierte el ayatolá Jamenei, durante un discurso pronunciado este domingo ante una gran multitud de peregrinos en el santuario del Imam Reza (la paz sea con él) en la ciudad de Mashad, noreste de Irán.
El Líder ha hecho hincapié en que la Revolución Islámica de Irán, cuya victoria se registró en 1979, liberó a la nación de las garras profundamente enraizadas de Washington y demostró que los iraníes pudieron hacer frente a EE.UU. La Revolución devolvió el país a sus verdaderos propietarios, agrega.
Antes de la revolución, ha añadido, Washigton saqueaba las riquezas de Irán y el régimen Pahlavi permitió que Irán fuese la principal base del Reino Unido y EE.UU. en la región.
El Líder ha reiterado que la nación iraní no tiene problemas con el pueblo estadounidense, pero el Gobierno de EE.UU. es el enemigo del país persa.
En alusión al acuerdo nuclear logrado entre Irán y el Grupo 5+1 (EE.UU., Francia, el Reino Unido, China y Rusia, más Alemania), conocido como el Plan Integral de Acción Conjunta (JCPOA, por sus siglas en inglés), el ayatolá Jamenei ha indicado que la parte occidental, bajo varios pretextos y engaños, no está cumpliendo a plenitud con sus compromisos como levantar todos los obstáculos a las transacciones bancarias del país persa o descongelar los activos iraníes en el extranjero.
A continuación, el Líder iraní también ha puesto de relieve que no hay garantía de que el sucesor del presidente de EE.UU., Barack Obama, “cumpla con estas obligaciones mínimas”.
\"Los candidatos presidenciales de EE.UU. están compitiendo entre sí para atacar a Irán (…) Esto es (prueba de) enemistad”, ha aseverado.
El ayatolá Jamenei ha afirmado que el secretario estadounidense del Tesoro, Jack Lew, no escatima ningún esfuerzo para impedir que Irán se beneficie de los resultados del JCPOA.
En referencia a la elección del lema económico para el Año Nuevo 1395, “Economía de la resistencia; acción e implementación”, ha dicho que el Occidente buscaba dar a entender a los iraníes que tenían solo dos opciones para escoger: llegar a un acuerdo con EE.UU. o sufrir dificultades económicas.
El ayatolá Jamenei ha alertado que el Occidente pretende adoctrinar a los iraníes y propagar la idea de que deben arrodillarse ante las exigencias de EE.UU. o sufrir las consecuencias.
El Occidente, prosigue, quiere que los iraníes abandonen sus demandas, como la cuestión palestina, y sigan los dictados de Washington.
A continuación, ha advertido de que si no resistimos, el Occidente ampliará gradualmente sus demandas hasta incluso llegar a cuestionar los principios de la República Islámica.
El Líder también ha pedido un aumento en el nivel de productividad en Irán, en particular en el sector de la energía, con el fin, añade, de ahorrar miles de millones de dólares.
¡Suscríbete a HispanTV!
https://www.youtube.com/user/hispantv...
More...
Description:
El Líder de la Revolución Islámica de Irán, el ayatolá Seyed Ali Jamenei, ha resaltado que el Gobierno estadounidense busca restablecer su hegemonía sobre Irán.
“Ellos (los estadounidenses) se están moviendo en esta dirección con el fin de ser capaces de restablecer su hegemonía”, advierte el ayatolá Jamenei, durante un discurso pronunciado este domingo ante una gran multitud de peregrinos en el santuario del Imam Reza (la paz sea con él) en la ciudad de Mashad, noreste de Irán.
El Líder ha hecho hincapié en que la Revolución Islámica de Irán, cuya victoria se registró en 1979, liberó a la nación de las garras profundamente enraizadas de Washington y demostró que los iraníes pudieron hacer frente a EE.UU. La Revolución devolvió el país a sus verdaderos propietarios, agrega.
Antes de la revolución, ha añadido, Washigton saqueaba las riquezas de Irán y el régimen Pahlavi permitió que Irán fuese la principal base del Reino Unido y EE.UU. en la región.
El Líder ha reiterado que la nación iraní no tiene problemas con el pueblo estadounidense, pero el Gobierno de EE.UU. es el enemigo del país persa.
En alusión al acuerdo nuclear logrado entre Irán y el Grupo 5+1 (EE.UU., Francia, el Reino Unido, China y Rusia, más Alemania), conocido como el Plan Integral de Acción Conjunta (JCPOA, por sus siglas en inglés), el ayatolá Jamenei ha indicado que la parte occidental, bajo varios pretextos y engaños, no está cumpliendo a plenitud con sus compromisos como levantar todos los obstáculos a las transacciones bancarias del país persa o descongelar los activos iraníes en el extranjero.
A continuación, el Líder iraní también ha puesto de relieve que no hay garantía de que el sucesor del presidente de EE.UU., Barack Obama, “cumpla con estas obligaciones mínimas”.
\"Los candidatos presidenciales de EE.UU. están compitiendo entre sí para atacar a Irán (…) Esto es (prueba de) enemistad”, ha aseverado.
El ayatolá Jamenei ha afirmado que el secretario estadounidense del Tesoro, Jack Lew, no escatima ningún esfuerzo para impedir que Irán se beneficie de los resultados del JCPOA.
En referencia a la elección del lema económico para el Año Nuevo 1395, “Economía de la resistencia; acción e implementación”, ha dicho que el Occidente buscaba dar a entender a los iraníes que tenían solo dos opciones para escoger: llegar a un acuerdo con EE.UU. o sufrir dificultades económicas.
El ayatolá Jamenei ha alertado que el Occidente pretende adoctrinar a los iraníes y propagar la idea de que deben arrodillarse ante las exigencias de EE.UU. o sufrir las consecuencias.
El Occidente, prosigue, quiere que los iraníes abandonen sus demandas, como la cuestión palestina, y sigan los dictados de Washington.
A continuación, ha advertido de que si no resistimos, el Occidente ampliará gradualmente sus demandas hasta incluso llegar a cuestionar los principios de la República Islámica.
El Líder también ha pedido un aumento en el nivel de productividad en Irán, en particular en el sector de la energía, con el fin, añade, de ahorrar miles de millones de dólares.
¡Suscríbete a HispanTV!
https://www.youtube.com/user/hispantv...
13:56
|
[21 September 2019] US imposes sanctions on Iran\'s central bank: Trump - English
US President Donald Trump has imposed sanctions on Iran\'s central bank in the latest round of Washington’s anti-Iran measures.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump did...
US President Donald Trump has imposed sanctions on Iran\'s central bank in the latest round of Washington’s anti-Iran measures.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump did not provide any other details about the sanctions which came after the Trump administration accused Iran of being responsible of the attacks on two Saudi Aramco oil facilities on Saturday that knocked out more than half the kingdom’s production.
Trump said they are the highest sanctions ever imposed on a foreign country by the United States. He spoke to reporters at the White House in Washington, DC alongside visiting Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Watch Live: http://www.presstv.com/live.html
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PressTV
LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/c/PressTV
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PRESSTV
Instagram: http://instagram.com/presstvchannel
#PressTV #Iran #News
More...
Description:
US President Donald Trump has imposed sanctions on Iran\'s central bank in the latest round of Washington’s anti-Iran measures.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump did not provide any other details about the sanctions which came after the Trump administration accused Iran of being responsible of the attacks on two Saudi Aramco oil facilities on Saturday that knocked out more than half the kingdom’s production.
Trump said they are the highest sanctions ever imposed on a foreign country by the United States. He spoke to reporters at the White House in Washington, DC alongside visiting Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Watch Live: http://www.presstv.com/live.html
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PressTV
LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/c/PressTV
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PRESSTV
Instagram: http://instagram.com/presstvchannel
#PressTV #Iran #News
25:34
|
[05Oct19] Detrás de la Razón: Islamofobia; una de las políticas de odio de - Spanish
En Estados Unidos hay una fuerte tensión hacia los musulmanes. Una postura que se ha incrementado abiertamente en la Administración de Donald Trump.
El inquilino de la Casa Blanca ha puesto...
En Estados Unidos hay una fuerte tensión hacia los musulmanes. Una postura que se ha incrementado abiertamente en la Administración de Donald Trump.
El inquilino de la Casa Blanca ha puesto cuesta arriba el ingreso de ciudadanos de países de mayoría musulmana a territorio estadounidense.
En agosto de 2019, el Departamento de Educación de Estados Unidos amenazó con retirar los fondos a un programa conjunto para estudios sobre Oriente Medio. Acusó a la Universidad de Carolina del Norte y a la Universidad de Duke de utilizar de mala forma los fondos federales y mostrar un sesgo pro-Islam.
Efectos de la islamofobia:
Según el diario estadounidense The Washington Post, Actualmente, el 98 % los musulmanes que solicitan visados tiene respuesta negativa y siguiendo con las cifras el número de visas para musulmanes bajó de 1419 en 2017, a 69 en el periodo 2018-2019.
La estrategia de Washington ha generado que uno de cada cinco ciudadanos, el 22 por ciento de la población, cree que los dueños de negocios y empresas pequeñas en Estados Unidos deben tener permiso para negarse a atender a los musulmanes. Esto fue revelado en un estudio del Instituto Público de Investigación de Religión (PRRI, por sus siglas en ingles) en agosto de este año. Así de claro operan las políticas de odio en EE.UU.
Por: Osvaldo Canales.
El grupo de HispanTV les recuerda a los seguidores de nuestra página en Youtube de que en el caso de que no se suban nuevos vídeos, en 48 horas, esto significa que han bloqueado el acceso de este canal a su cuenta en YouTube. De ser así, haga Clic en el siguiente enlace para obtener nuestra nueva dirección en YouTube:
http://htv.mx/kHn
https://www.hispantv.com
https://www.facebook.com/HispanTV
https://twitter.com/HispanTV
https://www.hispantv.com/distribucion
https://www.hispantv.com/directo
https://vk.com/HispanTV
More...
Description:
En Estados Unidos hay una fuerte tensión hacia los musulmanes. Una postura que se ha incrementado abiertamente en la Administración de Donald Trump.
El inquilino de la Casa Blanca ha puesto cuesta arriba el ingreso de ciudadanos de países de mayoría musulmana a territorio estadounidense.
En agosto de 2019, el Departamento de Educación de Estados Unidos amenazó con retirar los fondos a un programa conjunto para estudios sobre Oriente Medio. Acusó a la Universidad de Carolina del Norte y a la Universidad de Duke de utilizar de mala forma los fondos federales y mostrar un sesgo pro-Islam.
Efectos de la islamofobia:
Según el diario estadounidense The Washington Post, Actualmente, el 98 % los musulmanes que solicitan visados tiene respuesta negativa y siguiendo con las cifras el número de visas para musulmanes bajó de 1419 en 2017, a 69 en el periodo 2018-2019.
La estrategia de Washington ha generado que uno de cada cinco ciudadanos, el 22 por ciento de la población, cree que los dueños de negocios y empresas pequeñas en Estados Unidos deben tener permiso para negarse a atender a los musulmanes. Esto fue revelado en un estudio del Instituto Público de Investigación de Religión (PRRI, por sus siglas en ingles) en agosto de este año. Así de claro operan las políticas de odio en EE.UU.
Por: Osvaldo Canales.
El grupo de HispanTV les recuerda a los seguidores de nuestra página en Youtube de que en el caso de que no se suban nuevos vídeos, en 48 horas, esto significa que han bloqueado el acceso de este canal a su cuenta en YouTube. De ser así, haga Clic en el siguiente enlace para obtener nuestra nueva dirección en YouTube:
http://htv.mx/kHn
https://www.hispantv.com
https://www.facebook.com/HispanTV
https://twitter.com/HispanTV
https://www.hispantv.com/distribucion
https://www.hispantv.com/directo
https://vk.com/HispanTV
55:17
|
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah - Speech - September 29 2020 - Press TV English Voiceover
Nasrallah: Operation underway to revive Daesh, justify US role in Mideast
Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement warns about an operation underway to revive Daesh’s presence in the Middle...
Nasrallah: Operation underway to revive Daesh, justify US role in Mideast
Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement warns about an operation underway to revive Daesh’s presence in the Middle East in order to whip up an excuse for the United States’ continued presence in the region under the guise of fighting the Takfiri terrorist group.
“There exists an operation for revival of Daesh in Iraq and Syria and other areas. Daesh’s revival is aimed at justifying the American forces’ continued presence in the region,” said Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in a televised speech on Tuesday.
Nasrallah, therefore, urged caution and alertness against the plots targeting the region.
Nasrallah said the Takfiri group had managed to rear its head in some regional areas following the US’s assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, former commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), in Baghdad in January.
The US began leading a coalition of its allies in Iraq and Syria in 2014 following the emergence there of the terrorist outfit that Washington itself is widely accused of creating and supporting.
The coalition that featured scores of countries was, however, making suspiciously slow progress against the Takfiris.
Iraq and Syria eventually defeated Daesh in late 2017, with military advisory support under the auspices of General Soleimani proving indispensable to their victory.
The US-led coalition has, however, sustained its presence to date, despite Washington’s occasional claims that it seeks to withdraw its forces.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Hezbollah chief addressed recent remarks to the United Nations Security Council by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the alleged location where the resistance movement supposedly stores its missiles.
Nasrallah asserted that his movement did not store the projectiles in residential areas and invited all media outlets to inspect the location that has been singled out by the Israeli premier.
He, meanwhile, noted that the Israeli forces were on alert near Lebanon’s borders, fearing Hezbollah’s reprisal for Tel Aviv’s assassination of one of the movement’s members in Syria earlier in the year.
Nasrallah said this was the highest level of alert that the occupying regime was experiencing since 1948, when it began claiming existence.
Nasrallah addressed French President Emanuel Macron’s intervention in Lebanon’s politics since the huge ammonium nitrate explosion that killed at least 190 people in the capital Beirut’s port in August.
He pointed to the French head of state’s allegation against Tehran of intervention in Lebanon\'s internal affairs, saying, “Iran is not like France, and does not interfere in Lebanon’s affairs.”
The Hezbollah secretary-general also offered his condolences over the earlier demise of Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah.
He hailed the late ruler’s efforts towards cessation of Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war, Kuwait City’s position under him during Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon, and the emir’s efforts towards the country\'s reconstruction after the latter warfare.
More...
Description:
Nasrallah: Operation underway to revive Daesh, justify US role in Mideast
Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement warns about an operation underway to revive Daesh’s presence in the Middle East in order to whip up an excuse for the United States’ continued presence in the region under the guise of fighting the Takfiri terrorist group.
“There exists an operation for revival of Daesh in Iraq and Syria and other areas. Daesh’s revival is aimed at justifying the American forces’ continued presence in the region,” said Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in a televised speech on Tuesday.
Nasrallah, therefore, urged caution and alertness against the plots targeting the region.
Nasrallah said the Takfiri group had managed to rear its head in some regional areas following the US’s assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, former commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), in Baghdad in January.
The US began leading a coalition of its allies in Iraq and Syria in 2014 following the emergence there of the terrorist outfit that Washington itself is widely accused of creating and supporting.
The coalition that featured scores of countries was, however, making suspiciously slow progress against the Takfiris.
Iraq and Syria eventually defeated Daesh in late 2017, with military advisory support under the auspices of General Soleimani proving indispensable to their victory.
The US-led coalition has, however, sustained its presence to date, despite Washington’s occasional claims that it seeks to withdraw its forces.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Hezbollah chief addressed recent remarks to the United Nations Security Council by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the alleged location where the resistance movement supposedly stores its missiles.
Nasrallah asserted that his movement did not store the projectiles in residential areas and invited all media outlets to inspect the location that has been singled out by the Israeli premier.
He, meanwhile, noted that the Israeli forces were on alert near Lebanon’s borders, fearing Hezbollah’s reprisal for Tel Aviv’s assassination of one of the movement’s members in Syria earlier in the year.
Nasrallah said this was the highest level of alert that the occupying regime was experiencing since 1948, when it began claiming existence.
Nasrallah addressed French President Emanuel Macron’s intervention in Lebanon’s politics since the huge ammonium nitrate explosion that killed at least 190 people in the capital Beirut’s port in August.
He pointed to the French head of state’s allegation against Tehran of intervention in Lebanon\'s internal affairs, saying, “Iran is not like France, and does not interfere in Lebanon’s affairs.”
The Hezbollah secretary-general also offered his condolences over the earlier demise of Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah.
He hailed the late ruler’s efforts towards cessation of Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war, Kuwait City’s position under him during Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon, and the emir’s efforts towards the country\'s reconstruction after the latter warfare.
Video Tags:
nasrallah,
speech,
hezbollah,
resistance,
daesh,
US,
terrorism,
zionist,
lies,
netanyahu,
lebanon
2:36
|
Every breath is tainted - Iraq - Dahlia Wasfi - English
Dr. Dahlia Wasfi was born to a Jewish mother and an Iraqi father. She recently put her medical career on hold to visit with family members in Iraq - and recently returned from a three-month stay in...
Dr. Dahlia Wasfi was born to a Jewish mother and an Iraqi father. She recently put her medical career on hold to visit with family members in Iraq - and recently returned from a three-month stay in Basrah and Baghdad. Dr. Wasfi described her experience in Iraq and discussed the life of Iraqis under occupation on April 27 2006 in Washington DC. Such courage to speak truth to power! Very inspiring!
More...
Description:
Dr. Dahlia Wasfi was born to a Jewish mother and an Iraqi father. She recently put her medical career on hold to visit with family members in Iraq - and recently returned from a three-month stay in Basrah and Baghdad. Dr. Wasfi described her experience in Iraq and discussed the life of Iraqis under occupation on April 27 2006 in Washington DC. Such courage to speak truth to power! Very inspiring!
4:56
|
Iran interferance in Iraq - English
Iran has been accused by Washington of interfering in Iraq from Sahar TV
Iran has been accused by Washington of interfering in Iraq from Sahar TV
911 Debate - Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1 - Eng
September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries...
September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.
More...
Description:
September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.
911 Debate - Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 2 - Eng
September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries...
September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.
More...
Description:
September 11 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites articles books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the governments account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called LOOSE CHANGE. Now a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics. It is called DEBUNKING 911 MYTHS. Democracy Now! hostS a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 911.