Gulf States Urge Militias to Quit Syria, Hail Iran Shift
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
Gulf Arab leaders meeting in Kuwait on Wednesday called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from war-ravaged Syria, and praised Iran's new government for its shift in policy.
The leaders of the six Gulf monarchies also approved the formation of a joint military command, but postponed a decision on a proposed union apparently over differences.
The declaration came at the end of a two-day summit in Kuwait City of the Gulf Cooperation Council led by Sunni-ruled heavyweight Saudi Arabia, the longtime regional arch foe of Shiite-dominated Iran.
Adopting a firm position on Syria, the GCC "strongly condemned the continued genocide that (President Bashar) Assad's regime is committing against the Syrian people using heavy and chemical weapons."
It called "for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria," in a clear reference to Iran-backed Shiite militias from Iraq and Lebanon's Hizbullah which are supporting Assad's troops against Sunni-led rebels.
The GCC backed the rebels' position that Assad play no role in any political transition agreed to in talks scheduled for next month in Geneva, while urging the opposition to attend the meeting.
"Pillars of the Syrian regime whose hands had been stained by the blood of the Syrian people must have no role in the transitional government or Syria's political future," the oil-rich nations said in their closing statement.
The National Coalition, an umbrella opposition group also backed by the West, had agreed to attend next month's Geneva 2 peace conference under certain conditions, the exclusion of Assad from any transitional government.
On Tuesday, Coalition President Ahmad Jarba had urged the GCC "to tell the whole world that the Syrian regime will have no future in the country".
But brushing aside differences with Iran on Syria, the GCC praised the Islamic republic's overtures to Gulf Arab states.
The monarchies "welcome the new orientation by the Iranian leadership towards the Gulf Cooperation Council and hope it will be followed by concrete measures that would positively impact regional peace," said the concluding statement.
They also "welcome the interim deal signed by the P5+1 and Iran as a first step toward an inclusive and lasting agreement on Iran's nuclear program that would end international and regional concerns."
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif moved last week to assure Gulf states the nuclear deal was not at their expense and called for a new page in relations as he toured the region.
The tour followed comments by Iran's new President Hassan Rouhani who, when he took over from hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in August, said he hoped to bolster ties with neighboring countries, especially those in the Gulf.
Like Western powers, Gulf monarchies fear Iran may develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.
Ties between some Gulf states and Iran have also been strained over Tehran's support for Assad and a Shiite-led uprising in Bahrain.
This year's summit, attended only by the rulers of Qatar, Bahrain, and host country Kuwait, is also being staged amid differences over a Saudi proposal in 2011 to upgrade the GCC into a confederation, on which details were never disclosed.
At the weekend, Oman -- which reportedly hosted secret talks that led to the Geneva deal with Tehran -- threatened to pull out of the loose alliance if a union was announced, while Saudi Arabia, solidly backed by Bahrain, has insisted it is time to move ahead.
Wednesday's final statement said briefly that Gulf leaders had directed the ministerial council to "continue consultations" on the matter.
However, the Gulf Arab leaders approved creating a unified military command "as part of efforts aimed at strengthening security and stability" in their countries.
No details were provided on the structure or duties of this command.
The GCC states -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- formed the Peninsula Shield force in 1982 as a 5,000-strong force but has since expanded to more than 30,000 troops.
11 December 2013, 12:25
1526
"calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria"
does that mean they're calling back their wahhabi/salafi/takfiri mercenaries?
11 December 2013, 12:29
1525
To the GCC "foreign" means non-Wahabbi ... They want all non-Wahabbi forces to leave Syria ...
11 December 2013, 14:29
2311
they didn't send anybody, unless u're stupid enough to believe almanar/SANA...
http://www.yalibnan.com/2013/10/30/dont-go-to-syria-to-fight-saudi-grand-mufti-tells-youth/
11 December 2013, 15:16
1219
they released rapists, murderers and drug traffickers from their prison and gave them amnesty if they agreed to go fight in syria. that was in march 2012.
now 18 months later that mufti says this? a bit late and not very convincing
11 December 2013, 16:29
185
'they released rapists, murderers and drug traffickers from their prison and gave them amnesty if they agreed to go fight in syria.'
taqiya and BS is defo 9 tenth of ur posts.
Any proof ? Evidence ?
11 December 2013, 18:04
617
cedre ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.aina.org/news/20130120160624.htm
11 December 2013, 18:43
184
mowaten, this is BS.
Why send rapists when they can send commandos.
They're stopping saudi youth...
11 December 2013, 18:59
421
apparently they tried to kill him
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/109424-saudi-jihadist-jailed-16-years-over-plot-to-kill-top-cleric
note the sentence (40 lashes and a travel ban, for attempted murder!)
as for the leaked document call it BS as much as you want, it's what they're doing. i guess it's cheaper to send prisoners, and they can deny responsibility since it's not from their army. especially when it's foreign prisoners.
11 December 2013, 19:01
417
apparently i missed the 16 year prison sentence.. still a pretty light sentence for a country like saudi where heads roll for just thinking about defying authorities.
11 December 2013, 19:18
517
@ cedre, you wrote, and I quote, "they didn't send anybody, unless u're stupid enough to believe almanar/SANA..."
So if this is an official stand by M14 and Saudi terrorist backers then the following,
1. Abducting bishops.
2. Abducting Nuns,
3. Eating human hearts.
4. Killing who over no observe Shari'a Islam at gun point.
5. Destroying the infrastructure of the country.
were all committed by FSA and local criminals and terrorists.
Based on that, my president, with the support of 99% of True-Syrian, you should eliminate this new culture of savages once and for all.
11 December 2013, 12:44
1214
and the trap is closed on jihadists
president georges bush plan is doing wonders
11 December 2013, 13:19
2112
to the stupid m8 who have not understood yet:
these are the terms of the deal with the US.
hizbushaitan has to withdraw from Syria and be disbanded in Lebanon, otherwise the deal between iran and the world falls short.
live with it :)
11 December 2013, 13:39
1017
hahaha ...
The deal is that the US, EU, Russia and many other countries will not stand for a terrorist state in Syria and that is what will happen if the GCC proxies prevail ... That means the terrorists will have to go.
11 December 2013, 13:40
06
come on Geha... I hate HA as much as anybody.. but to think that Iran will let go of their ace just like that is downright crazy...
if indeed this was part of the deal you would have seen some measures leading up to it.. not the GCC calling for it and HA obliging.. let us be realistic..
11 December 2013, 18:04
174
the US and now England have announced they are stopping their support. this is in accordance with the agreement made with iran.
now iran has to comply too on their part :)
this is happening now :)
if they do not comply the whole deal falls apart for iran.
11 December 2013, 13:43
45
The beliefs of the secular and progresist gardian of the islamic revolution is so better... Nevertheless rouhani seems promissing, we'll have to see...
11 December 2013, 15:15
196
@Southern : "Stone age" retarder wahabi's ? I won't contradict you because you're right. Speaking of "stones", how wonderful is it that Iranians stone women and men to death ? Isn't this the stone age too ? Isn't this retarded also ?
You are the King of Double Standards. In fact, we should update the Wikipedia definition of Double Standard and simply link the page to your profile...
11 December 2013, 15:22
1319
there was a moratorium in 2002 against stoning in iran, and since it hasent been applied.
can i link your profile on the wikipedia definition of "outdated" ?
11 December 2013, 15:44
196
@Mowaten : your comment should be marked as UNTRUE : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/special-report-the-punishment-was-death-by-stoning-the-crime-having-a-mobile-phone-8846585.html
This shows how your 2002 ban was never applied : http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/05/30/Iran-amends-law-on-stoning-for-adultery-.html
Irrespective of the date, the mere fact that they still use "archaic" methods shows they are no more advanced than Saudis when it comes to Human Rights. And don't try and use the "women can drive" stupid argument ...
11 December 2013, 16:07
817
2002 eh, well 11 years isnt enough to change a barbaric stone throwing murderer into a civilized being. the pro khomenei are the same as the head chopping wahabis. however, i recognize not all iranian people fall into this category, while most saudis do.
11 December 2013, 17:22
817
FC: your link about the stoning is in Pakistan. at least read your own articles before posting them.
i maintain what i said.
11 December 2013, 17:30
816
kanaandian: i was answering FC who was saying iranians were stoning people while it has been suspended 11 years ago. i was pointing out he was a bit late.
I personally dont care much how death sentences are carried out, electric chair, hanging, lethal injection, beheading or stoning. very little difference.
what i care about is why they are applied. i think it's unacceptable for adultery, blasphemy and things like that NO MATTER WHERE. whereas for sadistic murderers, pedophiles, rapists and the like i dont care if they rot in jail or are put to death. as long as they're taken out of the streets.
11 December 2013, 17:45
166
Yes you're right. I copied the wrong link.
And the second link shows stoning is still applicable in Iran... maintain what you said. Hide your head in the ground. Fine by me. This doesn't make it any truer. There was stonings in 2013 !!!
Now I love your point about "why death sentences are applied" rather than "how". Any research will show you Iranians can sentence men and women to death for reasons as stupid as "looking at another man" or "suspicion of...". THis is your stone age patron no more advanced than Saudi Arabia.
11 December 2013, 17:51
166
@Southern : don't you dare talk about the rights of women in Iran. Or the rights of Shiite women in Lebanon after the Iranian Islamist doctrine was imported to Lebanon. (No Comment on Saudi and Sunni extemists as they are indeed worst).
Just because they can drive doesn't mean they have more rights ! They are still treated as second class citizens. You have nothing to pride yourself with !
Look at Shiite women anytime before the Iranian revolution. They had infinitely more rights and freedoms than today.
At least they weren't veiled ! Unveil your women and then we can talk about how you respect their rights.
And by the way, there is no such thing as the "rights of women" vs "men". Human beings have the same rights!
11 December 2013, 19:05
618
anonyme: the guy saying women not wearing niqab caused earthquakes is as moronic as the US pastor who said gays caused hurricane katrina or smtg like this..
iran is certainly conservative and backward to a certain extent, but to compare it to saudi is a clear sign that you have no idea what you're talking about.
11 December 2013, 19:09
155
@SOuthern :
"the work force of women is higher than men within HA party"
1- This has nothing to do with Human Rights
2- A political party is NOT an employer ! This shows you know nothing about the economy. if you spend your funds on building companies rather than war, you would be the #1 economical force in Lebanon !
3- Your workforce numbers does not include your fighters. This is where all the men are.
4- Giving "jobs" to women doesn't mean you treat them equally. Nothing to be proud of. Saudis also employ women ...
11 December 2013, 19:16
153
@Southern :
How about you tell me if "Hezbollah" women can go out on dates with men before marrying them? Can drink alcohol without repercussions? Can study abroad ? Can move out of home before getting married ?
Who gets to keep the children in a divorce ? How is the inheritance shared between female and male heirs (better than sunnis for sure). Not equally!
How do you consider and treat women who aren't veiled ?
Why did Hezbollah women start wearing the veil ? By pressure or conviction ? They weren't wearing them before HA came along... and they were not committing more sins either.
Why "Mot3a" when sex is free ? God won't mind, he knows all, sees all and forgives all so why do you need to sign a contract with a Sheikh (Charlatan just like priests)?
Are women free to choose who to marry ?
11 December 2013, 15:56
178
Ok were biased please leave and go to an Al Manar forum where everyone will agree with you...
11 December 2013, 16:21
166
Ok ill learn to spell biased before I give "advise",my advice is use a spell checker, heres some more advice it's time you decided if youre an Iranian/Syrian second class citizen or a Lebanese citizen who puts his country first.
11 December 2013, 16:09
716
ah, they are trying to play a trick. thinking that hezbollah and khomenei fighters will go home, while their mujahideen terrorist wahabis can then have a free realm- very berry clever.
11 December 2013, 17:39
165
But it's spelt advice!!!!! Dont tell me you want to change the facts with dictionary as well, Biased is spelt biased, how else is it spelt?
And please dont "condemn" me'
Rofl...
13 December 2013, 12:37
80
@Mowaten: Irrefutable proof that women in Iran cause earthquakes: http://www.theglobaledition.com/iranian-women-to-ahmadinejad-step-down-or-we-will-unleash-our-earthquake-machine/
But besides that, I do concur that Saudi has a far, far worse record on Women's Rights. From the same über-reliable source: http://www.theglobaledition.com/saudi-arabia-allows-women-to-ride-unicycles/
