PDA

View Full Version : Iran tests 2 stage missile "Sejil"



Aryajet
12 Nov 08,, 20:08
Mr. President elect, you turn a cold shoulder to my congratulatory letter and I test you with a new (?) weapon.:(


Iran test-fired what it claimed was a new generation of long-range missiles this morning, state media reported, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to "crush" the nation's enemies.

Iran's Defence Minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, said the Sejil missile had "extremely high capabilities" but affirmed that "it will not be used against any country." He added that the test "has nothing to do with the latest regional and international developments".

This could be taken as a reference to Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election. Mr Ahmadinejad sent a message of congratulation to Mr Obama on the result, a gesture unprecedented in 30-year history of the Islamic republic. Mr Obama's response was non-committal.

The latest tests are sign of the urgency of the problem which will face Mr Obama, with analysts predicting that the worst case scenario would see Iran completing a nuclear weapon within months of his inauguration in January.
Iran denies that its nuclear programme aims at producing a bomb. There has been persistent speculation that the US or Israel might launch airstrikes against sites it suspects are part of a covert weapons programme.

Iranian state television today showed footage of the launch of a missile similar in size to Iran's existing Shahab-3 missile. "This is a two-stage missile carrying two engines with combined solid fuel," Mr Najjad said.
A second stage could increase the missile's range, and Mr Najjar said it had a range of 2,000km (1,200 miles), which would enable it to reach Israel and US bases in the Middle East. The Shahab-3 has a range of 1,200km. Solid fuel could also make the new missile more accurate than the Shahab-3, which is thought to use liquid fuel.

However, Iran's claims about its missile capabilities are often met with scepticism by western analysts. In July it test-fired nine missiles, including one also claimed to have a 2,000km range. Western experts suggested that this weapon did not have a second stage and was in fact identical to the Shahab-3. More embarrassingly, Tehran was caught altering an image of the launches to cover up the failure of one missile to fire.

In a speech coinciding with the launch, Mr Ahmadinejad told a televised rally in the northern province of Mazandaran that Iran would defeat its enemies. “The Iranian nation defends its honour and whichever power that wants to stand against the movement of the Iranian nation, the Iranian nation will crush it under its foot and slap it on the mouth,” he said.

Although he often uses such language, the words contrasted with the conciliatory tone he used to Mr Obama, reminding him that "opportunities that are bestowed up humans are shortlived." Yesteday Mohamed Elbaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Authority, expressed hope that the new president could prompt Tehran to work with the international community.

"If there is a direct dialogue between the United States and Iran, I think Iran will be more forthcoming with the agency," he told a news conference in Prague.

While saying that a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable", Mr Obama has said he would meet Mr Ahmedinejad and would engage in "tough, direct diplomacy".


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5138413.ece

Ironduke
12 Nov 08,, 20:30
According to the Pentagon, the missile failed 200 miles into flight with an engine failure.

Aryajet
12 Nov 08,, 22:49
According to the Pentagon, the missile failed 200 miles into flight with an engine failure.

Ironduke,
I don't know which test Pentagon is talking about, there was a test conducted last July in which short time after flight the second stage engine failed to fire but news sources state this test was conducted today (Nov. 12 .08).

captain
20 May 09,, 14:55
How to win friends and influence people.:rolleyes:

Ahmedinejad seems determined to keep prodding just to see if he will end up with his arm bitten off, election stunt or not.
Same rehtoric as last November.

Sejil Mk2


Iran tests missile as election race starts
Wed May 20, 2009 7:51am EDT By Zahra Hosseinian and Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran launched a missile with a range of close to 2,000 km (1,200 miles) on Wednesday and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Islamic state could send any attacker "to hell," official media reported.

The stated range of the surface-to-surface Sejil 2 missile would be almost as far as another Iranian missile, Shahab 3, and analysts say such weaponry could put Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf within reach.

Ahmadinejad announced the launch in a speech on the same day that a powerful clerical watchdog body signaled the official start of campaigning for next month's presidential election by approving him and three rivals as candidates.

The hardline president's main challengers in the June 12 election are moderates advocating detente with the West.

But a Western military expert saw Wednesday's missile launch as Iran's response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week, during which he has underscored the Jewish state's worries about Iran.

"Every time they do it, it is in response to a particular event," Andrew Brookes, of the International Institute of Strategic Studies think-tank in London, said of Iran's latest display of its arms capability.

The launch is likely to arouse further concern in the West and Israel about Iran's military ambitions. The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs. Tehran denies the charge.

"The Sejil 2 missile, which has an advanced technology, was launched today ... and it landed exactly on the target," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"PLAYING WITH FIRE"

Ahmadinejad was speaking during a rally in the northern Semnan province, where IRNA said the launch took place. State television said it was a test and showed footage of a missile soaring into the sky, leaving a vapor trail.

U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking rapprochement with Iran after three decades of mutual hostility. But, like his predecessor George W. Bush, he has not ruled out military action if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the nuclear row.

Israeli leaders have raised U.S. concern by hinting at pre-emptive strikes if they decide diplomacy has failed. Israel is widely assumed to be the only Middle Eastern nuclear power.

Iran has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests and America's ally Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil supplies.

Ahmadinejad said Iran had the power to "send to hell" any military base from where "a bullet" was fired against it.

He singled out Israel, which Iran refers to as the Zionist regime and does not recognize: "Right now the Zionist regime ... threatens Iran militarily with its false threats and the Iranian nation should know that it is just theater."

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said Iran was able to reach Europe as well his country: "If anyone had any doubt, now it's clear to all that Iran is playing with fire."

Brookes said Iran's missiles were "perfectly good enough to go and cause a problem to Israel" or elsewhere in the region.

Iran previously test-fired a Sejil missile last November, describing it then as a new generation of surface-to-surface missile. Washington said at the time that the test highlighted the need for a missile defense system it plans to base in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter threats from "rogue states."

The Obama administration is reviewing the missile shield project for cost effectiveness and viability, though he has said Washington would continue to research and develop the plans.

Source:Iran tests missile as election race starts | International | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54J26N20090520)

Claimed vid of test.

h7FrczemJjE

Cheers.

Steezy
20 May 09,, 16:16
I can see them using it on Israel, only after Israel somehow manage to find a way to attack Iran on its own, thus igniting a larger war

Personally I don't think Israel or Iran are silly enough to actually start a conflict, I can't see Israel actually going ahead and attacking Iran in the near future, and any unprovoked attack on Israel by Iran would 100% bring the US into the conflict

Dreadnought
20 May 09,, 17:20
I certainly wouldnt call it "balls" IMO, more like stupidity threatening a nuclear armed Israel election or no election especially while the clock still ticks.;)

Dreadnought
20 May 09,, 18:23
I can see them using it on Israel, only after Israel somehow manage to find a way to attack Iran on its own, thus igniting a larger war

Personally I don't think Israel or Iran are silly enough to actually start a conflict, I can't see Israel actually going ahead and attacking Iran in the near future, and any unprovoked attack on Israel by Iran would 100% bring the US into the conflict

*Nobody forsaw Israel going after Syrias reactor either until it was the day after and the world learned that Syria was actually building one, no doubt with either one or two other countries help. It was meant to send a message to her foes and unfortunately Iran hasn't realized it just yet judging by this article.;)

zraver
20 May 09,, 20:20
*Nobody forsaw Israel going after Syrias reactor either until it was the day after and the world learned that Syria was actually building one, no doubt with either one or two other countries help. It was meant to send a message to her foes and unfortunately Iran hasn't realized it just yet judging by this article.;)

Israel might be able to reach some Iranian sites and shoot down some Iranian missiles. Iran can reach Israel and some missiles will get through. If the Israeli attack fails and their arrow system fails then Israel loses. I don't see them being willing to risk it.

Dreadnought
20 May 09,, 21:47
Israel might be able to reach some Iranian sites and shoot down some Iranian missiles. Iran can reach Israel and some missiles will get through. If the Israeli attack fails and their arrow system fails then Israel loses. I don't see them being willing to risk it.

Well Z, Then the question becomes does Israel take Iran serious enough to take that risk. They took it with Syria which has always been a foe and Iran has more sinister intentions then Syria ever announced and are very bold and blatant about it. What would happen to Achmadinijad if Israel did attack and destroy the reactors? Do you think he would be re-elected knowing that his rhetoric provoked Israel into acting?

Castellano
20 May 09,, 22:05
There are no elections in Iran, it's a farce.

A-jad will win, it's predetermined.

And the clock keeps ticking...

Castellano
20 May 09,, 22:08
Personally I don't think Israel or Iran are silly enough to actually start a conflict, I can't see Israel actually going ahead and attacking Iran in the near future, and any unprovoked attack on Israel by Iran would 100% bring the US into the conflict


What are you talking about?

Iran is ALREADY attacking Israel through Hamas & Hezbollah.

Castellano
20 May 09,, 22:23
Another thing: while the Iranians have resorted to their usual tactics of virulent anti-Israel histrionics to frame the issue as if only Israel was threatened by the new missile, the fact is that Europe is threatened by it too.

Hey!! peerless European leaders...'til when are we gonna have permission to publish Mohamed cartoons?

If you are appeasing this despicable crew now, what would you not do to appease them when they get nukes?

Eh cowards?

crazy_bandit
21 May 09,, 00:13
well they are improving daily, Iran's military power is growing but nothing for the economy. Westerners get scared with Iran's military ambitions but Iran can't start a war for the simple reason that they have no economical foundation to support the army.

Red Seven
21 May 09,, 20:57
What are you talking about?

Iran is ALREADY attacking Israel through Hamas & Hezbollah.


Very true. These are proxy militias of Iran.

And I can envision Israel preemtively turning a hundred or so preselected Iranian targets into smoking holes. Push the Israelis hard enough and long enough and you'll get a reaction. Iran is indeed playing with fire.

Traxus
23 May 09,, 17:16
There are no elections in Iran, it's a farce.

A-jad will win, it's predetermined.

And the clock keeps ticking...

Their elections are not the fairest in the world, but reformists have been elected before.

Optimus
23 May 09,, 21:20
IMO The West suffers from a collective guilt conscience in their poor treatment of the Jews in previous decades and thus are prepared to overlook the excesses the State of Israel engage in.
If this missile that Iran has tested strengthens the Iranian bargaining position, then good. Its about time the West had it stuck to them considering the misery inflicted upon Iran.eg. overthrowing a democratically elected govt in the 50,s and installing a destested by Western Leaning Shah, and supporting Saddam in its war against them.
Its a pity India is proving to be a fair weather friend towards Iran, considering the obstacles the West has placed in Indias way in the past.
Many academics from prestigious university's have proven that A-jads rants about wanting to destroy Israel have been taken out of context (IMO deliberately by the Hawks in western Administrations)

Optimus
23 May 09,, 21:37
There are no elections in Iran, it's a farce.

A-jad will win, it's predetermined.

SO WHAT ? Elections in the West are no better. In most circumstances the elections in the west are a farce as well. in that the general electorate does not get to select the candidates, only party members do that.
In Australia it is compulsory to vote,one can be prosecuted possibly jailed if one does comply with imposed penalty. So much for human rights and freedom of choice.

Optimus
23 May 09,, 22:46
What are you talking about?

Iran is ALREADY attacking Israel through Hamas & Hezbollah.

It all depends who did what to who first, The West have been meddling in Iran long before the the State of Israel was created and still do with American co-vert ops into Iran to help destabilize the country
So they cant be blamed for wanting to retaliate.

The west only bring the threat upon themselves, by continuing to meddle in affairs that don't concern them.

captain
24 May 09,, 00:27
SO WHAT ? Elections in the West are no better. In most circumstances the elections in the west are a farce as well. in that the general electorate does not get to select the candidates, only party members do that..

Rubbish!
Anyone can stand for election, either as an independant or representing a particular party.
Wether or not an individual stands for election is their choice and wether or not they get elected is the choice of the electorate.


In Australia it is compulsory to vote,one can be prosecuted possibly jailed if one does comply with imposed penalty. So much for human rights and freedom of choice.

Yes it is compulsory to vote but I can not recall anyone ever being jailed for not voting.
Those that are determined not to make their vote count and are not terribly bright just vote informally.

To attach "human rights" to the issue of compulsory voting the way you have sounds like something from the lunatic fringe anarchist's hand book. :rolleyes:

How would you react if like Iran, a central comittee decided to reject hundreds of nominees in favour of just three of four that the comittee aproved of?

captain
24 May 09,, 01:23
It all depends who did what to who first, The West have been meddling in Iran long before the the State of Israel was created and still do with American cavort ops into Iran to help destabilize the country
So they cant be blamed for wanting to retaliate.

The west only bring the threat upon themselves, by continuing to meddle in affairs that don't concern them.

One would think that Americans or anyone else from the evil west that were cavorting around Iran would be noticed.

Threats to wipe others off the map do come to the notice of others, and do invite a reaction, and are most certainly the concern of the west, and everyone else on the planet when those who threaten are theocratic fatalists who maybe developing neuclear bombs.

I guess we could turn a blind eye to that or perhaps offer cash aid/bribes/infidel tax in order to keep everyone safe.

What's your solution and how?

Optimus
24 May 09,, 02:20
Rubbish!
Anyone can stand for election, either as an independant or representing a particular party.
Wether or not an individual stands for election is their choice and wether or not they get elected is the choice of the electorate.



Yes it is compulsory to vote but I can not recall anyone ever being jailed for not voting.
Those that are determined not to make their vote count and are not terribly bright just vote informally.

To attach "human rights" to the issue of compulsory voting the way you have sounds like something from the lunatic fringe anarchist's hand book. :rolleyes:

How would you react if like Iran, a central comittee decided to reject hundreds of nominees in favour of just three of four that the comittee aproved of?
No big deal. In the end its not a hell a lot different when aspiring candidates get rejected by the political party they wish to stand for. Standing as a independent isn't really the answer (in most instances its only a feel good solution)


Correct no ones been jailed but as i said you can be if one doesnt pay the fine if one is prosecuted for not voting..
That's why I always vote for Mickey Mouse when confronted with the situation.

Human Rights gaurantees freedom of choice, and that is abused when making it compulsory to vote.(and possibly jailed)Even the USA won't sink that low.In fact I cant see them allowing such a law to be passed.

Optimus
24 May 09,, 03:26
One would think that Americans or anyone else from the evil west that were cavorting around Iran would be noticed.

Threats to wipe others off the map do come to the notice of others, and do invite a reaction, and are most certainly the concern of the west, and everyone else on the planet when those who threaten are theocratic fatalists who maybe developing neuclear bombs.

I guess we could turn a blind eye to that or perhaps offer cash aid/bribes/infidel tax in order to keep everyone safe.

What's your solution and how?

1/Americans running operations in Iran has been acknowledged by the Administration itself.. They actually make no secret of it, and episodes are often printed in the weeklys. In fact it was Newsweek who reported the fact that the Americans were being frugal with the truth about the presence of the American Cruiser Vincennes (or what ever) and what it was actually doing when the Iranian airliner was downed.

2/As I said in my earlier posting A-jads speech as explained by the academics was deliberately taken out of context, they were basically figures of speech and not to be construed literally. That having been said, A-jad is a motor mouth, who needs to engage his brain before opening his mouth.

3/Basically I don't care if Iran have the bomb because I cant see them using it. When it comes to nuclear weaponry, perhaps we have the Americans to blame for that. By demonstrating its power with its use over Japan, they turned it into a must have weapon.

4/ I do not believe in military campaigns for regime change and all the other BS that goes with it and we should stay out of the Middle East and Central Asia,as this trouble has come about with us invading their space Look at the encroachment Nato has made into Russias backyard despite promises to the contrary.Meanwhile we should not be pandering to the Muslims who by good fortune are living in the West.

captain
24 May 09,, 03:59
No big deal. In the end its not a hell a lot different when aspiring candidates get rejected by the political party they wish to stand for. Standing as a independent isn't really the answer (in most instances its only a feel good solution)

I got news for you!
Political parties in a democracy, do and will always select (elect) the person from within their ranks whom they think has the best chance of appealing to the majority of the electorate.
Sort of similar to a football team that elects a captain from within the team.
Does your problem exist because the team did not elect you?


That's why I always vote for Mickey Mouse when confronted with the situation.

Have you ever been fined or "threatened with jail" for voting for Mickey Mouse?
BTW you have just confirmed my opinion about those that vote informally. :))


Human Rights gaurantees freedom of choice, and that is abused when making it compulsory to vote.(and possibly jailed)Even the USA won't sink that low.In fact I cant see them allowing such a law to be passed.

Austalians have a freedom of choice and the only way your whinge about human rights would get any traction would be if their right to vote for whomever you wish or informally was taken away.

It's nice to know that in your opinion, Australia and the USA reside at the bottom of the human rights cess pool.
Can I assume you would never wish to live in such countries?

This thread is about Iranian missiles so back to topic is a good idea I think.

Optimus
24 May 09,, 10:26
Yes it is better to get back on topic but I just want to clarify a couple of matters>

I misspelt a word I meant covert not cavort

One sub standard act does not make a country a human rights cesspool and yes I actually live in Brisbane.

I only mentioned America in passing as a contrast when they introduced some regulations after the TT attack and to which some have suggested was an infringement on their rights.

Something must be terribly wrong with the democratic process in Australia if its made a legal requirement to vote. Even America which until recently, has had very poor participation resists passing such a draconian requirement.

chakos
24 May 09,, 14:06
Yes it is better to get back on topic but I just want to clarify a couple of matters>

I misspelt a word I meant covert not cavort

One sub standard act does not make a country a human rights cesspool and yes I actually live in Brisbane.

I only mentioned America in passing as a contrast when they introduced some regulations after the TT attack and to which some have suggested was an infringement on their rights.

Something must be terribly wrong with the democratic process in Australia if its made a legal requirement to vote. Even America which until recently, has had very poor participation resists passing such a draconian requirement.


Slightly off topic but one of the main reasons Australia has compulsory voting is the following; In countries that have non-compulsory voting such as the US each party is forced to cater to its fringe members in order to convince them to vote for them.

Basically the extreme left/right may never vote for the other side but if the policies of their respective parties do not cater to their extremism then they can simply stay home and not vote at all. This forms strange situations like in the US with the selection of Palin as the VP running mate. The world looked at her and shook their heads but she was required to get the christian conservatives to come to the ballots.

Had the US had compulsory voting the Republicans would have automatically assumed the far right would vote for them (or they could waste their vote on a party with no chance of getting elected) because voting Democrat wouldnt happen in a cold day in hell. They then could have structured their campaign to the center and actually had a better than even chance of winning.

As long as the political system forces parties to cater to the whims of their most extreme members then the system is flawed. As much as i think compulsory voting is a royal pain in the arse (i consider my Saturdays valuable sleep in and do nothing time) i still see the benefits of the system.

axeman
24 May 09,, 16:24
I certainly wouldnt call it "balls" IMO, more like stupidity threatening a nuclear armed Israel election or no election especially while the clock still ticks.;)

Perhaps it is meant to deter, not threaten.



And I can envision Israel preemtively turning a hundred or so preselected Iranian targets into smoking holes. Push the Israelis hard enough and long enough and you'll get a reaction. Iran is indeed playing with fire.

.....and the Iranians will do nothing after getting hit ? Don't count on it. If Bush/Obama/Israeli Pres were sure of it, Iran would have been attacked a long time ago.


It all depends who did what to who first, The West have been meddling in Iran long before the the State of Israel was created and still do with American co-vert ops into Iran to help destabilize the country
So they cant be blamed for wanting to retaliate.

The west only bring the threat upon themselves, by continuing to meddle in affairs that don't concern them.

Load of bullshit. There is no justification for sponsoring terrorism.

Optimus
24 May 09,, 19:00
Load of bullshit. There is no justification for sponsoring terrorism.

1/ The word terrorist is often loosely applied and with double standards.Why is it when a person is helping the West in its covert activities he's known as a Freedom fighter but a person on the opposite side is called a terrorist.

2/Why don't you tell that to the Americans theyve done it all the time from Central America,Tibet/CIA in the 60's 70's to name a few. What do you think American Co-vert excursions into Iran to train disident groups on explosives and disruptive techniques are all about. These activities often made public by the administration.

3/ Israel was founded through terrorist activities eg THE STERN GANG. Yitzhak Shamir a senior member who organised the assassination of UN mediator Count Bernadotte went on to become a Prime Minister And what do you call their periodic destructive excursions into Palestine, Sunday school picnics?

4/Dont forget India plays host to the Tibetean Exiles and amongst them is the Tibetean Youth Wing, the of which the leader has often spoke of his willingness to indulge in terrorism to achieve his aims. Giving them refuge is as good as giving aid eg Taleban relationship with the AQ in the early years.

axeman
24 May 09,, 19:55
1/ The word terrorist is often loosely applied and with double standards.Why is it when a person is helping the West in its covert activities he's known as a Freedom fighter but a person on the opposite side is called a terrorist.

The West has double standards.


4/Dont forget India plays host to the Tibetean Exiles and amongst them is the Tibetean Youth Wing, the of which the leader has often spoke of using terrorist activities to achieve their aim. Giving them refuge is as good as giving aid eg Taleban relationship with the AQ in the early years.

So..you think the Tibetans we host are terrorists. :rolleyes: First time I have heard of it. Care to provide a link (perferably not a Chinese propaganda site) ?

Castellano
25 May 09,, 20:51
I just want to say that when people say things like "Netherlands democracy is no better than Iran's theocracy"...and such...

First of all it is obviously not true.

But also, it is an insult to all the people who made great sacrifices, including their own lives, to make possible things like Democracy or Human Rights.

We can and should criticize formal freedoms' shortcomings and whatnot, but let's not loose sight of the big picture: if a system like the 'west' is not perfect, that doesn't necessarily mean is not good.

So these kind of claims originating in moral relativists and others, should not go unchallenged, lest we ungratefully forget all the sacrifices made.

Aryajet
25 May 09,, 20:59
1/ The word terrorist is often loosely applied and with double standards.Why is it when a person is helping the West in its covert activities he's known as a Freedom fighter but a person on the opposite side is called a terrorist.
People defending their homeland against foreign occuping forces have always been and will be called Freedom Fighters.
But when people start blowing up Pizza parlors, crowded public transportation vehicles, fly airliners through buildings and crowded food markets then they are called terrorists.

Tronic
26 May 09,, 05:15
4/Dont forget India plays host to the Tibetean Exiles and amongst them is the Tibetean Youth Wing, the of which the leader has often spoke of his willingness to indulge in terrorism to achieve his aims. Giving them refuge is as good as giving aid eg Taleban relationship with the AQ in the early years.

Terrorism what? As far as I know, they had showed frustration at the Dalai Lama and wished to engage the Chinese in a guerrilla war; but you forgot to note the reason they haven't, and that is because their ideology remains largely pacifist. Also, the only Tibetan group trained to fight the Chinese is part of the Indian armed forces and has been largely out of that fight for decades.

Tronic
26 May 09,, 05:19
Hey!! peerless European leaders...'til when are we gonna have permission to publish Mohamed cartoons?

What good will that bring?

Officer of Engineers
26 May 09,, 06:57
Terrorism what? As far as I know, they had showed frustration at the Dalai Lama and wished to engage the Chinese in a guerrilla war; but you forgot to note the reason they haven't, and that is because their ideology remains largely pacifist. Also, the only Tibetan group trained to fight the Chinese is part of the Indian armed forces and has been largely out of that fight for decades.The 1959-74 Tibetan Insurgency?

axeman
26 May 09,, 17:35
The 1959-74 Tibetan Insurgency?

CIA operating from India. Whether or not we had the knowledge of their operating is another thing.

Tronic
26 May 09,, 17:54
The 1959-74 Tibetan Insurgency?

Sir, was referring to the current ideology/strategy taken up by the Dalai Lama. Also sir, the Tibetan insurgency was as much terrorism as the Afghani resistance to the Soviets.

Tronic
26 May 09,, 17:55
CIA operating from India. Whether or not we had the knowledge of their operating is another thing.

We had knowledge. IIRC, CIA helped train the first Indo-Tibetan units. Think even the SFF was initially trained by the CIA.

Officer of Engineers
26 May 09,, 18:28
Sir, was referring to the current ideology/strategy taken up by the Dalai Lama. Also sir, the Tibetan insurgency was as much terrorism as the Afghani resistance to the Soviets.Any insurgency is a civil war and that is the ugliest type of war you can get. Remember the time period, the GPCR, and the Tibetan Red Guards (and they were Tibetans, not Han Chinese) were on the rampage. Terror was practiced on both sides.

Castellano
26 May 09,, 19:15
What good will that bring?

Free speech is not about being edifying, it's about being free.

Otherwise, and by the same token, since the Koran or other religious texts have nasty things to say about unbelievers...let's just ban those books, right?...It's absurd.

Mind you, in my critique of the European leadership I'm merely pointing to one of the certain political targets, should that theocracy get hold of nukes; but the example has the virtue of going to the core of what is at stake.

Never mind the ongoing conflict with Israel that could go really wrong, terrorism, a nuke race in the ME, the collapse of NPT etc...