Matthew J. Nasuti

U.S. Service Members Killed in Afghan Suicide Bomb Attack:
US soliders, right, carry a body from the site of a suicide car
bomber in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Ahmad Jamshid/AP Photo)

Victory usually goes to the side with the highest dedication. Unfortunately for NATO, that side is the Taliban and al-Qaeda. If one dispenses with all the propaganda, the use of suicide attackers, whether they be bombers or insider turncoats, has objectively been a stunning success. The reality is that an opponent who is willing to die for his or her cause has a significant tactical advantage over a foreign army consisting of troops whose main priority is to survive their war zone tours.

NATO seems befuddled not only by its inability to counter the suicide attacker, but by its failure or refusal to even comprehend its foe. As a result NATO spokespersons revert back to a tired and discredited theme that suicide attackers are uneducated religious fanatics brainwashed in Madrassa schools in Pakistan by unscrupulous mullahs. The truth is that most suicide attackers are educated and apparently consider themselves dedicated patriots combating a foreign invader with the only weapon they have, which is themselves.

Two weeks ago it was announced that Tahir Ashrafi, the leader of the Pakistan Ulema (religious) Council, had formally endorsed the use of suicide bombers against American and NATO forces. He adopted the Taliban saying that, “suicide bombers are the atomic weapons of Muslims.” This ruling emphasizes that the suicide attackers represent mainstream Islam. It is the same with Christianity. In the Book of Judges 16:30, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines” and he proceeded to pull down a Philistine temple on himself and on the Philistine rulers. Samson is a hero of the Bible.

One of the difficulties that these attackers present to the West is that the most dedicated and courageous fighters seem to be on the other side. Just as with the Vietnam War, the enemy is dedicated to victory at all cost, while Afghan security forces seem less so.

More »

Stephen Lendman

High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay (left) and
President of the Human Rights Council Remigiusz A. Henczel
at the High-Level Segment of the Council. (UN Photo/Martin)

In 1945, the UN was established:

• "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war;
• reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights;
• (support) equal rights of men and women....of nations large and small;
• establish conditions under which justice....can be maintained;
• promote social progress;
• practice tolerance and live in peace; and
• (promote) economic and social advancement of all peoples."

It failed on all counts. It's largely a US imperial tool. It's been so from inception. With few exceptions, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) marches in lockstep with Washington. It does so shamelessly. Poland's Remigiusz Henczel serves as president. America's waging hot war on Syria. It does so politically, economically and other ways against Iran. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon aides and abets Washington's agenda. So does the Human Rights Council. Former Maldivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ahmed Shaheed, serves as Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran. He does so dishonorably. He takes State Department blood money.

More »

Kourosh Ziabari

Interview* with public policy scholar Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Kourosh Ziabari – Sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States and its allies are “immoral and illegal – and cowardly”, public policy scholar and researcher Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich says.

Sepahpour-Ulrich, who has a Master’s in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication, made the remarks during an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times this week.

“I believe that there should be no mistake about the reality that sanctions are warfare without the military involvement,” she added.

Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy. Her articles have been published by several online publications.

Following is the text of Sepahpour-Ulrich’s interview with the Tehran Times.

More »