Iran's Nuclear Program May Have Military Dimensions

By the people who live there. Not by foreign immigrants following a fake history.

Can you point out this land in one such village?

When did the "arabs" conquer "the jews"? You do know that Palestinians are the descendents of Jewish natives?

As for the Khazars, when did the "arabs" conquer them? According to their own mythology, weren't they in exile for 2000 years [even though there is no historical evidence of any exile]? i.e. from 600 years before Islam?

Nevertheless, how does your argument work in Canadian terms? Did the Inuits consent matter when they were conquered? If not, is this what you support?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For all those who can clearly see yet another attempt by SAM to rewrite the history books in her favour, I rest my case.

Edit: quoted before SAM can change her statements

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Likewise. Some random schmoe's crazy old uncle is about as reliable as the smear propaganda you're trying to put forth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have plenty of evidence for each one of my claims.

Which one do you doubt?
Meanwhile do contribute your responses to your position on these questions:

What is your position on the dispossession of the native Canadians, vis a vis the native Palestinians by white settlers with notions of manifest destiny or mythological rights.

Did white settlers have a sovereign right to dispossess the natives?

Do the Inuit have a sovereign right to live on their lands? Do you have a sovereign right to live in Canada if your ancestors don't go back 2000 years?

Can the Inuit build their homes around yours with no consideration of your consent?

Do you own your home?

And just to keep track this is your comment which I am challenging:

By what "sovereign right" are Jews from Russia, Europe and the Americas occupying Palestine? Is it the same sovereign right by which the Pope claimed jurisdiction over land in the Americas in 1493? The same sovereign right by which Blackfoot land was sold to settlers by the Canadian government in the 1900s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations#16th_-_18th_century

They say the test of virtue is power, if so, Israel has failed.

 

What do you mean? Israel exists because of it's power. It's influence in the USA and support from people in the USA is part of it's power.

Even without US support Israel probably has enough power to last for quite a while even if the Arab nations remain hostile. Israel's nuclear weapons would be very important if that scenario played out.

Iran needs nuclear weapons for the same reason. No nation threatened by potentially more powerful hostile nations can be truly free unless they can employ the terror of "Mutually Assured Destruction".

 

So essentially, you're advocating total proliferation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To stop Nuclear proliferation we need to ether create or world where all nations are safe and free and powerful nations do not abuse their power and therefore no nation has a use for nuclear weapons,

or

we need to create a world in which the powerful nations that have nuclear weapons so thoroughly dominate the weaker nations that they do not have the opportunity and courage to seek equality and justice.


What we are trying is simultaneous partial attempts at both approaches and we are achieving mediocre results.

 

I don't. Do you believe religious supremacists have a sovereign right to exist as a state?

 

State your case indicating the non-peaceful nature of the Iranian nation. Which war did Iran initiate in the last 100 years? We are comparing apples with apples. ie; a war on the scale of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Any government can clamp down on anarchic civil unrest. In Pittsburgh a peaceful protest was crushed.

 

By the time of the second US invasion, these bioweapons had been largely destroyed.

The offensive was initiated by Iraq, Iran defended itself. That is indisputable.

 

If the people elect them to govern then they should govern . This is called democracy is it not ?.

 

I actually agree with you, in terms of warfare. I do not think Iran is interested -- or able -- to mount a war, nor has it ever shown a penchant for doing so. What I object to is your description of Iran as a peaceful theocracy. That's just a load of crap. Iran has exported religious fanaticism and terror since 1979. Christ, it's Hezbollah's patron.

But we're not talking about Pittsburgh and what you think happened there, are we? And you mentioning it is nothing more than a distraction you've tossed into the argument in order to stay away from a truth you do not want to face.

Meanwhile, you put forward arguments in which human rights are not human rights, but culturally relative standards.

 

By that criteria you agree that the US is deliberately targeting civilians, in the preliminary bombardment of Iraq, in the assault on Fallujah, in the drone attacks on occupied houses and civilian congregations in Afghanistan, and so forth. I have no objection to consistent use of such language. What I call bullshit on is the pretense of high moral ground, the back-patting of themselves, by an aggressive, war-starting, large scale civilian killing, and - at best - inexcusably negligent military power.

A sober and careful look at the ratios would not favor the US as much as US people seem to think.

Which doesn't change the ethical oder of the US policies, strategies, or tactics.

The step of calling out the repeated, common, and ethically bankrupt framing "the evildoers deliberately target civilians, whereas we only kill them by accident" seems to be necessary, however. It's getting pretty old.

So let's start over with the reality of the situation acknowledged - Israel has nukes, and the US id forbidden by signed treaty from aiding their military or allying with them in attacking their enemies. Iran has no nukes, and the US is mandated by treaty to aid them in their development of nuclear power - by their chosen means.

In a couple of weeks, when this thread is buried and you assert that I claimed AQ was not targeting civilians on 9/11, I am going to tell you that I never did - not, for example, in that delicately contex-deprived quote.

Ten bucks says you don't actually understand that.

The Inuit have no more right to the land of the Dorset than the Basque did, the French did, or the Canadians do. Nevertheless, they are given the same rights to inhabit it as any Canadian, plus some extra considerations, and no one is holding them to account for the missing natives of the Labrador coast.

You mean like the reservation system in the US? That would depend on Canadian law. My understanding is they have exactly that, minus the "should" part of the demographic program.

Briefly, no such lands are at issue. Israel is dispossessing the Palestinians, and herding them into increasingly shrinking and vulnerable ghettos with Israeli controlled borders.

 

Any thoughts on Iranian policy had Mosaddeq not been overthrown?

Shall we discuss human rights in Saudi Arabia and Israel or are we limited to Iran?

 

So what did you mean Ice? Since everyone else is so dumb?

No, because that would be utter speculation and well beyond my understanding of Iranian politics. It's also not relevant to the topic.

Meanwhile, I note that you have overlooked my remarks about Iran -- that peace-loving nation -- and its support to terrorism.

I don't think we should be discussing human rights at all. It has nothing to do with the topic. You are the person who mentioned it when you went into your wonderful bit of prose about how wonderful Iran is, relatively speaking.

 

Strangely, though, that never ends up as democracy for everyone.

What should religious minorities do, say, in such a case? Move?

 

The incredible irony of your notion above is no doubt lost. The "peace loving" nations of the world who invade sovereign nations at will, and make war a national pastime, all the while flaunting international law and the Geneva Convention, most certainly excludes Iran in their ranks. :m:

There is an indication that Iran supports "freedom fighters". Just as there is an indication that the US supports "freedom fighters". The US definition of "terrorism" has long lost any authenticity. Hezbollah, Jundallah, etc.

 

Now you're just doing what Leftists do when they have run out of talking points or have been cornered. That is, you are throwing some chum out there about other nations and attempting to deflect what I actually said. I never claimed Iran, as a nation, did any of the above. All I quibbled with was your description of it as a peaceful theocracy, because peaceful theocracies do not train, arm and support terrorists.

That's bullshit -- and deep down, I suspect you know it.

And again, it's not about the US, no matter how much you want it to be in your little, anti-American heart. There are accepted definitions of terrorism and there are groups designated as terrorists. Hezbollah fits just about any bill you want to put out there -- and it is funded and supported by Iran.

Seriously, just own up to the fact that you are wrong: Iran is not a peaceful theocracy.

 

Except for its Iraq wing, which is installed in the government, funded and supported by the US.

This "terrorist" designation seems a bit slippery.

 

For someone who claims to know so much about Iran Contra, you seem to forget how the peaceful Iranians engaged in a systematic kidnapping campaign against Americans. I am not sure how that -- or the list below -- can be described as anything other than "terrorism," but I will leave that rhetorical feat to people of your ilk.

A list of terrorist attacks, backed by Iran:

* The blowing up of a van filled with explosives in front of the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 58 Americans and Lebanese in 1983.
* The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing of the U.S. Marine and French 'Drakkar' barracks which killed 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers.
* The hijacking of TWA flight 847 holding the 39 Americans on board hostage for weeks in 1985
* The bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina killing 95 in 1994 (although no evidence of hezbollah involvement ever has been put forward). Argentina, however, holds the group responsible.
* The attack on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S servicemen in 1996.
* Firing of 100s of rockets into northern Israel on a daily basis and capture of Israeli soldiers in 2006

If the claim was Iran is a peaceful theocracy, then I submit that peaceful theocracies do not engage in the above, regardless whether the above are viewed as "terrorism" or "freedom fighting". If you, or anyone else, would like to argue how the above can coexist with the peaceful theocracy claim, then please do so. I would love to hear it.

Oh, and do you care to respond to my question: So what did you mean Ice? Since everyone else is so dumb? Or are you still refusing to behave like an adult interested in actual dialogue?