Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Considering a war with Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
    As difficult as this might be for you to believe, Ahmadinejad has no problems with Jews. There are around 25,000 Jews living in Tehran quite happily, and Ahmadinejad's office recently gave a sizable donation to a Jewish hospital. I suggest his problem with Zionists in Israel does not revolve around religion.
    Discrimination
    Like other religious minorities in Iran, Jews suffer from officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and housing. According to the U.S. Department of State, Jews may not occupy senior positions in the government or the military and are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and from becoming public school heads.[34]
    The anti‑Israel policies of the Iranian government, along with a perception among radical Muslims that all Jewish citizens support the State of Israel, create a hostile atmosphere for the Jewish community. In 2004, many Iranian newspapers noted the one-hundredth anniversary of the publishing of the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[34] Jews often are the target of degrading caricatures in the Iranian press.[citation needed] Jewish leaders reportedly are reluctant to draw attention to official mistreatment of their community due to fear of government reprisal.[34]
    However in a rather unprecedented move, the sole Jewish member in the Iranian parliament, Maurice Motamed, strongly condemned exhibition of cartoons about the Holocaust which recently took place in Tehran and he has also written a letter to Iran’s president questioning his denial of Holocaust calling it "a very big insult to Jews all around the world."[14]
    The legal system also discriminates against religious minorities who receive lower awards than Muslims in injury and death lawsuits and incur heavier punishments. In 2002, the law was passed that made the amount of "blood money" (diyeh) paid by a perpetrator for killing or wounding a Christian, Jew, or Zoroastrian man the same as it would be for killing or wounding a Muslim.[34]


    Former president Khatami visits a Tehran Jewish center.
    With some exceptions, there is little restriction of or interference with the Jewish religious practice; however, education of Jewish children has become more difficult in recent years. The Iranian government reportedly allows Hebrew instruction, recognizing that it is necessary for Jewish religious practice. However, it strongly discourages the distribution of Hebrew texts, in practice making it difficult to teach the language. Moreover, the Iranian government has required that several Jewish schools remain open on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath, in conformity with the schedule of other schools in the school system. Since working or attending school on the Sabbath violates Jewish law, this requirement has made it impossible for observant Jews both to attend school and adhere to a fundamental tenet of their religion.[34]
    Though alcohol is illegal in Iran, a special legal provision allows Jews to make and use wine for Sabbath celebrations, according to an unconfirmed source.
    Jewish citizens are permitted to obtain passports and to travel outside the country, but they often are denied the multiple-exit permits normally issued to other citizens. With the exception of certain business travelers, the authorities require Jewish persons to obtain clearance and pay additional fees before each trip abroad. The Iranian government is concerned about the emigration of Jewish citizens and permission generally is not granted for all members of a Jewish family to travel outside the country at the same time.[34]
    In 2000, 10 of 13 Jews arrested in 1999 were convicted on charges of illegal contact with Israel, conspiracy to form an illegal organization, and recruiting agents. Along with two Muslim defendants, the 10 Jews received prison sentences ranging from 4 to 13 years. An appeals court subsequently overturned the convictions for forming an illegal organization and recruiting agents, but it upheld the convictions for illegal contacts with Israel with reduced sentences. One of the 10 was released in February 2001 and another in January 2002, both upon completion of their prison terms. Three additional prisoners were released before the end of their sentences in October 2002. In April 2003, it was announced that the last five were to be released. It is not clear if the eight who were released before the completion of their sentences were fully pardoned or were released provisionally.[34] Even though anti-Semitic acts are rare in Iran, the trial led to the rising of tensions against the Jewish community. [citation needed] During and shortly after the trial, Jewish businesses in Tehran and Shiraz were targets of vandalism and boycotts, and Jewish persons reportedly have suffered personal harassment and intimidation
    Source
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by wabpilot View Post
      Really? Let's examin that propsition, shall we. 1979. Iran, an oil rich nation takes an overt step toward war with the USA by seizing its embassy in violation of international law and its treaty obligations with the US, but it has no significant nuclear weapons program.
      No argument there. :)

      Originally posted by wabpilot View Post
      During the 1980s and 1990s Iran supplies terrorist organizations with money, training and weapons to strike at the US and our allies, yet has no significant nuclear weapons program.
      The US military provided decisive support for Saddam's murderous aggression against the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war. I'm sure you can look up the dates and compare them with the dates you've just given me above, then see if you could grasp why Iran might not like the US.

      Originally posted by wabpilot View Post
      Now, if you are thinking logically, the conclusion you have to draw is that a little terrorism, and a little propaganda will not get you invaded, but serious pursuit of a nuclear weapon will certainly get the US upset enough to do real harm to your economy and at least threaten an invasion.
      A logical conclusion would be that if you follow orders, you don't get invaded. Even when Saddam was killing his own people and killing nobody knows how many hundreds of thousands of Iranians, we were still supporting him militarily - he was following orders. When he invaded Kuwait, he was a bad boy.

      As I said in a post earlier, the US reserves the right to act unilaterally and in violation of international law when it feels threatened, should we extend the same right to Iran? Why? Or why not?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        EXCUSE ME!!!!!!! A Q K H A N !!!!!!!!!!!
        I am a physicist by education. And spent a good deal of time looking at how nuclear weapons work. Is that the same as trying to build one?

        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        Israel is not a declared nuclear weapons state nor is she a member of the NPT. The matter is one of proof. That is not the case with Iran. AQ Khan has proven that he provided nuclear weapons expertise to Iran in contradiction to the NPT.
        So your positions is - Absolutely everybody knows Israel has nuclear weapons. But nobody wants to know. Iran has no nuclear weapons, but they're the problem state?

        As I asked earlier, the US reserves the right to act unilaterally and in violation of international law. Should we extend the same right to Iran? Why? Or why not?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
          I am a physicist by education. And spent a good deal of time looking at how nuclear weapons work. Is that the same as trying to build one?
          If you built one, such as A Q Khan helped to do, then sold the research and plans to an NPT signatory country, both you and the country would be violating international law. Understand now?
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
            As I asked earlier, the US reserves the right to act unilaterally and in violation of international law.
            What international law is the US in violation of?
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Name any national government that does so.
              The judgement is one for the legal authorities to make. So for example, the US is the only nation in history to have been convicted of the unawful use of force (international terrorism) AND to have vetoed a security resolution calling upon all member states to observe international law. That's a pretty damning indictment in my book.

              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Never happened. Check your history. Or are you too lazy?
              History is only as good as its sources. What are yours. I'll give you a clue, if it starts "US officials say..." it's probably not unbiased. Mine include interviews with Bin Laden.

              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Please do because I can tear you apart on this inaccuracy alone.
              Don't hold back, it is important that as citizens we debate these things.

              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              And he hosted a forum stated that the Holocaust never happened. Yeah, he have no problem with the Jews ... as long as they're dead.
              You'll have to cite a source before I can really comment on that. Most of what Ahmadinejad says is mistranslated in the western media. Like his famous "wipe Israel from the map" quote that he never said.

              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Cite the legalities of which this was illegal.
              You're asking the wrong question. You never need a reason to not kill hundreds of thousands of people. YOU have to give the reason.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                You'll have to cite a source before I can really comment on that. Most of what Ahmadinejad says is mistranslated in the western media. Like his famous "wipe Israel from the map" quote that he never said.
                Actually, he DID say that, you ill-informed fool. Yeah, I saw the erroneous report, too, but the difference is, I checked it out, and I'm not as credulous as you.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                  Actually, he DID say that, you ill-informed fool. Yeah, I saw the erroneous report, too, but the difference is, I checked it out, and I'm not as credulous as you.
                  I do like the tone of this forum, most erudite. :)

                  Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

                  The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[10]

                  A little different, wouldn't you agree? You ill informed fool :)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                    What international law is the US in violation of?
                    Oh dear God, seriously?

                    I could just say "Iraq" and leave it at that, but that's too easy. The most uncontroversial example would be the Reagan-US war on Nicaragua. There for example, the US was actually convicted of international terrorism in the World Court.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                      I do like the tone of this forum, most erudite. :)

                      Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

                      The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[10]

                      A little different, wouldn't you agree? You ill informed fool :)
                      LOL, you do realise you are chatting with a lt-Colonel (OoE) and a CENTCOM intelligence specialist (Bluesman), don't you?

                      And would you mind answering some of my questions?
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                        LOL, you do realise you are chatting with a lt-Colonel (OoE) and a CENTCOM intelligence specialist (Bluesman), don't you?
                        lol, I didn't, but I have these kinds of debates with Military, scientists, politicians and journalists quite frequently. What I said still stands.

                        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                        And would you mind answering some of my questions?
                        I've just answered one. If it's not too rude, I'd like to defer answering one, namely the CIA - Al Quaeda connection. Simply because it's not quick to answer, and I am at work :)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                          lol, I didn't, but I have these kinds of debates with Military, scientists, politicians and journalists quite frequently. What I said still stands.



                          I've just answered one. If it's not too rude, I'd like to defer answering one, namely the CIA - Al Quaeda connection. Simply because it's not quick to answer, and I am at work :)
                          Fair enough, no hurry. Just be aware people will be inclined to jump on you from a great height if you don't substantiate your claims, especially with something as contentious as the issues you've raised here;)
                          We try to maintain a civilised board, but it's not a knitting circle
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                            Oh dear God, seriously?

                            I could just say "Iraq" and leave it at that, but that's too easy.
                            Well, you can say that but where is your evidence? What International Laws has the US broken? What case has been brought against her in relation to Iraq, and by whom?
                            Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                            The most uncontroversial example would be the Reagan-US war on Nicaragua. There for example, the US was actually convicted of international terrorism in the World Court.
                            Nope. While Jeane Kirkpatrick needed a good horsewhipping the Quite a bit different than "convicted of international terrorism" wouldn't you say?
                            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                            Leibniz

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                              Well, you can say that but where is your evidence? What International Laws has the US broken? What case has been brought against her in relation to Iraq, and by whom?
                              If a battered wife or rape victim is too afraid to bring charges, does it absolve the perpetrator?

                              The war against Iraq was undoubtedly a war of aggression.
                              Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN.

                              The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

                              The "Unlawful use of force" is legal speak for international terrorism. So no, not different at all. The reason we don't use "terrorism" in the sphere of international law is that it is too subjective. For example, the US calls Hamas a terrorist organisation, Gazans feel the same way about the US or the Zionist regime. So we just use "unlawful use of force".

                              Definitions of terrorism have always been thrown out, simply because when we apply them, we get all the wrong results.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by timhaughton View Post
                                I do like the tone of this forum, most erudite. :)
                                Well, then, you'll love this too, you dingus: if you want erudition, I've got it swingin' for ya.

                                Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

                                The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[10]
                                YEAH, I KNOW, I read it already. But because Juan Cole is a hopelessly-compromised partisan hack that has sold his scholarship for political boot-licking, he's not objective, and it's been refuted, and you can dam' well look it up, you poncy little snot.

                                A little different, wouldn't you agree? You ill informed fool :)
                                No, it's rather a LOT different from the actual truth of what Ahmadinajad actually said.

                                And if you ever want to compare what I know about it and what you BELIEVE you know about it, come on back when you get a clue, sonny; you're not in my league, noobie.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X