Iran to 'speed up' uranium enrichment at nuclear plants

[Double Edge]

It's not a guy I met down the pub. Breaking the silence keeps detailed testimonies. There is no might about it. It happens on such a large scale that no generalisation is necessary.

Give me more. not anecdotal instances but actually indicators that show its systematic. Your case rests upon this. I know you can make the argument but doubt you could adequately defend it.

During the Gaza Massacre, Israeli troops damaged or destroyed 56,000 homes. A few bad eggs with a bulldozer? Or a systematic policy of punishing the civilian population?

This is too broad. Israel did a lot of things when they went into Gaza.

The word 'punish' here is great way to paint in broad strokes :)

Can you state what Israel's operational objectives & strategic goals werre in Gaza.

[Dubitante]

Dubi, to put it simply, until you can find written signed and sealed orders from the political leadership demanding that the IDF intentionally harm the civilian population or a directive from the Ramatkhal or the IDF General Staff ordering the same thing, then the IDF does not intentionally act to harm the civilian population. You can infer, but that's as far as you can go

If a soldier acts to directly harm the civilian population, is that sufficient? What about if his superior tells him to do it? And his superior? The IDF is not some abstract entity, it is made up of people. There is simply too much evidence of this to pass it off as a few bad apples.

[Dubitante]

Ladies and gentlemen,what we have here is case study.He knows nothing about military,nothing about war,but at least he's trying to have feelings.Dubi,congrats,you're one among millions.Nothing personal.
These guys actually vote.

For contributing nothing, and reducing the SNR, I will add you to my block list. Shalom.

[Dubitante]

Give me more. not anecdotal instances but actually indicators that show its systematic.

When does it become systematic, in your view?

This is too broad. Israel did a lot of things when they went into Gaza.

I know they did. I've read the reports. Including the massacre of countless chickens at a chicken farm. Fear not, they were jihadi suicide chickens.

The word 'punish' here is great way to paint in broad strokes :)

The UN's Fact Finding Mission described the assault as

...a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.

Can you state what Israel's objectives & strategic goal was in Gaza.

Honestly? No. I know what they said they were, but frankly it makes no sense.

[Mihais]

Ahh,wonderful.I thought we had a thread about Cast Lead.This was supposed to be about Iran.But since anything worth saying was said,why not let it adrift.

I will cry in shame,Dubi,when you'll answer me about how you personally will enjoy the consequences of a (very probable) nuclear Iran.Until then,aaleikum salaam.

[bigross86]

Persian scholars who have looked at this have pretty much debunked the "wiped off the map" thing. No such idiom exists in Persian, it simply wouldn't get said. Shiraz Dossa probably said it best:

Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.

Asked and answered. Like I said, there are two possible translations, obviously you would go for the more lenient one. As the people who may or may not be being threatened, we don't have that luxury.

OK, let's assume you're ducking your double standard on Japan and Iran, I'll let you come back to it if you want to tackle it later.

Asked and answered.

Cite some figures, including how much aid goes to the PA, and from where, what form it takes, and how much ends up in the hands of "militants".

Here's a little something giving a pretty decent explanation. Sure, it's DEBKA and you'll almost definitely have a problem with that, but you also have a problem with the Jerusalem Post, so at this point I really couldn't care less about what you think. When you add in that DEBKA have been right with 80% of their predictions, they're just fine by me

International aid to Gaza will end up with Hamas and… Tehran


DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

March 2, 2009

Amid a global economic meltdown, high-ranking delegations from 75 countries met at Sharm e-Sheikh Monday, March 2, to approve $2 to 4 billion for rebuilding the Gaza Strip ravaged during Israel's 22-day anti-terror operation last month.

Hillary Clinton will announce at her debut Middle East appearance as secretary of state a $900 million donation: $600 million for the Palestinian Authority, $300 million for Gaza. Germany too is expected to pledge 100 euros in addition to a European Union package, but the primary donors are Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia.

Egypt will share the kudos with the Obama administration, which will use the occasion to reassert Washington's role as lead Middle East peacemaker.

After they leave the Middle east, their donations will eventually be streamed to three destinations: The Palestinian Authority, Hamas in Gaza and… Tehran.

The donors are undecided over where to deposit the funds once they are delivered, understanding that not a cent can be spent on rehabilitating this Palestinian enclave without going through its ruler, Hamas. Some advise depositing the money with Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority, some suggest the World Bank, others a special mechanism (whose bureaucracy would eat up large sums).

The truism that Hamas controls everything that moves in Gaza was amply borne out by the Quartet's envoy Tony Blair. He postponed entering Gaza for months over threats to his life. He finally went in – albeit not too far in – Sunday, March 1 under the protection of an armed Hamas escort.

While there, he may well have heard the whistle of the five missiles Hamas and its ilk fired into Israel that day, one destroying an Ashkelon school.

For eight years, the Israeli cities, villages and businesses ravaged by Palestinian missiles have been repaired at the expense of the Israeli taxpayer, who turns out ironically to be one of the Gaza donors.

Jerusalem has been transferring hundreds of millions of shekels per month to Gaza because the International Monetary Fund's hold Jerusalem responsible for its banks – an anomaly when the US, the EU and World Bank have all agreed that by evacuating the Strip in 2005, Israel had no more responsibility.

Blair's demand that Israel lift its embargo on the terrorist-ruled enclave to allow cement and iron to go through because "food and medicines are not enough" is far from innocent.

He knows that the cement would be used to fortify Hamas installations and the iron on weapons.

By following the donors' money trail, DEBKAfile's sources have found out exactly where the international aid for Gaza ends up: At the corruption-ridden Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, feeding Hamas' military might and paying its armorer, Iran.

The pro-West Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad, who is credited with bringing order to Palestinian Authority finances, regularly diverts to the Gaza Strip funds from all PA revenues including donations. Israel and the donor-states agree to their transfer, purportedly to pay the wages of PA officials serving there.

Before Hamas' seized the enclave two years ago, 35,000 officers served with the security services; today, allocations are transferred to cover wages for 70,000.

Since both figures were fictitious, it does not need a mathematician to figure out that Hamas is using the money as a war chest. Some well-informed Israeli sources have confided to DEBKAfile that had Israel carried out an economic Operation Cast Lead against Hamas, the military operation might have been superfluous.

DEBKAfile's sources disclose how Hamas apportions the incoming donations:

Less then 15% for the Palestinian populace – badly hurt during Israel's military offensive but chronically jobless, poverty-stricken, lacking schools and medical facilities since the Hamas takeover.

About 30% supports Hamas' political and religious hierarchies.

Another 25% is spent on maintaining Hamas "security forces" including Izz e-Din al Qassam and its rocket units.

Some 30% purchases an assortment of missiles and rockets, weapons and explosives as well as fortifying military installations and command bunkers - some snaking under the Israeli border packed with explosives and suicide bombers or smuggling tunnels carrying Iranian supplies of improved rockets, explosives and weaponry through Sinai.

The most carefully hidden factor is the portion which pays for Hamas' weapons supplies from Tehran.

DEBKAfile's military sources disclose how these transactions work:

Iran delivers the hardware to the Bedouin smuggling gangs of Sinai, who transport the merchandise to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which is charged bargain basement prices. The money (initially put up by Western donors and Israel) is handed to Tehran after the smugglers rake off their commission. Cairo's pledges to stop the smuggling are cant. Egyptian officers and troops in Sinai are on the take.

The free world and its donors are not contesting their division of labor with Iran – they put up the cash, part of which is diverted to this terror sponsor par excellence for missiles. The delegations meeting in Sharm e-Sheikh prefer to go home feeling virtuous, having shown their support for the most fashionable international aid cause in the world.

Hamas and its sponsors stay behind. They can drop their public pose as victims and have a good laugh over the Western world's gullibility, after maneuvering the US, Europe and Israel into shelling out to make Hamas stronger and footing the bill for its Iranian weapons.

Tehran has already celebrated its success in pulling the wool over 75 pairs of international eyes by asking Interpol, created by the West to internationalize the policing of crime, to arrest what it says are 15 Israeli "war criminals" who were involved in the conflict in Gaza in December and January.

This champion of human rights has even set up a court and launched its own "investigation."

[1979]

Intent to enrich uranium beyond civilian purposes. Now why do you think they would want to do that.

enrichment in
quantity or quality ?

[Dubitante]

Asked and answered. Like I said, there are two possible translations

Well, there's a correct one and an incorrect one. I don't speak Persian, so I will take the word of respected Persian scholars.

Sure, it's DEBKA and you'll almost definitely have a problem with that

Why would I have a problem with an organisation that claimed the capture of Saddam was faked and who is now citing anonymous Israeli sources to discredit the Palestinian government?

[Double Edge]

enrichment in
quantity or quality ?

Quality.

Quantity is secondary once you cross the threshold for civilian uses.

[Double Edge]

When does it become systematic, in your view?

When there are clear & unambigious directions to do so from above. This way you can show it follows the chain of command right down to the bottom. That its a systemic objective.

I know they did. I've read the reports. Including the massacre of countless chickens at a chicken farm. Fear not, they were jihadi suicide chickens.

You read the reports about the damage but not the motivations.

The UN's Fact Finding Mission described the assault as

Sure, but its an observation, there can be many others as well. What framework would you use to rank them.

Honestly? No. I know what they said they were, but frankly it makes no sense.

That's the first thing you should do. It states what the Israeli's were thinking at the time and what their goals were. As opposed to what some 3rd party thinks they were.

Professional soldiers do not go into battle unless these conditions are very clearly stated.

Punitive expeditions are IMO useless. What objectives do they fulfill ?

How about degrading the opponents ability to do harm. Still temporary but better.
How about influencing their will to persist. Again psychological, results could be mixed.

There would be more tangibles here. An action like Gaza would not have been taken lightly.

[1979]

there isn't one.
even weapons grade isotopes are justifiable by medical reserch,
it has to be both.

[Double Edge]

there isn't one.
even weapons grade isotopes are justifiable by medical reserch,
it has to be both.

The main problem with Iran is TRUST.

Once thats broken it can take a long time to regain.

[bigross86]

Well, there's a correct one and an incorrect one. I don't speak Persian, so I will take the word of respected Persian scholars.

So I'll just repeat my previous answer word for word:

"[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.""

Anything your scholar can do, mine can do better, mine can do anything better than yours.

You get into a heated argument with some guy who lives 2 doors down with you. He leaves and mutters "I'll blow up your freakin' house, then we'll see what you have to say". You can A - Interpret it as someone with a short temper letting off steam and talking nonsense or B - Take it as a serious threat and take steps to prevent it which could include arming yourself so you have a means to defend yourself, going to the cops, etc...

As the person being threatened, obviously the more prudent path is to choose option B. Sure, you might be making a mountain out of a molehill, but it's always better to have and not want then want and not have. What are you going to say if his threat turns out to be a true threat and he's made himself a homemade bomb and his firebombed your house, with your wife and children inside? Are you going to say "I thought he was just kidding"?

If someone aims a gun at your head, assume the gun is loaded. Pointing an empty gun is worthless, and both you and your assailant know that

[Dubitante]

When there are clear & unambigious directions to do so from above. This way you can show it follows the chain of command right down to the bottom. That its a systemic objective.

Does it need to go end to end in your view? There is a wealth of evidence showing orders being given at various levels resulting in the targeting of civilians.

You read about the reports about the damage but not the motivations.

...are you suggesting the chickens deserved it?

That's the first thing you should do. It states what the Israeli's were thinking at the time and what their goals were. As opposed to what some 3rd party thinks.

You misunderstand, I know what the Israelis claimed their objective was, but it didn't make sense.

Soldiers do not go into battle unless these conditions are very clearly stated.

Not sure I agree with that. My own country has had troops in Afghanistan for years, I've still no idea why they are there. I've had letters from the Foreign Secretary about it, I'm still none the wiser.

[Double Edge]

Does it need to go end to end in your view? There is a wealth of evidence showing orders being given at various levels resulting in the targeting of civilians.

Yes but those orders are in aid of a common goal. Otherwise they are ad hoc.

...are you suggesting the chickens deserved it?

I'm suggesting you read and portray only one side of the story.

You misunderstand, I know what the Israelis claimed their objective was, but it didn't make sense.

Why don't you reproduce it here and where you got it from.

Not sure I agree with that. My own country has had troops in Afghanistan for years, I've still no idea why they are there. I've had letters from the Foreign Secretary about it, I'm still none the wiser.

I'll leave this for another thread. But your lack of understanding doesn't imply a lack of objectives with professional armies. It implies you think wars get started on mere whims.