Iran to 'speed up' uranium enrichment at nuclear plants

[Dubitante]

No, the evidence shown that the officer who ordered the attack read wrong information from drone images. He is being investigated and if found negligent he will be tried, just like is done in any respectable army anywhere in the world. You also can't overlook the possibility that it was just a simple mistake, which surprisingly enough occur during the fog of war.

That's the Israeli position, a position not backed up by the facts it would seem. The commander's unit warned civilians in the area, so it's hard to say "they didn't know". The drone story doesn't hold water.

[Double Edge]

Dubitante,

What you are citing is anecdotal instances where the IDF might have gone beyond their rules.

But can you show its systematic within the IDF ?

Othewise you're using anecdotes to generalise against the IDF.

You do realise the fallacy here.

[Dubitante]

Umm, because Japan hasn't been going around threatening to eradicate, destroy and wipe other countries off the face of the earth because God told them to? Just a guess, I could be wrong here...

Is Iran threatening Israel? I agree that they do not like the Israeli regime, but considering that Israel is down there with North Korea in the popularity stakes, it's not surprising.

So you're OK with Japan keeping their options open and placing themselves on the nuclear threshold, but not Iran. Is this a tacit admission of a double standard?

[Double Edge]

So you're OK with Japan keeping their options open and placing themselves on the nuclear threshold, but not Iran. Is this a tacit admission of a double standard?

Show me where Japan is in violation of the NPT ?

[Mihais]

Considering the way you selectively read your own sources,let's not talk about smarts,shall we?Btw,congrats BR,your smartness :wors::wors:

No, we don't care about Japan because nowhere in any report there was mentioned lack of transparency wrt nuclear facilities .Can't be more simple than that.
Also let's not mix the subjects.Whether Iran is in pursuit of nukes is not the same with Iranian nuclear strategy if/when they get them.


Let's put it somewhat different.How much do you want to pay for gasoline and anything related to it?Pretty much everything is related,since everything needs transportation before it gets to its final destination.
To what extent are prepared to sacrifice your standard of living?

[Dubitante]

And can you honestly say you're not doing the same thing?

I try to. Let me give you an example. Take the naval blockade of Gaza. After the assault on the flotilla last year, I had, citing scholarly experts on maritime law, described the naval blockade as illegal. This was backed up by legal experts at the likes of Amnesty International. It was further backed up by a UN report into the assault.

After I read the Palmer report, I may well end up changing my position if it declares the blockade to be legal.

Contrast this with yourself for example. You rejected the scholarly consensus, as well as the report by the UN and Amnesty, because they didn't agree with your view. But you will accept the later UN report because it does agree with your view. That is cherry picking evidence because it agrees with you. The evidence isn't there to inform your view, it is there to reinforce your view (or be discounted). It's dishonest.

You seem to see the Palestinians as victims and therefore excuse them every single violent act or human rights violation they commit, since they are the "underdog".

Again, dishonest. I excuse them nothing. It's not my place. I have previously and consistently called the firing of each and every individual Qassam rocket a war crime that requires punishment.

[Dubitante]

Whereas Iran has the intent but upto yet not the means.

The intent to do what, exactly?

An unsure whether we can consider Qom as a weapons complex. Potential weapons complex, yes.

The IAEA inspected Qom and found nothing suggesting a weapons program.

[Double Edge]

I try to. Let me give you an example. Take the naval blockade of Gaza. After the assault on the flotilla last year, I had, citing scholarly experts on maritime law, described the naval blockade as illegal. This was backed up by legal experts at the likes of Amnesty International. It was further backed up by a UN report into the assault.

After I read the Palmer report, I may well end up changing my position if it declares the blockade to be legal.

Contrast this with yourself for example. You rejected the scholarly consensus, as well as the report by the UN and Amnesty, because they didn't agree with your view. But you will accept the later UN report because it does agree with your view. That is cherry picking evidence because it agrees with you. The evidence isn't there to inform your view, it is there to reinforce your view (or be discounted). It's dishonest.

You're making a de jure vs de facto argument here. Your de jure argument remains untested and is academic.

Yeah, you can 'make the argument' but there is nothing on the ground as yet to back it up.

[bigross86]

All of them?

The majority of them. Like I said, no one is perfect. We however, keep striving to improve.

The report altered itself? That's an interesting idea. Of course, the "report" did no such thing. But then I suspect you know that.

Forgive mt poor choice of words, Goldstone altered it. Seriously, that's what you're going to argue about here?

Ignorance and stupidity? I should emphasise that they aren't my claims, I wasn't there. They are the claims of the FFM and the international humanitarian organisations.

No idea what the FFM is, and the Goldstone report which received testimony from IHO's later concluded there was no intentional targeting of civilians. The only thing in your statement which rings true is that you weren't there.

You should read some of the Breaking the Silence testimonies. It is clear that this isn't the case, even if it was true in your unit.

I'll do you one better, I was at a meeting our student union organized with them 2 weeks ago. I saw their videos, heard them talk, and then tore down their claims one by one. Considering Tel Aviv University is a very left-wing leaning university, I love going to these meetings. I love a good argument. In the end, it boils down to the same thing: violations are A - not systematic, B - not condoned, C - usually the case of a few bad apples, D - are almost always dealt with in house, and dealt with severely.

Totally agree, Hamas have even less respect for international humanitarian law than the Israeli regime does.

I honestly think that might be the first time I've ever seen you offer any sort of condemnation for Hamas and their actions. I'm proud of you

So a man in a wheel chair waving a white flag for example, you don't think he should be shot and then run over by a tank?

I'm assuming this is not just a hypothetical scenario, though I haven't heard of this case before. No, he should not be shot and run over by a tank, though unless you can conclusively prove to me the shooters were IDF soldiers, there's no point discussing this, is there? As for running him over with a tank, what can I say, shit happens. Tanks have blind spots too, they don't have side mirrors and are built for operation in open areas. They adapt to MOUT, but that is not their main purpose, and so they don't work with 100% efficiency.

The training you cite, which I do not dispute, is of little consequence if it is negated completely in the field.

It is of great consequence if you consider that the lack of training would lead to many more violations then there currently are.

I would currently rate you as probably the smartest person on this forum. If you are going to repeat the "wipe Israel off the map" myth, I might just have to re-evaluate. Iran is no threat to Israel, with or without nukes. They are a threat to Israel's deterrance capacity (their ability to terrorise their neighbours) but nothing more.

A - I thank you for the compliment, but I'm far from being the smartest person here. I'm not even 25 years old, there are much smarter people here than me, though their debating styles might be different than mine. In all the time I've known the Colonel, he's proven himself time and again to be one of the smartest people I've ever met, and I've rarely known him to be wrong, except in maybe his choice of female Canadian singers to admire.

B - There are two options, he either said the regime must be "Wiped off the map" or "vanish from the page of time".

In a June 11, 2006 analysis, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:

[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."

I'm not going to dignify your "terrorize their neighbors" comment with a response other than to say that our constant terrorizing of, er... peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan goes to show you how stupid that last comment was. We are willing to make peace. Are our neighbors?

You've still failed to understand something so trivially simple, I can only assume it is deliberate. Palestine receives no military support from the UN/EU. The two are not equivalent, or related.

Indeed? Let's look at this, shall we? USDoD 2005 Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms:

1. The action of a force that aids, protects, complements, or sustains another force in accordance with a directive requiring such action.
2. A unit that helps another unit in battle.
3. An element of a command that assists, protects, or supplies other forces in combat. See also close support; direct support; general support; interdepartmental or agency support; international logistic support; inter-Service support; mutual support.

According to the military people that write the dictionary on what military support is, Israel does not receive military support from the USA. However, since you want to claim that the aid should be stopped because of HR violations, then aid to the PA, which does not go to the people but winds up in the hands of militants who then commit HR violations should also be stopped. In essence, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Is this a tacit admission of a double standard?

[Double Edge]

The intent to do what, exactly?

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

The IAEA inspected Qom and found nothing suggesting a weapons program.

When did they do that ?

[bigross86]

Is Iran threatening Israel? I agree that they do not like the Israeli regime, but considering that Israel is down there with North Korea in the popularity stakes, it's not surprising.

So you're OK with Japan keeping their options open and placing themselves on the nuclear threshold, but not Iran. Is this a tacit admission of a double standard?

As I proved in my previous post, Iran can be seen as threatening her neighbors and moreover openly gives aid to Hezbollah and Hamas. Japan is not seen as an aggressor in the region, at least as far as I'm aware

[Dubitante]

What you are citing is anecdotal instances where the IDF might have gone beyond their rules.

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.

But can you show its systematic within the IDF ?

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?

[bigross86]

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

[Mihais]

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.

[Dubitante]

Forgive mt poor choice of words, Goldstone altered it. Seriously, that's what you're going to argue about here?

No he didn't. After a sustained program of character assassination and intimidation, he wrote an op ed, in a newspaper, in which he claimed that the McGowan Davis report had exonerated Israel of the charge. Anyone who had actually read the McGowan Davis report knew that not only did it not back up Goldstone's op ed, in many places, it said the exact opposite. I suspect we could have a good thread on that some time.

No idea what the FFM is, and the Goldstone report which received testimony from IHO's later concluded there was no intentional targeting of civilians.

Sorry, FFM = Fact Finding Mission, the Goldstone report's official title. And the mission made no such alteration and drew no such conclusion.

I honestly think that might be the first time I've ever seen you offer any sort of condemnation for Hamas and their actions. I'm proud of you

Well, you don't know me. I'm a big advocate of international humanitarian law. But as I've said before, I apply standards consistently. A few months ago you could have seen me tearing strips off the Palestinian ambassador in London, fun times. I'm no fan of Fatah or Hamas.

A - I thank you for the compliment, but I'm far from being the smartest person here. I'm not even 25 years old, there are much smarter people here than me, though their debating styles might be different than mine. In all the time I've known the Colonel, he's proven himself time and again to be one of the smartest people I've ever met, and I've rarely known him to be wrong, except in maybe his choice of female Canadian singers to admire.

Maybe I just think you're soul can be saved :) The Colonel is a lost cause I fear.

B - There are two options, he either said the regime must be "Wiped off the map" or "vanish from the page of time".

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.

According to the military people that write the dictionary on what military support is, Israel does not receive military support from the USA.

According to the Iranian military people that write the dictionary on what military support is, Hamas does not receive military support from the Iran.

:) Sorry, couldn't resist.

$3bn per year of tax payer money is transferred from the public purse into the hands of the super rich American arms manufacturers, and Israel is supplied directly with weapons, ammunition, military vehicles and other equipment. If that's not military aid then I don't know what is.

However, since you want to claim that the aid should be stopped because of HR violations, then aid to the PA, which does not go to the people but winds up in the hands of militants who then commit HR violations should also be stopped. In essence, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Is this a tacit admission of a double standard?

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.

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".