Why Iran wants its own nuclear deterrent [Archive]

12-02-2004, 12:44 PM

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

CAIRO – Iran's declaration Tuesday that suspension of nuclear enrichment is only temporary shows how far European powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remain from substantially slowing Iran's move toward a nuclear bomb.
The problem, analysts say, is the apparent belief of Iran's leaders that the benefits of obtaining a nuclear bomb now outweigh the drawbacks. With President Bush having branded them "evil" and with US forces deployed in Iraq to their west and Afghanistan to their east, the Iranians seem to be gambling that their best interests lie in having their own nuclear deterrent.

The Europeans - Britain, Germany, and France - are unable to provide Iran with what it wants most: a guarantee against US military action. Without that, analysts say, Iran is likely to continue a diplomatic game of alternating concessions and declarations of nuclear intent until there's direct engagement by the US.

"They've been attacked by [weapons of mass destruction] in the past and the international community not only did nothing, but turned a blind eye," says Rob Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East and North Africa project. "They're in a regional environment where other countries have nuclear capacity, and they're surrounded by countries with a strong US military presence, so they feel finding their own independent means of deterrent is critical."

The issue of national pride for Iran also looms large in discussions of a nuclear weapon.

"They see themselves of the France or Great Britain of the Persian Gulf," Mr. Malley says. "They feel they should have the bomb."

Malley argues that the only diplomatic solution would require that the US come to the table and "create the sense that [Iran is] no longer under siege and that their regime is not threatened."

On Tuesday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani, sought to paint Iran's agreement - which headed off possible UN Security Council sanctions - as a temporary step that is a major diplomatic victory over the US.

Iran "has not renounced the nuclear fuel cycle [and] will never renounce it,'' he told reporters. "We have proved that ... we are capable of isolating the United States."

The US has been skeptical of the accord, saying it amounts to little more than a first step.

"The Iranians agreed to suspend - but not terminate - their nuclear-weapons program. Our position is that they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program," President Bush said.

Sam Gardiner, a retired US Air Force colonel who used to teach at the National War College, recently conducted a simulation for The Atlantic Monthly about American military options against Iran as it moves towards a nuclear bomb.

The assessment of the team he put together was that the use of force would not work, or would come at too high a cost.

"The thing I think people don't realize is how much leverage the Iranians have over us right now,'' says Mr. Gardiner. "We have limited military options particularly when we're in Iraq. Iran has the leverage to make things go very badly for us there."

Other analysts point to Iran's ties to Hizbullah, and the chance the terror group could be used as a proxy to strike out at Israel in the event of an attack.

The ICG's Malley says the best bet now is for the US to use the current interlude - assuming the temporary halt in uranium enrichment is confirmed by the IAEA - to get involved and put offers on the table that address many of Iran's concerns.

He says that probably will not be enough for Iran to give up its hopes of obtaining a nuclear weapon, but may help rally members of the international community behind the US to consider other options.

"If you don't have the feeling that a good faith effort was made, therefore you want be able to coalesce a group of countries against Iran,'' he says. "Before you get to something more drastic you need to exhaust diplomacy, or you're going to get into a go-it-alone situation again."

Even sanctions now are a weak option, with Iran's important role in the global oil market.

Analysts suspect the country has had a windfall of $20 billion over budgeted oil revenue this year, thanks to high prices caused by the war in Iraq.

Mr. Gardiner says Iran's ability to drive prices even higher could do severe damage to the developed economies.

Read this month's Atlantic Monthly to see additional detail of the wargame mentioned here.

Werewolf01

12-02-2004, 03:29 PM

Hmmmm... I have a nuclear deterrent for Iran:

Let's nuke Tehran and see if that deterrs them. :bash:

Michael RVR

12-02-2004, 10:10 PM

Hmmmm... I have a nuclear deterrent for Iran:

Let's nuke Tehran and see if that deterrs them. :bash:

You do realise mate that thats EXACTLY the kind of mentality thats convincing them to do this??

if indeed thats what they're doing anyway, the article is from christian science monitor so should be taken with a grain of salt at best ;)

walford

12-03-2004, 12:52 AM

We cannot allow the Islamic Republic to somehow make the continuation of its totalitarian regime into the West's problem. The Iranian people should certainly not be discouraged from seeking a true representative government.

Further, the mullahs need to be made to understand that acquiring nukes will not bring them security. Instead they need to know that the result will be quite the opposite -- finding itself diplomatically isololated, sanctioned, blockaded and possibly more.

A nuclear-armed Iran would represent a tremendous threat to the region. Any regime that is based upon the concept that the purpose of life is to secure one's place in the afterlife -- hence life being cheap -- cannot be trusted with the ability to kill millions.

Thor

12-03-2004, 01:20 AM

I think Bush should strike before the iranians get their hands on that ****.

walford

12-03-2004, 01:26 AM

Why don't the Swedes take care of it this time? We're busy.

Nizark

12-03-2004, 03:46 AM

fantassin

12-03-2004, 03:50 AM

Iran has looked at North Korea and seen the USA have left them alone because they have the bomb.

Iran has looked at Iraq and seen the USA have not left them alone because they did not have the bomb.

So Iran wants to "sanctuarize" its territory.

What's so extraordinary about it ?

Iran will be a pool of stability in the coming decade; it should be welcomed back into the world.

UoUo

12-03-2004, 05:07 AM

Israel is afraid of a islamic bomb just as much as Iran is afraid of a Jewish bomb. I don't blame iran at all for wanting it, cuz they are afraid/threatened by israel. Same reason why israel wanted a nuke, cuz they are surrounded by enemies.

How exactly we threatened Iran? They threatened us. And they say the want to destroy us and they say we don't have the right to exists. Anyway...I don't care why they want the bomb. I hope we or the USA will prevent them for getting nukes.
.

S'13

12-03-2004, 06:42 AM

UoUo

12-03-2004, 07:16 AM

Israel is afraid of a islamic bomb just as much as Iran is afraid of a Jewish bomb. I don't blame iran at all for wanting it, cuz they are afraid/threatened by israel. Same reason why israel wanted a nuke, cuz they are surrounded by enemies.

Israel's nuclear policy has always been to use the "Bomb" as a last alternative and only if the country is on the brink of distruction.
The Israeli bomb (I don't understand why you chose to call it the "Jewish bomb") has been a well known fact for at least 20 years, and never has Iran invested so much and raced soo fast to get the "Bomb".
The article states (and I agree with the article) that main reason that Iran invests such great resources in getting nuclear weapons and putting a lot at stake is the fact that U.S forces are surrounding it both from east and west.
An Iran with a nuclear umbrella is a country that can carry out actions it would never allowed itself before because of the U.S presents in the Persian Gulf.

דרך אגב אחי, פתח ידיעות אחרונות תראה כמה שהאירנאנים האלה לא נורמלים..הם פירסמו מודעות ברחובות בעברית! שכתוב שם "ישראל צריכה להעלם מהאדמה" וליד זה תמונות של גופות ישראלים...האנשים האלה פשוט מטורפים.

:cantbeli: :cantbeli:

S'13

12-03-2004, 07:47 AM

Israel is afraid of a islamic bomb just as much as Iran is afraid of a Jewish bomb. I don't blame iran at all for wanting it, cuz they are afraid/threatened by israel. Same reason why israel wanted a nuke, cuz they are surrounded by enemies.

Israel's nuclear policy has always been to use the "Bomb" as a last alternative and only if the country is on the brink of distruction.
The Israeli bomb (I don't understand why you chose to call it the "Jewish bomb") has been a well known fact for at least 20 years, and never has Iran invested so much and raced soo fast to get the "Bomb".
The article states (and I agree with the article) that main reason that Iran invests such great resources in getting nuclear weapons and putting a lot at stake is the fact that U.S forces are surrounding it both from east and west.
An Iran with a nuclear umbrella is a country that can carry out actions it would never allowed itself before because of the U.S presents in the Persian Gulf.

דרך אגב אחי, פתח ידיעות אחרונות תראה כמה שהאירנאנים האלה לא נורמלים..הם פירסמו מודעות ברחובות בעברית! שכתוב שם "ישראל צריכה להעלם מהאדמה" וליד זה תמונות של גופות ישראלים...האנשים האלה פשוט מטורפים.

:cantbeli: :cantbeli:

ולרוב האנשים פה אין מושג עם יש לנו עסק... :roll:

BigBaribal

12-03-2004, 09:23 AM

http://img119.exs.cx/img119/7518/pg28.gif

UoUo

12-03-2004, 09:45 AM

That old....the Iranians are allerdy have the Shihab 3 that has a range of about 1500km

wiking

12-03-2004, 10:08 AM

Hell i can understand why they want a nuke, with Bush calling them a part of the "axis of evil" and clearly threathening them with invasion.
I see, and sort of understand, that Americans in particular can relate to them because of the above mentioned Bush invention. (the axis of evil - sounds like the bad guys in c-movie at the best, or a slow spy TV-series ;) )

But like any nation in the world, they don't to be invaded, and you've expressed a wish to invade them for a long time now. If Russia said they would invade america as soon as they were done in Tsjetsjenia (don't know how to write it in english), you damn sure woulden't hesitate to respond and act first.

Further, the mullahs need to be made to understand that acquiring nukes will not bring them security. Instead they need to know that the result will be quite the opposite -- finding itself diplomatically isololated, sanctioned, blockaded and possibly more.

Do we diplomatically isolate, saction and blockade you for having nukes?
Do you feel having nukes has deterred invasion and nuclear attack?
(and no, it's not different. well, it is actually, because you have actually used nukes.)

minimize the whole thing, and look at it like this;
Just because your neighbour has got a gun, doesn't mean he's gonna shoot you no mather how much you've pissed him off, when he knows the whole bloody neighboor hood is going to hang him from the nearest light pole if he does. (not a bad comparison is it, analgy sin't that what it's called?)

-=P=-

12-03-2004, 11:47 AM

To make all of you fell better:

There is no proof that Iran ever wanted or wants the bomb.

The Iranian nuke program has all the things which other non-bomb nuke programmes have and the highest Iranian leader labeled them as unislamic which would make the whole regime unislamic if they break their word.

HooyahCQB

12-03-2004, 11:48 AM

Iran shouldn't get nukes. All it will do is decrease their payoff in the prisoner's dilemna. If they get nukes, it's only going to scare the living Scheiss out of its neighbors, and make them want to build up their defenses in a balance of power kind of way. I believe this will lead to war.

While having nukes can be used as a deterrent, in this case in a region where there is a smaller value placed on life in general, I believe the nuclear option in war would be considered a good one by these actors.

We should nuke the moon instead!

walford

12-03-2004, 12:45 PM

Do we diplomatically isolate, saction and blockade you for having nukes? Do you feel having nukes has deterred invasion and nuclear attack?

Just because your neighbour has got a gun, doesn't mean he's gonna shoot you no mather how much you've pissed him off, when he knows the whole bloody neighboor hood is going to hang him from the nearest light pole if he does. (not a bad comparison is it, analgy sin't that what it's called?)

Israel is afraid of a islamic bomb just as much as Iran is afraid of a Jewish bomb. I don't blame iran at all for wanting it, cuz they are afraid/threatened by israel. Same reason why israel wanted a nuke, cuz they are surrounded by enemies.This is moral equivalency. Israel is not hell-bent upon destroying Iran. Israel is not financing and supplying people who are killing Iranians on a regular basis. Israeli nukes are a deterrent. Iranian nukes are for offensive purposes.

The mullahs don't care what the whole neighborhood does in response to a nuclear attack. They are doing Allah's bidding. The Islamic world is not a monolith, but one thing most agree upon is that the Peace of Islam must be spread by whatever means possible -- many are willing to accept killing millions if that's what it takes.

There is no American or Israeli equivalent to this. This is why no country governed by Islamic clerics can be trusted with nukes.

ExtraT

12-03-2004, 02:00 PM

I've got a question to the knowledgable people around here: Why is IAEA so obsessed with Iran's uranium enrichment program? From what I understand, highly enriched U-235 is not a high priority material for manufacturing nuclear weapons, it is mostly used in more advanced designs, designs that require extensive testing.
The primary concern should be manufacturing of Pu-239, or is this covered by monitoring the Iranian reactors?

Laworkerbee

12-03-2004, 09:36 PM

over $300 million worth of smart bombs and bunker busters were sold to Israel 2 months ago.

what the hell is holding you people up, airspace clearance?.

Just a question..but now that the US has pulled out of Saudi does that mean all of the AWAC's aircraft are pulled out as well? not that the Saudi's would likely alert the Iranians or even have the friggen phone number....more worried about Saudis "trying" to defend thier airspace

KARAMBIT

12-04-2004, 06:26 PM

walford

12-04-2004, 07:14 PM

Islam also allows for lying to the Infidel if it serves The Cause. Indeed, they are obligated to do so. That is why a treaty with a theocratic Islamic government is not worth wiping your ass with.

To go further, any government that is based upon the idea that one group is in possession of the One Truth -- be it theological or secular [as in the case of Marxism] will do anything to spread its One True Way. That is why they cannot be trusted and why they inevitably precipitate conflict.

GazB

12-04-2004, 08:14 PM

Israeli nukes are a deterrent. Iranian nukes are for offensive purposes.

Yes, Iran always attacks and Israel ONLY defends.

Our weapons designed to kill millions of people are safe and secure and controlled by responsible sensible people and theirs will have no control whatsoever.

Wonder why Iran has waited all this time to accelerate its nuclear programs... if they were for offensive programs then they probably needed them about 30 years ago. But now that the US, which has compared Iran to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan of WWII fame has troops on two borders of Iran... not to mention other troops based in the region like some former Soviet republics why are they getting all aggressive now I wonder?

The US has a track record of not respecting the soverignty of countries that don't have nuclear weapons... It now has a record of treating differently countries it suspects of potentially having nuclear weapons already (like NK). Considering Iran is never going to have a wonderful friendly relationship with the US in the forseeable future the potential of sanctions by the US don't really amount to very much.

If you think nuking Iran is a good solution then you both lower the threshold for nuclear war and greatly increase the incentive for rogue states to aquire nuclear weapons to protect them from preemtive strikes. Remember the knowledge of NK nuclear weapons program came from a slip of the tongue by a NK diplomat... not super dooper US intelligence agencies... it certainly isn't impossible to develop nuclear weapons in secret even in a country that the US is very interested electroncally.

And bio and chem weapons can be just as effective but are much easier to develop in secret. Agents delivering Ebola to places like water supplies or injecting people or food containers in shops could kill many thousands of people very easily... there is no cure and a very high mortality rate... and there are many diseases like Ebola like Marburg Fever etc etc.

Laworkerbee

12-04-2004, 10:19 PM

-=P=-

12-05-2004, 03:02 PM

@KARAMBIT

Why maaan whyyy ??? :( :lol:

@walford

No he did say that to the Iranians, are Iranians als infidels for him ??? :P

Kilgor

12-05-2004, 06:45 PM

Iran has gone on the record publically wanting the distruction of Israel. A 5 year old will tell you nukes are the best option for this.

Put A&B together ... :bash:

Kilgor

12-05-2004, 06:47 PM

if they were for offensive programs then they probably needed them about 30 years ago. But now that the US, which has compared Iran to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan of WWII fame .

Read about human rights conditions in a hardline islamic state ?

SOG

12-06-2004, 01:25 AM

just for the record, israel has had nukes for a bit now and done jack **** with them. iran claiming they are afraid is total BS. if they want em, then **** em, thats fine. but when the country goes to bat **** and we have to track em or carpet the facilites then no crying. iran needs nukes like america needs mcdonalds. they need to spend thier money on something else.

Iran shouldn't get nukes. All it will do is decrease their payoff in the prisoner's dilemna. If they get nukes, it's only going to scare the living Scheiss out of its neighbors, and make them want to build up their defenses in a balance of power kind of way. I believe this will lead to war.

excellent! problem solved! the whole middle east nukes itself and we harvest oil with rad suits ;) seriously... its a thought.....

HooyahCQB

12-06-2004, 02:54 AM

hehe, well....

p-)

-=P=-

12-06-2004, 12:27 PM

S'13

12-06-2004, 01:12 PM

@Kilgor

Iran has gone on the record publically wanting the distruction of Israel.

Regimes talk about regimes, its destroying the the Israeli state, not Israel as land or the peoples who lives there ;)

Iran is also against the american state/regime. :roll:

That's why the Iranians put posters in the streets of Teheran showing dead Israelis coverd with the Israeli flag with the sentence: "Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth" written in Hebrew and Farsi? :roll:

-=P=-

12-06-2004, 01:18 PM

@S'13

Show it, death to Israel yes, death to "Zionists" yes but not death to Israelis and if there is any death Israeli showed then a soldier of the state Israel.

SOG

12-06-2004, 02:48 PM

just a thought but last time i checked every group that only opposed a "state" also opposes the people that support a state because they are truly the state. when iran knocks a israel state, it knocks israel. its hard to be discerning amongst state support with nuclear weapons. just like saddam wanted to be the "king" who erased israel. cmon. something tells me arabs blowing through israel would HARDLY be discerning or professional against israel much less there own track records against eachother.

-=P=-

12-06-2004, 04:17 PM

What arabs and saddam do is unimportant.

Iran thinks that all people living in the land Israel dont want a regime like that and be it only the Palis. There are Israelis who are not happy with the current Israeli regime and their oppinion is what counts for Iran. Nobody would say Iran is a democracy but also Iran dont think the Israeli regime is democraticly elected ;)

Whatever Iran said that it has nothing against the Israelis in Israel.

Kilgor

12-06-2004, 04:50 PM

"You should make the world understand that Israel is the oppressor and that Israel must be destroyed," Ayatollah Ali Meshkini said during the nationally televised 8 December Friday Prayers in Qom.

"If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world" - Hashemi Rafsanjani, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997

-=P=-

12-07-2004, 09:50 AM

@Kilgor

And now ? Is this Rafsanjani wrong with what he said ?

S'13

12-07-2004, 10:31 AM

There are Israelis who are not happy with the current Israeli regime and their oppinion is what counts for Iran.

How will I explain this... In a democracy the majority rules while the minority has a representation in parliament.

Nobody would say Iran is a democracy but also Iran dont think the Israeli regime is democraticly elected

rofl rofl rofl

Yeah, that's why we have had three different PM's in the last 8 years...

Whatever Iran said that it has nothing against the Israelis in Israel.

"Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth"
That doesn't sound as if they are talking about the Israeli goverment, sounds more as if they are talking about physically destroying Israel and its inhabitants. :|

-=P=-

12-07-2004, 10:52 AM

@S'13

Yeah, that's why we have had three different PM's in the last 8 years...

Yeah and in Iran people can chose between several Mullahs but the regime remains a Mullah regime, on could think that Israelis can chose between several "zionists" and the regime remains zionist.

But thats not my problem, Iran thinks that Israelis can live there thats whats important.

"Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth"
That doesn't sound as if they are talking about the Israeli goverment, sounds more as if they are talking about physically destroying Israel and its inhabitants.

Sorry but yes for a person which dont think about poletics this may sound so but since Mullahs are politicans in Iran they talk about Israel as a state, same as america.

S'13

12-07-2004, 11:27 AM

@S'13

Yeah, that's why we have had three different PM's in the last 8 years...

Yeah and in Iran people can chose between several Mullahs

However the Guardian Council selected by the Supreme Leader and the head of the judicial branch (who is also selected by the Supreme Leader) decide which candidates of parliamentary or presidency elections, as well as candidates for the Assembly of Experts and city councils can run in the elections.

And the same goes with the Mullahs, only those who are qualified by the Guardian Council can be chosen.

So what does this mean? The people of Iran can choose their Mullahs and president, however their vote will be taken into consideration only if the Guardian Council sees it as fit to do so... And none of the 12 members of the Guardian Council are chosen by the people of Iran.

Sorry but this doesn't look very democratic to me.

on could think that Israelis can chose between several "zionists" and the regime remains zionist.

This is where you are wrong! In the Knesset there is a party called Hadash (an anti-Zionist party). Any Israeli has the right to vote for them. They hold three seats.

Sorry but yes for a person which dont think about poletics this may sound so but since Mullahs are politicans in Iran they talk about Israel as a state, same as america.

Excuses, excuses and more excuses, why don't they simpley write that the Israeli government should be taken down? Why don't they make it more clear if this is all they want? After all they are putting these posters in the street so that every person can see them (not just politicians).

-=P=-

12-07-2004, 12:25 PM

@S'13

However the Guardian Council selected by the Supreme Leader and the head of the judicial branch (who is also selected by the Supreme Leader) decide which candidates of parliamentary or presidency elections, as well as candidates for the Assembly of Experts and city councils can run in the elections.

And the same goes with the Mullahs, only those who are qualified by the Guardian Council can be chosen.

So what does this mean? The people of Iran can choose their Mullahs and president, however their vote will be taken into consideration only if the Guardian Council sees it as fit to do so... And none of the 12 members of the Guardian Council are chosen by the people of Iran.

Sorry but this doesn't look very democratic to me.

Lol you don’t have to be sorry we don’t talk about Iran and democracy ;)

This is where you are wrong! In the Knesset there is a party called Hadash (an anti-Zionist party). Any Israeli has the right to vote for them. They hold three seats.

I'm not wrong I said so thinks Iran, in Iran’s parliament a Jew hold for example one seat but it could be that it was said to him by some guys to don’t say anything wrong and simply look good to the outside, the same could be with Israel and the Anti-Zionist party.

Excuses, excuses and more excuses, why don't they simpley write that the Israeli government should be taken down? Why don't they make it more clear if this is all they want?

Its simple Iran thinks that Israel is illegal, the creation of it was not legal, that’s why there is no reason for the existence of Israel. So Israel as a state must be removed not the party.

Some also say the Islamic republic of Iran should be removed, but nobody would say Iran since Iran is there with the name since 3000 years, the creation of it don’t look like illegal (at least no one today claims that Iran took away their land 3000 years ago but some say that about Israel and here is the problem).

After all they are putting these posters in the street so that every person can see them (not just politicians).

Yes the expect the Iranians to understand that the mean the state, you don’t have to be politician to understand that, only a child for example would think that they mean the land and all people in it. A little knowledge about how politicans speak is needed and Iran said many times that it has nothing against Israeli people living in Israel.

S'13

12-07-2004, 12:52 PM

I'm not wrong I said so thinks Iran, in Iran’s parliament a Jew hold for example one seat but it could be that it was said to him by some guys to don’t say anything wrong and simply look good to the outside, the same could be with Israel and the Anti-Zionist party.

Your explanation is backed by some people's opinions. That is not making a strong case...

Its simple Iran thinks that Israel is illegal, the creation of it was not legal, that’s why there is no reason for the existence of Israel. So Israel as a state must be removed not the party.

Ah so now it is not about the regime in Israel, good I see we are making progress.
Ok so how will the Israeli state be removed? Going against the existence of Israel is the same as going against the people who live in it and what is to be done with the 6,000,000 Jewish inhabitants?
The posters don't say what should be done with them (they leave it to the imagination of the reader, with the help of a photo showing dead bodies coverd with the Israeli flag).

Yes the expect the Iranians to understand that the mean the state, you don’t have to be politician to understand that, only a child for example would think that they mean the land and all people in it.

Hemm I wonder if the rest of forum members here understood this the same way in which you claim Iranian citizens understood this (and not the same way I did).

A little knowledge about how politicans speak is needed and Iran said many times that it has nothing against Israeli people living in Israel

You claim this while also claiming that Iran believes that the Israeli state should be erased... I'm sure I'm not the only one to see the inconsistentcy.

usa320

12-07-2004, 02:44 PM

Iran doesnt want a nuclear deterent.

No, they dont want to deter anything.

They just wanna wipe out Televiv the second they can.

walford

12-07-2004, 04:44 PM

Hemm I wonder if the rest of forum members here understood this the same way in which you claim Iranian citizens understood this (and not the same way I did). You're dealing with someone who considers the Islamic Republic -- a totalitarian state -- to be essentially comparable to Israel's limited representative government.

No amount of evidence or detailed comparison/contrast is likely to penetrate such a thick barrier. It's likely that the other party is fully aware of this, but is hoping to precipitate anger/frustration on your part -- just for fun.

It may be worthwhile to take the opportunity for the sake of others to explain the differences, but don't expect to reach the poster who 'inspired' your efforts.

-=P=-

12-07-2004, 05:21 PM

@S'13

Your explanation is backed by some people's opinions. That is not making a strong case...

Its the opinion of Iran and the opinion of Israel, that’s all.

Ah so now it is not about the regime in Israel, good I see we are making progress.
Ok so how will the Israeli state be removed? Going against the existence of Israel is the same as going against the people who live in it and what is to be done with the 6,000,000 Jewish inhabitants?

That’s no progress, when Iran say down with US it don’t mean down with all Americans and it made that clear several times, state or regime is not important here. With Israel its Israel as a state in its current form.

The posters don't say what should be done with them (they leave it to the imagination of the reader, with the help of a photo showing dead bodies coverd with the Israeli flag).

Iranian president:

“We do not recognize Israel, since its existence is based on the conquest of Palestine lands and the imposition of its policy on all the area's inhabitants. We believe that all of Palestine's inhabitants – Moslems, Christians and Jews together can decide democratically on the sovereign framework under which they wish to co-exist.”

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm

That’s Iran’s standpoint.

Hemm I wonder if the rest of forum members here understood this the same way in which you claim Iranian citizens understood this (and not the same way I did).

When the Iranian president says things like above, the Iranians understand that Iran don’t want to kill all Israelis and if some of you would understand this we would have no problems anymore and no "total looses" like walford.

You claim this while also claiming that Iran believes that the Israeli state should be erased... I'm sure I'm not the only one to see the inconsistentcy.

Looks either you see what you want to see or you remain by the facts and see what’s really going on.

Kilgor

12-07-2004, 07:11 PM

=P= .... the west isnt stupid, there is enough retoric and diatribe comming from senior arab leaders to know what their clear intentions are. And its exactly that, the removal of Israel from the map. If I spent 30 min on google I could probably find scores of other quotes of a similar nature. The only satisfaction is, if you guys ever touch Israel, the only democratic state in the middle east, you will be removed from the map yourself.

The thing that does worry me is, the sucidial nature of Islamic extremism makes Mutually assured distruction" doctrine, a usless threat.

HooyahCQB

12-07-2004, 07:25 PM

walford

12-08-2004, 12:33 AM

The thing that does worry me is, the sucidial nature of Islamic extremism makes Mutually assured distruction" doctrine, a usless threat.This is a critical point.

MAD was not the best option for dealing with the USSR. It involved leaving our civilian population defenseless while offering the threat of massive retaliation in case of a first strike. Mercifully we survived it.

The Soviets were not telling their minions that dying in the process of killing non-Marxists is a ticket to Paradise. All of this reinforces my argument that countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran must not be permitted to acquire the ability to kill millions at the push of a button. It must be made clear that they risk their sovereignty and the continued survival of their dictatorship if they continue on this path.

It also strengthens a case for developing means to protect our populations against such weapons from non-governmental groups that would be inclined to aquire them.

Kilgor

12-08-2004, 02:10 AM

Of course, the leader that pushes the button to erase israel off the map will go down as "the" hero / maryter is the muslim world, regardless if hes turned to ash 20 minutes later.

And they just might take up that offer.

:|

walford

12-08-2004, 02:42 AM

Given that Iran's domestic population is becoming more restive and demanding of their rights, the mullahs may start a regional war to divert attention elsewhere. It is a time-honored technique of tyrants who see their power slipping away.

I honestly hope that the Iranian people take control of their own country before this happens.

S'13

12-08-2004, 12:07 PM

Its the opinion of Iran and the opinion of Israel, that’s all.
[quote]

More like the opinion of the Iranian regime (which is a theocracy) and the opinions of Israel and other western democracies...

[quote]That’s no progress, when Iran say down with US it don’t mean down with all Americans and it made that clear several times, state or regime is not important here.

You claim the Iranian regime is against the U.S government, a goverment elected by the majority of Americans.
When you go against democratic government you go against the citizens who elected that government.
And what do you mean by "state or regime is not impotent here", especially since you repeatedly assert that Iran doesn't speak of destroying counties but of removing governments (governments that were democratically elected, unlike the Iranian government).

With Israel its Israel as a state in its current form.

So first you write that it's about removing the Israeli state (erasing its existence) and then you write that it's about changing Israel's "form". Please next time write a post when you have already made up your mind because this has gotten beyond ridiculous.

Iranian president:

“We do not recognize Israel, since its existence is based on the conquest of Palestine lands and the imposition of its policy on all the area's inhabitants. We believe that all of Palestine's inhabitants – Moslems, Christians and Jews together can decide democratically on the sovereign framework under which they wish to co-exist.”

Khatemi has been known to be a "moderate" among those who are a part of the Iranian regime. However he is not the leader of Iran.

Lets see what the real leader of Iran thinks...

Khamenai:
"The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region"

And I have mentioned before that when you go against a democratic government, you go against the people who elected it.

When the Iranian president says things like above, the Iranians understand that Iran don’t want to kill all Israelis and if some of you would understand this we would have no problems anymore and no "total looses" like walford.

And what do they understand when the "Supream Leader" says Israel should be uprooted like a tumor? And that the government elected by the Israeli people should be destroyed?

Not that I think that a majority of Iranian people listen to their regime, however what the regime says tells us about the regime's opinions (something which is especially importent when talking about none democrtic regimes).

Looks either you see what you want to see or you remain by the facts and see what’s really going on.

Give me facts then :lol:

All I have seen so far is inconsistentcy and all kinds of assertions made by a person who doesn't seem to be able to make his mind up about things...

-=P=-

12-08-2004, 02:59 PM

@S'13

More like the opinion of the Iranian regime (which is a theocracy) and the opinions of Israel and other western democracies...

Sorry but I have no reason to believe that the Israeli democracy is really that open.

You claim the Iranian regime is against the U.S government, a goverment elected by the majority of Americans.
When you go against democratic government you go against the citizens who elected that government.

With the number of votes it’s rather unlikely that the current government has the majority of all Americans and with a media like fox news things don’t look much better either...

And what do you mean by "state or regime is not impotent here", especially since you repeatedly assert that Iran doesn't speak of destroying counties but of removing governments (governments that were democratically elected, unlike the Iranian government).

State and regime are nearly the same country and people is something different.

So first you write that it's about removing the Israeli state (erasing its existence) and then you write that it's about changing Israel's "form". Please next time write a post when you have already made up your mind because this has gotten beyond ridiculous.

Ridiculous... yes... many things appear ridiculous if you don’t read carefully...

Iran wants to remove Israel as the state (A illegal one in Iran’s view with known reasons)

Khatemi has been known to be a "moderate" among those who are a part of the Iranian regime. However he is not the leader of Iran.

Lets see what the real leader of Iran thinks...

Lol as Iran is a dictatorship the president would never say something not in the line with the leader or ?

Khameni would say the same thing...

Khamenai:
"The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region"

And I have mentioned before that when you go against a democratic government, you go against the people who elected it.

Never forget a source if you want to be serious.

Ok when he said that, where is the problem??? Its funny I say that Israel is for Iran the Israeli state/regime but you again and again think that they want to nuke Israel (ex-Palestine with all its holy land and things) and make it to a big hole or something... Its the state/regime (state in its current form) !!!

Give me facts then

All I have seen so far is inconsistentcy and all kinds of assertions made by a person who doesn't seem to be able to make his mind up about things...

LoL as said simply take that one quote by Iran’s president, its enough to completely stop you. That’s the Iranian standpoint and that’s what we are talking about.

S'13

12-08-2004, 04:38 PM

Sorry but I have no reason to believe that the Israeli democracy is really that open.

Or you simpley don't wish to admit it... Anyway I have made my point.

With the number of votes it’s rather unlikely that the current government has the majority of all Americans and with a media like fox news things don’t look much better either...

Would you mind providing the voter turnout rate?

BTW in a democracy one of rights people take for granted is the right that you don't have to cast a vote. ;)

As for mentioning Fox News, I think it's a "bit" silly bringing it up. Fox News is one channel among many and a person can chose to watch or not to watch it...

State and regime are nearly the same country and people is something different.

In a democracy governments change and represent the people so I wouldn't say that they are different...

Democracy

-Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

-A political or social unit that has such a government.

-The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

-Majority rule.

-The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Ridiculous... yes... many things appear ridiculous if you don’t read carefully...

First you write this:

Its simple Iran thinks that Israel is illegal, the creation of it was not legal, that’s why there is no reason for the existence of Israel. So Israel as a state must be removed not the party.

And then you write this:

That’s no progress, when Iran say down with US it don’t mean down with all Americans and it made that clear several times, state or regime is not important here. With Israel its Israel as a state in its current form.

Need I say more?

Lol as Iran is a dictatorship the president would never say something not in the line with the leader or ?

Nah, he would (and he did) say the same things only in a more subtle version (instead of saying that Israel should be destroyed, he would say that the "Zionist entity" should be destroyed).

Never forget a source if you want to be serious.

Ok :lol:

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm

The same source you used to quote your president...

Its funny I say that Israel is for Iran the Israeli state/regime but you again and again think that they want to nuke Israel (ex-Palestine with all its holy land and things) and make it to a big hole or something... Its the state/regime (state in its current form) !!!

I don't think Iran wants to nuke Israel, however the Iranian regime does hold hostilities towards Israel (both the government and the people).

And no matter how many time you will repeat "No, it's not you we hate and wish to erase, it's your government", it won't change this fact. Especially as the government the Iranian regime says it wishes to destroy was elected by me and the majority of Israelis...

-=P=-

12-08-2004, 06:07 PM

@S'13

Would you mind providing the voter turnout rate?

LoL the election was only a while ago ;)

lets say Bush had 60% and 70% did go to the vote, would it be the majority ?

BTW in a democracy one of rights people take for granted is the right that you don't have to cast a vote.

So is Belgium a dictatorship ?

Majority is majority, those who don’t vote don’t have to be with the regime, you know that’s a little crazy logic.

As for mentioning Fox News, I think it's a "bit" silly bringing it up. Fox News is one channel among many and a person can chose to watch or not to watch it...

Silly are many people around the world and a working democracy cant be done with many of them. But that’s only my personal opinion ;)

In a democracy governments change and represent the people so I wouldn't say that they are different...

LoL Didn’t we talk about the meaning of democracy ? I don’t take country’s

And then you write this:

Need I say more?

Sure my English is not the best, but do you really don’t understand what I said there ? Read again and think more.

Again state or regime is not important, in Israel’s case they are both the same and with regime I don’t mean the ruling party...

Nah, he would (and he did) say the same things only in a more subtle version (instead of saying that Israel should be destroyed, he would say that the "Zionist entity" should be destroyed).

LoL so you agree that what Khatami said there is the same a Khameini only with nicer words ? Good that’s also what I want to say !

Now if you don’t like Khameinis words take Khatamis word, they mean both the same only that Khatami made his standpoint clearer.

The same source you used to quote your president...

Yeah and the same source used against me by someone here, that’s the why I found that about Khatami :lol:

And no matter how many time you will repeat "No, it's not you we hate and wish to erase, it's your government", it won't change this fact. Especially as the government the Iranian regime says it wishes to destroy was elected by me and the majority of Israelis...

That’s good, but our fox news friend think that Iran wants to nuke Israel as land to death and that’s the problem ;)

S'13

12-08-2004, 06:44 PM

LoL the election was only a while ago ;)

But that doesn't mean I have to look for the numbers :)

lets say Bush had 60% and 70% did go to the vote, would it be the majority ?

That would be the majority out of the people who went to vote, as for the 30%, we won't trully know who they would have voted for. A person's vote is his voice and if he doesn't wish to be heard then that's his right... As far as it goes the current U.S government is a democratically elected government.

So is Belgium a dictatorship ?

No, it's a democracy that decided to make voting an obligation (like taxes). However in the U.S and if I'm not mistaken also in most democracies voting isn't compulsory.

Majority is majority, those who don’t vote don’t have to be with the regime, you know that’s a little crazy logic.

And it can be vice versa. Logically, if a person trully wished to change the government, wouldn't he go out and vote?
So if a majority of Americans trully wanted to change the government, they would.

Anyway the U.S government doesn't impose itself on anyone, and if a person wants to make a difference by voting he can do so.

LoL Didn’t we talk about the meaning of democracy ? I don’t take country’s

I'm sorry but I lost you there... :|

Sure my English is not the best, but do you really don’t understand what I said there ? Read again and think more.

I understood that one time you made one a assertion and then other time you made a different one. Or maybe you were simpley trying to play word games like the members of the Iranian regime...

Again state or regime is not important, in Israel’s case they are both the same and with regime I don’t mean the ruling party...

Israel is based on Zionism and it being the Jewish national homeland, going against this basis is going against the people of Israel since they don't wish to change this.

LoL so you agree that what Khatami said there is the same a Khameini only with nicer words ? Good that’s also what I want to say !

Good! Because by this I mean that both of them are saying that their regime goes against the Israeli government and the people of Israel.
Only they both say it with different words.

Now if you don’t like Khameinis words take Khatamis word, they mean both the same only that Khatami made his standpoint clearer.

However in both it is clear that the Iranian regimes holds hostilities towards Israel (both the government and the people).

That’s good, but our fox news friend think that Iran wants to nuke Israel as land to death and that’s the problem

Well it's his right to believe so, as you have the right to believe that the U.S and Israel aren't really democracies and that the Iranian regime has nothing against the Israeli people. :D p-)

-=P=-

12-09-2004, 11:48 AM

@S13

That would be the majority out of the people who went to vote, as for the 30%, we won't trully know who they would have voted for. A person's vote is his voice and if he doesn't wish to be heard then that's his right... As far as it goes the current U.S government is a democratically elected government.

No, it's a democracy that decided to make voting an obligation (like taxes). However in the U.S and if I'm not mistaken also in most democracies voting isn't compulsory.

We talked about Majority and because of that you can’t say the majority of Americans are for Bush but I don’t know how the elections in Israel are.

"a government elected by the majority of Americans. " is wrong and that’s it...

And it can be vice versa. Logically, if a person trully wished to change the government, wouldn't he go out and vote?
So if a majority of Americans trully wanted to change the government, they would.

Anyway the U.S government doesn't impose itself on anyone, and if a person wants to make a difference by voting he can do so.

Maybe those lets say 40% voting for the other guy were hoping that he at least would be better than Bush and the 30% who not voted did that because they thought the other guy is also bad... then comes this "vote man rule" with the states and so on... I claim nothing but you here can’t come and claim that the majority of Americans voted that government, that’s it ;)

I'm sorry but I lost you there...

If you say a country is democratic and also looks so it don’t have to be democratic.

I understood that one time you made one a assertion and then other time you made a different one. Or maybe you were simpley trying to play word games like the members of the Iranian regime...

:lol:

Israel is based on Zionism and it being the Jewish national homeland, going against this basis is going against the people of Israel since they don't wish to change this.

If they wish or not is unknown, maybe 51% would like a new state called Semiteland with all Jews Christians and Moslems living together. That Israel was created by taking the land of the Palestinians is fact and it cant be ok for some peoples.

Good! Because by this I mean that both of them are saying that their regime goes against the Israeli government and the people of Israel.
Only they both say it with different words.

Ok any quote that Khameini said that he want to kill all Israeli peoples ? I'm waiting ;)

However in both it is clear that the Iranian regimes holds hostilities towards Israel (both the government and the people).

Don’t have to be the majority of the peoples ;)

Well it's his right to believe so, as you have the right to believe that the U.S and Israel aren't really democracies and that the Iranian regime has nothing against the Israeli people.

... Lol for some things I said I have reasons but where did Iran say that it want to destroy Israel as land, using nukes and whatever ? :lol:

S'13

12-09-2004, 12:54 PM

"a government elected by the majority of Americans. " is wrong and that’s it...

Please don't start writing things that make it look as if I'm having a debate with an eight year old :lol:

Ok so lets not say a government elected by a majority of Americans, lets say it is a government elected by a majority of Americans who exercised their right to vote, a government that if it was trully dislked by its citizens, would be voted off. How about that :)

Maybe those lets say 40% voting for the other guy were hoping that he at least would be better than Bush

However the majority of voters voted for Bush...

and the 30% who not voted did that because they thought the other guy is also bad...

In that case they passed the decision over who should be president to those who did go to vote, not voting is also a form a voting (or more like expressing an opinion).

I claim nothing but you here can’t come and claim that the majority of Americans voted that government, that’s it

You "claim nothing"? In that case what are we debating?
You claim that the U.S elctions don't really/fully reflect the people's will while I simpley claim that in the U.S if the people trully wish to change the governmen or not change the government they can do so and that the elections do reflect the will of the people even if there is a certain amount of people who don't go to vote...

If you say a country is democratic and also looks so it don’t have to be democratic.

If a country has a government that is chosen by the people then it is democrated. There is no "if" or "maybe".

The same goes for countries that are undemocratic...

:lol:

Don't have anything to write? Fine by me...

If they wish or not is unknown, maybe 51% would like a new state called Semiteland with all Jews Christians and Moslems living together.

However if this was true, that 51% would vote for a party that reflects that desire (the Hadash party for example).

Ok any quote that Khameini said that he want to kill all Israeli peoples ? I'm waiting

Where did I mention that Khameini indicated he wanted to kill Israeli people?
He does indicate however that his regime is hostile to the Israeli government and people, and that can be manifested in many ways, including terrorism, which Iran supports both with words and in actions(as you know actions speak even stronger than words :) ).

Don’t have to be the majority of the peoples

Yeah, when the Iranian regime supports terrorsts it tells them to kill only the Zionist Israeli civilians :cantbeli:

According to the Iranian regime's philosophy isn't any Jew who lives in Israel considered to be a Zionist and is a target? p-)

Lol for some things I said I have reasons but where did Iran say that it want to destroy Israel as land, using nukes and whatever ?

When Iranian leaders say they wish to destroy Israel or that a "single atom bomb is capable of destroying Israel", well people have reasons to understand this... Don't you think so? rofl

-=P=-

12-09-2004, 01:26 PM

@S13

Please don't start writing things that make it look as if I'm having a debate with an eight year old

Be more careful with what you saying and I don’t have to teach like I would do to a 8 year boy ;)

However the majority of voters voted for Bush...

Yeah and only 51% of the people form a majority ;)

Don't have anything to write? Fine by me...

No if you talk about what you think about me, I don’t have to say anything ;)

However if this was true, that 51% would vote for a party that reflects that desire (the Hadash party for example).

LoL I don’t say that’s the case but it’s possible and if it’s possible Iran would make a mistake by killing all the Israeli with their badass nukes.

Where did I mention that Khameini indicated he wanted to kill Israeli people?
He does indicate however that his regime is hostile to the Israeli government and people, and that can be manifested in many ways, including terrorism, which Iran supports both with words and in actions(as you know actions speak even stronger than words ).

You said he is against Israeli people. Iran only supports the Hisbollah as a armed group and they are said to only take on Israeli soldiers but that’s another story.

Yeah, when the Iranian regime supports terrorsts it tells them to kill only the Zionist Israeli civilians

Where did Iran support a group which killed Israeli civilians ? Collateral damage is something that happens also with the US.

According to the Iranian regime's philosophy isn't any Jew who lives in Israel considered to be a Zionist and is a target?

Not really because Jews lived in Palestine already before the late 40's and they are live also in Iran. As said by Khatami Israelis can live there.

When Iranian leaders say they wish to destroy Israel(AS A STATE NOT AS THE "HOLY" LAND THAT IT IS" or that a "single atom bomb is capable of destroying Israel" (RIGHT STRATEGIC THEORIE, DONT MEANS ANYTHING MORE), well people have reasons to understand this... Don't you think so?(No as a grown up human or is there any reason ?

Kojak

12-09-2004, 01:54 PM

Well, isn't it pretty obvious why Iran speeds up like hell to get the nuke ready. Basically they've been on US hit list since the Ajatollah showed his foot in Iran, and today, US has troops on east and west side of the country. That's a more than a good reason - for speeding up. Since if they do not speed up right now, they might loose the chace.

But why do Iranians then want to build the nuke in the first place. That's the big question. One way to look at it, is cultural. Having a nuke puts you right at the top of the list of the countries to be taken seriously. Especially among your fella arab countries. That sounds nice. Having a nuke prooves you are modern and you are powerful. And that sounds pretty good as well. Having a nuke, gives you a fairly solid negotiation power - especially with the countries where you might be able to drop one, without having to worry about retaliation. And that's a delight the hear as well. Unfortunately Israel is not on that list, but anyway.

But this is not the reason why we dislike them having the nuke. Nuke is a technology that stays when you reach the point. Question is to not worry about who has the product and knowledge today, but about who has it tomorrow.

Defenetively, I am not worried about the Ajatollah talking about the nukes - I am worried about the guys who actually do the job. These mates can get paid better by slipping somewhere or selling some of the stuff.

A fundamentalist group getting the nuke in their hands would not hesitate a second sending it with blessings en route to Jerusalem, Haifa and if there's any more nukes left, ditch a couple to other infidels around. And talk about fundamenalists, there's plenty of them hanging around near Iran.

Kojak

12-09-2004, 02:03 PM

So, what should one do given the facts:
1) Waiting is equal to loosing. You do not have time to infiltrate with spies.
2) You do not need to occupy the country and take losses, just go in, destroy facilities and go out
3) You can strike from three sides, in less than 30 minutes and destroy Iranian facilities
4) Iran cannot retaliate (yet)

So, my best bet is to NOT use political way, and bring situation into ultimatum, since Iran would continue the program under ground.

Its better to let them continue openly, atleast then you know where to strike.

And naturally, do not forget to strike.

S'13

12-09-2004, 02:52 PM

Be more careful with what you saying and I don’t have to teach like I would do to a 8 year boy ;)

I'm very carefull with what I write and don't express myself like an eight year old would ;)

Yeah and only 51% of the people form a majority...

51% is a majority, whether you like it or not :)

No if you talk about what you think about me, I don’t have to say anything

It wasn't as if I was personally attacking you, only referring to the fact that you were inconsistent when writing about the Iranian regimes attitude to Israel and its people.
If you still wish to not write anyting about this then it is still fine by me.

LoL I don’t say that’s the case but it’s possible and if it’s possible Iran would make a mistake by killing all the Israeli with their badass nukes.

:lol: Iran is already making plenty of mistakes...

You said he is against Israeli people. Iran only supports the Hisbollah as a armed group and they are said to only take on Israeli soldiers but that’s another story.

Iran doesn't only support Hizbollah (which has used terrorism), but also Palestinian terrorist groups that target Israeli civilians (Karine-A arms ship is one example of this).

Where did Iran support a group which killed Israeli civilians ? Collateral damage is something that happens also with the US.

Hizbollah shelled civilian twons in Israel, carried out the AMIA bombing (this however was a Jewish target) and bombed the Israeli embassy in London (I don't believe all of these things can be called collateral damage).
And this is without referring to Iran's support of Palestinian terror groups...

k57

12-09-2004, 03:04 PM

A nuclear-armed Iran would represent a tremendous threat to the region. Any regime that is based upon the concept that the purpose of life is to secure one's place in the afterlife -- hence life being cheap -- cannot be trusted with the ability to kill millions.

Yanno... I wish I could blindly trust my neighbor.

Unfortunately, the world we live in is imperfect beyond imagination. Defense is the phrase of the day, but OFFENSE is the real tactic when it comes to homeland security these days. If you wait until your nighbor, or the guy two miles from you, or seven thousand miles... has the firepower to slay you then you my friend have lost half the battle right there.

Walford is precisley correct - Iran with nukes would be not only an immediate threat, but one which should be dealt with necessarily.

k57

12-09-2004, 03:05 PM

I LOVE KOJAK!!!

Not the internet dude... the TV dude... woot

-=P=-

12-09-2004, 03:29 PM

@S'13

51% is a majority, whether you like it or not

rofl Yes only 51% form a majority not 50 or 49% :)

It wasn't as if I was personally attacking you, only referring to the fact that you were inconsistent when writing about the Iranian regimes attitude to Israel and its people.
If you still wish to not write anyting about this then it is still fine by me.

You think I'm inconsistent ? Ok do it, what should I say more ?

(except that I don’t think that I'm inconsistent Lol)

Iran is already making plenty of mistakes...

Sure mistakes are made :)

Iran doesn't only support Hizbollah (which has used terrorism), but also Palestinian terrorist groups that target Israeli civilians (Karine-A arms ship is one example of this).

As first there is no proof that this Katarine A was from Iran. There is also no proof if the ship wasn’t underwent to Lebanon and if it’s Iranian there is the chance that they were purchased without the knowledge of the government. There is no proof that Iran support Palestinian armed groups.

Hizbollah shelled civilian twons in Israel, carried out the AMIA bombing (this however was a Jewish target) and bombed the Israeli embassy in London (I don't believe all of these things can be called collateral damage).
And this is without referring to Iran's support of Palestinian terror groups...

In the towns could be military targets if we remain by Israel and what is known as Hisbollah.

S'13

12-09-2004, 03:58 PM

rofl Yes only 51% form a majority not 50 or 49% :)

I hope I don't have to teach you basic math... ;)

You think I'm inconsistent ? Ok do it, what should I say more ?

Well I did write that it looks like you have nothing to write...

(except that I don’t think that I'm inconsistent Lol)

And I think that you are, lets agree on that. :D

Sure mistakes are made

Another thing we agree on woot

There is no proof that Iran support Palestinian armed groups.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=14#israel

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=14#organizations

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441&CFNoCache=TRUE&printfriendly=true

http://www.meib.org/articles/0308_l3.htm

In the towns could be military targets if we remain by Israel and what is known as Hisbollah.

Yeah, a Katyusha rocket can really be used to hit military targets inside populated towns... :roll:

-=P=-

12-09-2004, 04:21 PM

walford

12-09-2004, 04:40 PM

Let's review:
- Any amount of researched data/evidence can be easily dismissed [w/o troubling oneself to perform any analysis] with a smilie
- Iran's government has the same popular mandate as that of Israel.
- A nuclear armed Iran is no more dangerous than a nuclear armed Israel.
- Iran is not financing Hezbollah.
- Images of staged events of Iranians chanting 'death to Israel, death to America' are either fake or meaningless.
- Israel says that Iran has no right to exist just as often as the other way around.
- Israel is by far the worst dictatorship in the region, if not on this earth [the only worse place is capitalist imperialist America]

Evidence of this is the fact that the UN has condemned the Jewish State more than all other countries combined [including the PRC's Cultural Revolution, the Soviet Gulag, Idi Amin's refrigerated severed heads, Saddam's mass-graves, Pol Pot's Killing Fields etc. etc.]

S'13

12-09-2004, 05:20 PM

@S'13

I hope I don't have to teach you basic math...

rofl

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=14#israel

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=14#organizations

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441&CFNoCache=TRUE&printfriendly=true

http://www.meib.org/articles/0308_l3.htm

Again the problem of the guy who thinks any link is a proof...

These are Israeli and American site and we know how they think about Iran and terror...

These are sources backe up by facts, if you wish to ignore these facts because they don't sit well with your opinions, then so be it...

Here's another source (very well founded one):
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_c.htm

Man you cant expect me to go to the other side to get information’s about Iran terror, that may be fine with some of the users here but rofl

So you want me to find some Iranian sources? :lol:

A Katucha rocket can be useful against a smal base over shorter distances.

But we are not talking about a "small base"! We are talking about a populated town!

-=P=-

12-09-2004, 05:25 PM

@walford

Let's review:
- Any amount of researched data/evidence can be easily dismissed [w/o troubling oneself to perform any analysis] with a smilie Sure if it is directly from the hostile side and based on nothing but some speculation
- Iran's government has the same popular mandate as that of Israel.
- A nuclear armed Iran is no more dangerous than a nuclear armed Israel.
- Iran is not financing Hezbollah. It pays money to Hizbollah the political party in Lebanon
- Images of staged events of Iranians chanting 'death to Israel, death to America' are either fake or meaningless. No Israel is the state/regime the land is called occupied Palestine in Iran and every one in Iran know that
- Israel says that Iran has no right to exist just as often as the other way around. No Iran is there for 3500 years and nobody say Iran took their land away
- Israel is by far the worst dictatorship in the region, if not on this earth [the only worse place is capitalist imperialist America] LoL If you think so ;)

k57

12-09-2004, 05:31 PM

So you want me to find some Iranian sources? :lol:

UN-biased sources would be nice.

-=P=-

12-09-2004, 05:38 PM

@S'13

These are sources backe up by facts, if you wish to ignore these facts because they don't sit well with your opinions, then so be it...

Here's another source (very well founded one):
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_c.htm

LoL again Israeli sites, yes one hears to the enemy (propaganda) to get infos about what is going on...

Oh yeah sure there is no Israeli propaganda ! :cantbeli:

So you want me to find some Iranian sources?

Heheee I at least wouldn’t be so childish to bring Iranian websites, except for pictures...

But we are not talking about a "small base"! We are talking about a populated town!

How about a small base in or near a populated town ?

S'13

12-09-2004, 05:51 PM

LoL again Israeli sites, yes one hears to the enemy (propaganda) to get infos about what is going on...

Oh yeah sure there is no Israeli propaganda ! :cantbeli:

Since when are facts "propagnada", this source even presents documents to back itself up.

Heheee I at least wouldn’t be so childish to bring Iranian websites, expect for pictures...

If those were founded websites with facts to back them up, it wouldn't be childish. However the trick would be to find an Iranian site founded on facts. :lol:

How about a small base in or near a populated town ?

rofl :cantbeli:

This is starting to be sad...

The last time I was in Kiryat Shemona, I don't remember seeing any bases in inside the town.

-=P=-

12-09-2004, 06:07 PM

@S'13

Since when are facts "propagnada", this source even presents documents to back itself up.

Ok any photos from IRGC personal traning Islamic Jihad fighters ? Maybe a UAV was present and you real has something on hand ! rofl

This is starting to be sad...

The last time I was in Kiryat Shemona, I don't remember seeing any bases in inside the town.

Lol maybe a little supply station lets say 200x200m in size ? set up there for a short period of time ?

S'13

12-09-2004, 06:25 PM

Ok any photos from IRGC personal traning Islamic Jihad fighters ?

How about PA and Iranian documents (as those presented in the source I provided)?

Anyway here's a BBC report about Iran's morale backing of Palestinian terror groups:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2021000/2021727.stm

Lol maybe a little supply station lets say 200x200m in size ? set up there for a short period of time ?

Nasrallah himself stated that Hizbollah used Katyusha rockets to target the civilian population and to intimidate them...

Anyway if still want to live in your hallucination then so be it.

Still there is the AMIA bombing and the the attack on the Israeli embassy in London for which you haven't managed to make excuses for...

walford

12-09-2004, 09:47 PM

Note: I am not Christian, Jew or Muslim

Sure if it is directly from the hostile side and based on nothing but some speculation
Not every source is as objective as al-Jazeera, Le Monde, CBS News, Xinhua, etc. Perhaps US and Israeli sources are the only ones that are interested in pursuing these subjects.

It pays money to Hizbollah the political party in LebanonAnd these monies are sent for humanitarian purposes only. No one has ever died from a rocket or suicide attack financed by Iran. Iran never has paid suicide bombers' families for killing Israeli men, women and children.

No Israel is the state/regime the land is called occupied Palestine in Iran and every one in Iran know thatWell they are wrong. Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

'Palestine' is the name that the Romans gave to Israel after they expelled the Jews. There has never been a country called Palestine. The last time that piece of territory was an independent state it was called Israel. If Israel had never existed, there still would not be a Palestinian state -- that terrirory would have been seized/dismembered by its neighbors.

No Iran is there for 3500 years and nobody say Iran took their land away Israel would have been there just as long if not for the outside intervention already mentioned.

By the 19th century, the Jews knew that they could not survive as a people unless they established a homeland of their own. They were slowly perishing in the diaspora. The Jews have only have one homeland in this world. The Arabs have many.

This is why some will say that a person is anti-Semitic for advocating for Israel's destruction. Without Israel, it will be very difficult for the Jews to preserve their culture as a cohesive people, because they will return to being unwanted guests in other people's homelands. There is plenty of evidence of this wherever Jews live. [Remember, even after the Holocaust was widely known, very few countries wanted to take any significant number of Jewish refugees into their countries after WWII -- including the United States. They literally had no place to go. The Palestinians on the other hand are more in danger of extinction as a race from each other.]

They had no intention of ejecting anyone from their land. They moved in gradually over the years buying land [from willing effendi], bringing commerce and ideas of limited representative government with them.

If the Arabs had considered the magnanimous gesture of allowing the Jews to return peaceably in mutually beneficial coexistence, a great deal of suffering would have been avoided on all sides.

The Arabs were the ones who made it into a zero-sum game by initiating violence. Everyone has been paying dearly for it ever since.

This is my proposed solution (http://utopia-unmasked.us/ArabIsraeli.htm)

We can go back and forth over who started what and who is a worse bastard. If anyone has a way of ending this suffering that is better than the one I have proposed, let us in on it. Or do we just want to keep things going as they are, so we can have fun arguing about it while men, women and children continue to die for NOTHING?

Kojak

12-10-2004, 03:48 AM

Well, this thread is becoming fantastic.

First, yes Iranians and rest of the world do call it Palestine. And what comes to Israelis, they are just one big gang of thieves, rasistic commies living on a stolen property, lying and conspiring against rest of the world. But take note that a jew is not = israeli.

Secondly, yes Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis and arabs who have any brother or cousin ever been around Palestine - do host bitter feelings against Israel. For a well known reason.

But despite of this, they should strike and knock out the Iranian nuke sites. Since, the gang hanging around Iran, is not really something you want to inherit the ntech.

Forget about this jargon about if Iranians are straight or not, the real issue is the long row of militants, fundamentalists, wahhadis etc just waiting to get their hands on the technology. Remember that first on the 2001 top hit list for Al-Q was NYC. Not Israel.

walford

12-10-2004, 04:49 AM

Tapping the Hornets' Nest (http://www.regimechangeiran.com/)

During the U.S. presidential campaign, debate over Iran policy received unprecedented attention. The reasons are multifold. With Iran on the verge of developing both nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile capability, Washington policymakers can no longer ignore the Iranian threat, especially when confidants of Supreme Leader Ali Khomenei lead televised chants of "American will be annihilated," as Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati did last June.

American concern over a nuclear Iran is multifold. The danger is not necessarily that Iran would conduct a nuclear first strike, although former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani threatened to do exactly that on December 14, 2001. Rather, Washington fears that a nuclear Iran would feel itself immune from retaliation and so less obligated to international norms.

An anti-Western ideology remains at the core of the Islamic republic, even as the majority of Iranian citizens long to join the West. The Islamic Republic founded Palestinian Islamic Jihad, bankrolls Hezbollah and supplies other Palestinian factions with weapons. According to the Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat, Iran shelters several hundred Al-Qaida members at Revolutionary Guard facilities near the Caspian town of Chalus and Lavizan, on the outskirts of Tehran. Iranian diplomats know that Washington would consider it a casus belli if Al-Qaida were to plan a terrorist attack from Iranian soil. But if Tehran felt a nuclear deterrent would prevent American or Israeli retaliation, it would have less incentive to rein in its proxy groups.

A nuclear Iran would also have profound impact upon ordinary Iranians. While the Islamic republic uses nationalism to justify its nuclear program, once sympathetic citizens have second thoughts. Students I met in Tehran during the 1999 democracy protests question whether after getting the bomb, the country's ideological guardians might engage in a crackdown "10 times worse than [China's 1989 assault on] Tiananmen Square." And, as the first anniversary of the Bam earthquake approaches, some environmentalists also voice concern about the wisdom of a Russian-built reactor in an earthquake zone.

Despite the growing challenge, U.S. policy remains confused. The Bush administration has yet to reach a consensus on a national security presidential directive for Iran. Bureaucrats continue to stumble over arcane questions about whether Jimmy Carter's non-interference pledges - made under duress during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis - prohibit funding of Iranian opposition radio and television broadcasts. Also unresolved is whether the dichotomy within Iran is between hard-liners and reformers, as the State Department maintains, or between the government and democrats. The result has been muddle. While Bush included the Islamic Republic of Iran in the "axis of evil," outgoing Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage labeled Iran a "democracy."

Before assuming her post, a senior director at the National Security Council criticized U.S. sanctions on Iran and the "rogue regime" label. She suggested Washington engage Tehran, and dismissed opponents as the "Israel Amen" crowd. Her predecessor, upon leaving government service, met with former Revolutionary Guard commander Mohsen Rezai, an encounter the Iranian press suggested had White House sanction. National Security Council compromises brokered between the state and defense departments were often worse than either's proposal. When faced with a hornet's nest, the choice to destroy it or leave it alone is better than the compromise of lightly tapping it with a stick.

The clock is ticking for Iran. The insincerity of Iranian pledges regarding its nuclear program and its activities in Afghanistan and Iraq undercut proponents of engagement. The Bush administration no longer has the luxury of indecision. The fundamental question facing Bush now is not whether Washington can live with a nuclear Iran, but whether it can live with a nuclear Islamic republic. Some policymakers argue that the White House may have no choice. On November 26, 2004, the State Department, without administration sanction, posted a statement on its Web site labeling as "unwise, the possible use of military force by the United States or Israel to eliminate Iran's nuclear installations."

The statement went on to argue that a strike on Iran's dispersed nuclear facilities would not only fail to eliminate the program, but might spark a nationalist reaction and cause the Iranian leadership to unleash terrorist proxies against U.S. interests in the Middle East and Israel.

Such concerns are valid, but terrorist blackmail should never determine foreign policy. The Islamic republic does not seek nuclear weapons for security. On September 22, 2003, Iran paraded a Shihab-3 missile bearing the slogan, "Israel must be uprooted and erased from history." Proponents of security do not threaten to annihilate neighbors. Any concern about Iranian-backed terror now would only increase if the Islamic republic goes nuclear. Should engagement and diplomacy fail, Bush may have no choice but to order a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Should he do so, then he should also target Iran's apparatus of repression, be it Revolutionary Guard facilities or the guard towers at Evin Prison, where the Islamic republic imprisons its dissidents. Regardless, the second Bush administration cannot afford to replicate the indecision of the first. The challenge is too serious and the stakes too high. Diplomacy can only work when both sides are sincere. Let us hope that the Islamic Republic of Iran is, because time is running out.

Kojak

12-10-2004, 06:05 AM

Hahhhaa I like the slogan they put on the missile. Shows good spirit. One can always try...

But anyhow, despite the respectable healthy level of will power these chaps have, I would not recommend upgrading them to n-power.

Doing a nice strike will delay the process - but remember again that a strike won't heal the problem. It just pushes the date longer.

So, nasty bit is that after the strike, we need to sponsor for a change in the government, a counter revolution and wave of liberalisation following that. Iranians actually cry for it already, - so it ain't any radio talk show they are looking for.

This wave of liberalisation will "demoralise" big masses and thus relax on the "will power" part to hit west - if any of the big masses ever had that intention. Anyhow, they can start spending time for something useful, playing Nintendo (or is it X-box) or something.

But still, the hype-masters of terrorism won't relax, but hey, that's why CIA could do some more "active" clandestine work.

walford

12-10-2004, 06:43 AM

I'm hoping that the Iranian people fix this problem themselves and that the US can stay the hell out of the whole mess. They are not as downtrodden as were the Iraqis -- they are a lot more vocal and optomistic. I have a considerable amount of respect for the Iranian people themselves. They are a great people.

Kojak

12-10-2004, 06:56 AM

As you know, only few years ago, both Hope and Cash died. What's left is only **** and Bush.

-=P=-

12-10-2004, 08:02 AM

@S'13

How about PA and Iranian documents (as those presented in the source I provided)?

Anyway here's a BBC report about Iran's morale backing of Palestinian terror groups:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2021000/2021727.stm

No time to read you link its not even relevant since we are not talking about "morale" backing of pali groups as you know groups like Islamic Jihad have political wings and so on...

Provide me with Iranian documents, PA is not objective for me.

Nasrallah himself stated that Hizbollah used Katyusha rockets to target the civilian population and to intimidate them...

Give me the full Arabic text where he said that in the last years and I will let translate it and then we see.

Still there is the AMIA bombing and the the attack on the Israeli embassy in London for which you haven't managed to make excuses for...

LoL one day its directly Iran which did the bombings one day Hisbollah... Come on lets stay by Israel, talk with "One" about that...

Not every source is as objective as al-Jazeera, Le Monde, CBS News, Xinhua, etc. Perhaps US and Israeli sources are the only ones that are interested in pursuing these subjects.

LoL I don’t give anything on Al whatever ect.

Iran never has paid suicide bombers' families for killing Israeli men, women and children.

Has Iran ? :roll:

And these monies are sent for humanitarian purposes only. No one has ever died from a rocket or suicide attack financed by Iran.

Maybe all the money really went to humanitarian proposes or only to military actions again IDF, from where you want to know it ?

Well they are wrong. Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

'Palestine' is the name that the Romans gave to Israel after they expelled the Jews. There has never been a country called Palestine. The last time that piece of territory was an independent state it was called Israel. If Israel had never existed, there still would not be a Palestinian state -- that terrirory would have been seized/dismembered by its neighbors.

Province or whatever, it was Palestine because they lived there, then they were kicked out. Should Iran kick out the "Ottomans" because they took Iranian land 1000 years ago ? Palis where kicked out from there that cause the problem not the name or state.

Israel would have been there just as long if not for the outside intervention already mentioned.

By the 19th century, the Jews knew that they could not survive as a people unless they established a homeland of their own. They were slowly perishing in the diaspora. The Jews have only have one homeland in this world. The Arabs have many.

That’s not the problem, there are simply Palestinians who say that Israel took away their land and what they had 50 years ago, Iran cant ignore them as the IRI...

The other things can be dealt with by Palis and Israelis.

@Kojak

Secondly, yes Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis and arabs who have any brother or cousin ever been around Palestine - do host bitter feelings against Israel. For a well known reason.

Iranians don’t have relatives there ;)

@walford

Washington fears that a nuclear Iran would feel itself immune from retaliation and so less obligated to international norms.

Cool fear whatever...

The Islamic Republic founded Palestinian Islamic Jihad, bankrolls Hezbollah and supplies other Palestinian factions with weapons

Who said that ?

S'13

12-10-2004, 09:29 AM

No time to read you link its not even relevant since we are not talking about "morale" backing of pali groups

No time? Or is it simpley that you don't want to read it? ;)

We are also talking about Iran's morale backing of Palestinian terror groups. As I wrote in the post that started this debate: The Iranian regime supports Palestinian terror groups both with words and actions.
This link shows an example of the Iranian regime's support for these groups with words (morale support).

as you know groups like Islamic Jihad have political wings and so on...

rofl rofl rofl

I.J and Hamas do have "political wings", and those "politicle wings" promote their groups goals (the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist state for Palestinian Arabs).
So don't bring up the excuse that the "Iranian regime only support the politicle wings".

Provide me with Iranian documents, PA is not objective for me.

If you looked in the link I provided, you will find the document (in Iranian directing of Palestinian terror according to seized documents)... :roll:

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_c.htm

LoL one day its directly Iran which did the bombings one day Hisbollah...

Either way it is the Iranian regime that is responsible.

An article about the bombing and the investigation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179861.stm

Province or whatever, it was Palestine because they lived there, then they were kicked out.

However not all of that land was inhabited by Arabs.
Jews who settled the Land of Israel either did so in uninhabited areas or in areas that they bought from Arab land owners.

BTW, The reason Arabs left was that they declared war on the Jews who lived in the Land of Israel and attacked Israel's borders (borders that were in accordance to the partition plan, the plan was determined according to demographics).
If Arabs had not left they would still be living there.
20% of Israel's population is made of Arabs whose families didn't leave, or were allowed to return after the war.

-=P=-

12-10-2004, 11:09 AM

@S'13

No time? Or is it simpley that you don't want to read it?

We are also talking about Iran's morale backing of Palestinian terror groups. As I wrote in the post that started this debate: The Iranian regime supports Palestinian terror groups both with words and actions.
This link shows an example of the Iranian regime's support for these groups with words (morale support).

So tell me mr S13, where are the actions ??? I never said that Iran didn’t support Palestinian groups with words, so why should I read you link which tell something I know about, something that is not our problem as we both know it.

Do you think that was an "argument" which was a problem for me ? rofl

I.J and Hamas do have "political wings", and those "politicle wings" promote their groups goals (the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist state for Palestinian Arabs).
So don't bring up the excuse that the "Iranian regime only support the politicle wings".

Sure the state Israel must be removed that’s how Iran and the group thinks, where is the problem ? Political wings are sometimes more important than you think these are large groups...

The Israeli state have to be removed be it by military (not terrorist) actions, that Iran’s standpoint that there are terrorist actions by this group is clear to me but not all actions are terrorist.

If you looked in the link I provided, you will find the document (in Iranian directing of Palestinian terror according to seized documents)...

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_c.htm

LoL that’s the top...

There are documents which shows that Iran has contact to the PA as many other country’s in the world have, then again some moral supporting but could you quote something that would be not in line with what I said because I did not find anything interesting after reading the first 80%...

PS: The site is that serius that it state “Honymoon between Araft and Khomeini”… A reaaal source very hard

However not all of that land was inhabited by Arabs.
Jews who settled the Land of Israel either did so in uninhabited areas or in areas that they bought from Arab land owners.

Yes that’s known and they were still kicked out and those Arab landowners were mainly english mans ;)

If Arabs had not left they would still be living there.

Oh yeah now you want to teach me a new history... lol I'm no child and have heard about the real story by now.

S'13

12-10-2004, 11:36 AM

@S'13

So tell me mr S13, where are the actions ???

AMIA and the Israeli embassy bombings...

Also you should read the previous links I provided. ;)

Sure the state Israel must be removed that’s how Iran and the group thinks

Which again supports the argument that Iran is hostile to the Israeli people.

The Israeli state have to be removed be it by military (not terrorist) actions, that Iran’s standpoint that there are terrorist actions by this group is clear to me but not all actions are terrorist.

Iran supports terrorist groups->Terrorist groups carry out attacks on Israeli civilians indiscriminately->Therefor Iran is hostile to the Israeli people.

Hope I made it easy enough for you to understand :)

There are documents which shows that Iran has contact to the PA as many other country’s in the world have, then again some moral supporting but could you quote something that would be not in line with what I said because I did not find anything interesting after reading the first 80%...

:|

This document doesn't just show "that Iran has contacts to the PA as many other countries in the world have":

An intelligence report dated June 1, 2000, delivered to Arafat by the Iranian Head of General Intelligence, tells of a meeting that was held in the Iranian Embassy in Damascus on May 19, 2000. Present at the meeting were the Iranian ambassador and senior officials of the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and the Hezbollah. “During the meeting,” the report continues, “the Iranian ambassador demanded that the above-mentioned persons carry out military operations in Palestine without taking responsibility for these operations…” [for a translation of the document, see “Document No. 1”, Appendix 2].

This document from the Iranian Head of General Intelligence indicates that Iran directs Palestinian terrorists/gives instructions to Palestinian terrorists.
Get the message?

landowners were mainly english mans

rofl rofl rofl

Actually the British mandate severely restricted transfers of land from Arabs to Jews.
Read about the McDonald White Paper of 1939...

Oh yeah now you want to teach me a new history...

Well it seems I should ;)

lol I'm no child and have heard about the real story by now.

From who? From the "Supream Leader"? :lol:

-=P=-

12-10-2004, 02:27 PM

@S'13

AMIA and the Israeli embassy bombings...

Also you should read the previous links I provided.

Simply tell what actions Iran did do for Palis except of moral boosting, this AMIA bombing is something that has many factors, I for example cant prove that it was really the Hizbollah or if the target was not a military one. An embassy can be a target, state diplomats are no civilians.

But now tell me what actions did Iran do ?

Which again supports the argument that Iran is hostile to the Israeli people.

Some Jews were living in Israel already before Israel and apparently some even support a anti Zionist group. These so called Israeli people don’t have to be all supporters of Sharon and about the rest, look a page back...

Iran supports terrorist groups->Terrorist groups carry out attacks on Israeli civilians indiscriminately

Again morale support for political wings of organisation in which large parts of the Palis are, don’t has to have anything to do with attacks against civilians, also the PA has to do with them, they cant be ignored.

This document from the Iranian Head of General Intelligence indicates that Iran directs Palestinian terrorists/gives instructions to Palestinian terrorists.
Get the message?

No don’t get it.

As you know Hamas and IJ also attack soldiers, carrying out "military operations in Palestine" is something clearly said by Iran since its occupied land.

These are also no instructions it is again known that Iran says that the Palis should fight against the Israeli state/regime.

So again this argument falls into the standard moral boosting category, is there anything more in your sources ?

Actually the British mandate severely restricted transfers of land from Arabs to Jews.
Read about the McDonald White Paper of 1939...

LoL but they still sold, maybe you don’t have seen much about that Pali Israeli story... I have... :roll:

From who? From the "Supream Leader"?

rofl good one... No actually I cant even read Parsi, maybe the bad eurowussies told and showed me bad things :cantbeli:

PS: I maybe should go to Sharon to be teached about what was going on that time LoL

S'13

12-10-2004, 03:01 PM

this AMIA bombing is something that has many factors, I for example cant prove that it was really the Hizbollah .

The suicied bomber, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, has been linked to Hizboallah.
In 2003 Britian arrested an Iranian diplomat it said helped plan and finance the bombing.

Need I say more?

or if the target was not a military one. An embassy can be a target, state diplomats are no civilians.

And what about the AMIA bombing? Is a community center also a legitimate target? :roll:

But now tell me what actions did Iran do?

As I wrote before: Aiding Hizboallah in the AMIA bombing and the support and directing of Palestinian terrorist groups.

Some Jews were living in Israel already before Israel and apparently some even support a anti Zionist group. These so called Israeli people don’t have to be all supporters of Sharon and about the rest, look a page back...

And the terrorist groups that Iran supports target all Israeli civilians indiscriminately, so your argument doesn't hold water.
Yeah, I'm sure that before an Islamic Jihad terrorist blows up a bus he asks the passengers: "Are their any none Zionists here"? :cantbeli:

Again morale support for political wings of organisation in which large parts of the Palis are, don’t has to have anything to do with attacks against civilians, also the PA has to do with them, they cant be ignored.

By supporting a group, politically Iran is also supporting the groups use of terrorism.

As you know Hamas and IJ also attack soldiers, carrying out "military operations in Palestine" is something clearly said by Iran since its occupied land.

These are also no instructions it is again known that Iran says that the Palis should fight against the Israeli state/regime.

The fact that Iran is giving instructions to the these groups shows that the Iranian regimes takes part in these groups decision making on an operational level.

PS: I maybe should go to Sharon to be teached about what was going on that time LoL

Nah, I prefer to read objective studies backed by fact... Like I have done so far.

-=P=-

12-10-2004, 03:14 PM

@S'13

The suicied bomber, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, has been linked to Hizboallah.
In 2003 Britian arrested an Iranian diplomat it said helped plan and finance the bombing.

Need I say more?

Yes, how was he liked and the Iranian diplomat was arrested and then freed because the "links" didn’t prove to be serious...

And what about the AMIA bombing? Is a community center also a legitimate target?

Again I don’t even have a proof of Iran/Hisbollah connection, if there were really civilians sure not.

As I wrote before: Aiding Hizboallah in the AMIA bombing and the support and directing of Palestinian terrorist groups.

LoL directing palis ! rofl

Aiding Hizbollah as political party in Lebanon and giving morale support to pali political org's.

And the terrorist groups that Iran supports target all Israeli civilians indiscriminately, so your argument doesn't hold water.

Where is Hizbollah targeting all Israelis ?

Yeah, I'm sure that before an Islamic Jihad terrorist blows up a bus he asks the passengers: "Are their any none Zionists here"? By supporting a group, politically Iran is also supporting the groups use of terrorism.

They attack military posts or do terrorist strikes, so "they" may have several wings. Again there are many Palis in this organisation it cant be ignored and Iran can give them a "moral boost".

The fact that Iran is giving instructions to the these groups shows that the Iranian regimes takes part in these groups decision making on an operational level.

If you want to call that instructions do it, :lol:

Nah, I prefer to read objective studies backed by fact... Like I have done so far.

I have also and I'm not living in Israel, Iran or any of these countries which plays in this game...
[/code]

S'13

12-10-2004, 04:02 PM

Yes, how was he liked and the Iranian diplomat was arrested and then freed because the "links" didn’t prove to be serious...

The diplomat was released on bail pending the outcome of the trials in Argentina.

Here's another link (from the same sorce of the Iranian and PA documents):
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_d.htm

Yeah, I'm sure that again you will call this source "propagand", however I will post this anyway for the benefit of other forum members.

This source provides all the information about how Iran and Hizbollah were linked to the AMIA bombing.

Again I don’t even have a proof of Iran/Hisbollah connection, if there were really civilians sure not.

Read the above link then...

LoL directing palis !

That is what the document (from Iran's Head of General Intelligence) indicates... Are you going to rewrite it in order make it suit your argument? :lol:

Where is Hizbollah targeting all Israelis ?

I wasn't referring to the Hizbollah but to the Palestinian terrorist groups that enjoy Iran's support...

They attack military posts or do terrorist strikes, so "they" may have several wings. Again there are many Palis in this organisation it cant be ignored and Iran can give them a "moral boost".

Still the "political wing" of the same group that carries out terror attacks enjoys the support of Iran.

There are also document that indicate that these groups get much more than just morale support, however for some reason you don't see captured PA documents a good enough source (hemmm :) ).

If you want to call that instructions do it,

What else would you call dictating to the terrorist groups how to act after carrying out attacks?

I have also and I'm not living in Israel, Iran or any of these countries which plays in this game...

So what? Does that fact make you unbiased? There are other factors than place of residence...

BTW -=P=-, just out of curiosity, may I ask what are your origins?

-=P=-

12-10-2004, 05:46 PM

@S'13

The diplomat was released on bail pending the outcome of the trials in Argentina.

Here's another link (from the same source of the Iranian and PA documents):
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_d.htm

Yeah, I'm sure that again you will call this source "propagand", however I will post this anyway for the benefit of other forum members.

This source provides all the information about how Iran and Hizbollah were linked to the AMIA bombing.

Look I only see claims, maybe Iran starts a site claiming the Mossad poisoned Arafat and says that its intelligence service VEVAK proved that by captured documents.

Now there are not even documents anymore on this AMIA thing only a few names...

Sure some forum members will now take that as hard fact but its still only speculation coming from Israel, or better said propaganda coming Israel.

I wasn't referring to the Hizbollah but to the Palestinian terrorist groups that enjoy Iran's support...

So moral boosting and blabbering for groups which are supported by most Palis and which do have political wings as well is "support" for you, well... :cantbeli:

That is what the document (from Iran's Head of General Intelligence) indicates... Are you going to rewrite it in order make it suit your argument?

That is what the document (from Iran's Head of General Intelligence) indicates... Are you going to rewrite it in order make it suit your argument?

There are also document that indicate that these groups get much more than just morale support, however for some reason you don't see captured PA documents a good enough source (hemmm ).

LoL sorry but your mental think space in your brain is not big/creative enough.

Ever thought about this being also only moral boosters ? Its says they should continue to do military operations all together under the name of the palis (would be more effective or not ?). Never forget it’s still a translation and only because your view on this thing you cant say that it’s an order by the "dark master Iran"...

What else would you call dictating to the terrorist groups how to act after carrying out attacks?

Again they are attacking anyway so its no "start" and taking no responsibility would be more effective because it would fall under the pali cover.

Damn the funniest thing is that Pali groups are still taking responsibility each... So they didn’t hear to their "dark master". rofl rofl rofl :cantbeli:

S'13

12-10-2004, 08:44 PM

maybe Iran starts a site claiming the Mossad poisoned Arafat and says that its intelligence service VEVAK proved that by captured documents.

Why say maybe?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared that "Israeli and U.S agents" are responsible for the kidnappings and beheadings of westerners in Iraq... :lol:

So the Iranian regime claiming Mossad poisoned Arafat doesn't sound strange at all.

Now there are not even documents anymore on this AMIA thing only a few names...

The source is based on the findings of a SIDE (Argentinian intelligence service) report on the AMIA bombing.

Any reason the Argentinians would want to jeopardize their relations with Iran by publishing such a report for no reason?

Sure some forum members will now take that as hard fact but its still only speculation coming from Israel, or better said propaganda coming Israel.

All of this coming from Israel?

Strange, since the findings were published by the Argentinian intelligence service...

Also I don't think the U.K detained and sent that Iranian diplomat back to his homeland just for the fun of it.

So moral boosting and blabbering for groups which are supported by most Palis and which do have political wings as well is "support" for you, well...

One of the meanings of the word 'support':
To argue in favor of; advocate.

Ever thought about this being also only moral boosters ? Its says they should continue to do military operations all together under the name of the palis (would be more effective or not ?).

It says that the Iranian ambassador (representative of the Iranian regime)demanded from senior officials of Palestinian terrorist groups to take a certain course of action.

That is giving instructions my friend, not a
"moral booster".

Again they are attacking anyway so its no "start" and taking no responsibility would be more effective because it would fall under the pali cover.

That's aiding these groups on an operational level, that is enough to make the Iranian regime responsible for these groups actions.

Damn the funniest thing is that Pali groups are still taking responsibility each... So they didn’t hear to their "dark master".

Nah, the "dark master" doesn't wish to be exposed too much (he's already in enough trouble). And the Pali groups like to take all the spotlight.

So this works well for both...

walford

12-10-2004, 09:40 PM

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared that "Israeli and U.S agents" are responsible for the kidnappings and beheadings of westerners in Iraq...So the Iranian regime claiming Mossad poisoned Arafat doesn't sound strange at all.Well we can believe all of that because the sources are bastions of the Truth. Lets not forget that Jews are kidnapping Arab babies (http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/Blood_Libel_Alive_and_Well.asp), cooking them up and having them with their matzos. And there's more:

France: Hezbollah TV claims Israel Spreading AIDS in Arab (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31729&highlight=)

U.S. Military Coordinated the 9/11 Attacks (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30798&highlight=)

But don't worry, the pious bretheren are fighting to defeat the American capitalist imperialist dogs and their Zionist puppets while working to build a Better World (http://masada2000.org/BetterWorld.html).

GazB

12-11-2004, 08:36 AM

GazB

while your correct in that "t certainly isn't impossible to develop nuclear weapons"

It is pretty much impossible to test those weapons without being discovered, and an untested weapon cant be a trusted weapon, not when so much would be riding on a nuclear weapons strike

If your first warning is a nuclear test in the middle of Iran the it is too late to do anything. If they have one to test they might have three to retaliate with if you decide to attack them. You will only detect a successful test so they will know the other weapons they have will work too.

Read about human rights conditions in a hardline islamic state ?

Read about human rights violations at Guantanimo? Plenty of dictatorships in the world have the full support of the US yet their treatment of their citizens leaves a lot to be desired. Nuclear capability is not some kind of reward for being nice to your people.

=P= .... the west isnt stupid, there is enough retoric and diatribe comming from senior arab leaders to know what their clear intentions are.

What has senior arab leaders got to do with iran trying to get nuclear weapons? You do know Iranians are Persians and not arabs don't you?

Especially among your fella arab countries.

Iran is not an arab country.

An embassy can be a target, state diplomats are no civilians.

In such a war why would civilians not be targetted? I would have thought that if the enemy is moving its own civilians into captured land to claim it as their own then the civilians they use become legitimate targets... if the Germans had started moving german civilians into the various occupied countries and started Germanifying all those occupied territories by making German the spoken language etc etc then such civilians would of course need to be removed in such a way that deters other german civilians from coming in to steal land.

-=P=-

12-11-2004, 01:10 PM

@S'13

Why say maybe?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared that "Israeli and U.S agents" are responsible for the kidnappings and beheadings of westerners in Iraq...

So the Iranian regime claiming Mossad poisoned Arafat doesn't sound strange at all.

Oh man you really don’t understand that ?

Iran don’t claimed something like that so the is no "Iranian regime claiming" rofl

It was an example or your intelligence.il source methods.

The source is based on the findings of a SIDE (Argentinian intelligence service) report on the AMIA bombing.

Any reason the Argentinians would want to jeopardize their relations with Iran by publishing such a report for no reason?

What relations to Iran maybe their relations to Israel and America are more important for them ?

All of this coming from Israel?

Strange, since the findings were published by the Argentinian intelligence service...

Also I don't think the U.K detained and sent that Iranian diplomat back to his homeland just for the fun of it.

Intelligence services usually don’t provide facts but mainly speculations and UK and Argentine are not really friendly to Iran anyway. But as it looks they did have nothing at hand and had to free the Iranian, cool eh ?

One of the meanings of the word 'support':
To argue in favor of; advocate.

If it’s that than ok. Words don’t hurt anyone physically rofl

It says that the Iranian ambassador (representative of the Iranian regime)demanded from senior officials of Palestinian terrorist groups to take a certain course of action.

That is giving instructions my friend, not a
"moral booster".

Its just an based translation and again they didn’t do that ! They didn’t hear to their "dark master Iran", so what ?

That's aiding these groups on an operational level, that is enough to make the Iranian regime responsible for these groups actions.

LoL go to Den Hague with that rofl Iran said this and that :lol:

Nah, the "dark master" doesn't wish to be exposed too much (he's already in enough trouble). And the Pali groups like to take all the spotlight.

So this works well for both...

LoL wasn’t that 2000 and what problems does Iran have ? Why didn’t pali hear the hard orders ?

rofl rofl :roll:

Its can work good for Iran if Palis don’t follow Iran’s orders, this shows that it was Iran’s wish and not an order...

S'13

12-11-2004, 02:14 PM

@S'13

Iran don’t claimed something like that so the is no "Iranian regime claiming" rofl

Howeve the Iranian regime is very well known for making unfounded claimes (and I brought an example).

It was an example or your intelligence.il source methods

Why?
It's founded upon the findings of an Argentintian intelligence report and the resolution of an Argentinian court that investigatet the AMIA bombings (these factors were solid enough so that the British detained a Iranian diplomat and sent him back to his country).

What relations to Iran maybe their relations to Israel and America are more important for them ?

Considering the large Muslim/Arab comunity in Argentina, jeopardizing such relation isn't something that they could take light heartedly...

Intelligence services usually don’t provide facts but mainly speculations

It seems that enough facts were provided as the Argentinian court found Iran responsible...

UK and Argentine are not really friendly to Iran anyway.

You expect a Argentina to be friendly to a country that took part in a terrorist attack insides its borders and against its civilians?

And Britian, for a western country, has not too bad relations with Iran.

But as it looks they did have nothing at hand and had to free the Iranian, cool eh ?

If they had nothing at hand they wouldn't have detained him in the first place...

If it’s that than ok. Words don’t hurt anyone physically

But words can lead to actions and show a person's (or in this case, a regime's) view of things...

Its just an based translation and again they didn’t do that ! ?

So could you please trnslate for us (if you can)?

They didn’t hear to their "dark master Iran", so what

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Iran is their master, however it's certainly an accomplice to their actions...

LoL wasn’t that 2000

So? Is there some prescription law on aiding to terrorist groups?
The fact that they gave instructions shows that the Iranian regime aids these terrorist groups on operational level.

And again may I ask why PA documents can't be used as evidence?

-=P=-

12-11-2004, 03:09 PM

@S'13

Howeve the Iranian regime is very well known for making unfounded claimes (and I brought an example).

Maybe their intelligence told them wrong things.

Why?
It's founded upon the findings of an Argentintian intelligence report and the resolution of an Argentinian court that investigatet the AMIA bombings (these factors were solid enough so that the British detained a Iranian diplomat and sent him back to his country).

Ok maybe you can tell me what exactly the Argentineans found there.

Considering the large Muslim/Arab comunity in Argentina, jeopardizing such relation isn't something that they could take light heartedly...

You expect a Argentina to be friendly to a country that took part in a terrorist attack insides its borders and against its civilians?

And Britian, for a western country, has not too bad relations with Iran.

Still both country’s have better relations to Israel.

If they had nothing at hand they wouldn't have detained him in the first place...

If they had something they would put him to jail... LoL now they letting "terrorists" going back to their country’s... Come on that’s a joke...

But words can lead to actions and show a person's (or in this case, a regime's) view of things...

So? Is there some prescription law on aiding to terrorist groups?
The fact that they gave instructions shows that the Iranian regime aids these terrorist groups on operational level.

Look for you these are instructions, for me these are wishes of Iran.

Damn again why didn’t hear to the instruction, maybe because these were only wishes ?

In 2000 Iran had no problems, no 11.9 no Iraq Afganestan war and no little nuclear problems, so why would it at that time being bad for Iran as you said "Nah, the "dark master" doesn't wish to be exposed too much (he's already in enough trouble). "

LoL Iran gives an instruction and is happy that nobody follows it, to get no troubles... Nice logic

S'13

12-11-2004, 03:54 PM

Maybe their intelligence told them wrong things.

And maybe little green men from Mars mislead them and gave them the wrong information :lol:

Come on -=P=- :roll:

Ok maybe you can tell me what exactly the Argentineans found there.

Some of the findings are mentioned in the source I provided.
As you know, not all details of the report can be revealed (that is the nature of intelligence reports and criminal investigations).

Still both country’s have better relations to Israel.

It's kind of hard to find a western country that has better relations with Iran and the U.S than with Israel... :)

If they had something they would put him to jail...

In law sometimes there can be enough evidence to connect a person to a crime, yet not enough to extradite him (law can be very obsequious).
Also the two shooting attacks on the British embassy in Teheran after the arrest of that diplomat could have influenced the court's decision...

Damn again why didn’t hear to the instruction, maybe because these were only wishes ?

Even if those instruction were in the form of a "request", that is still taking part in these group's decision making... Especially as they were given directly to the officials of these groups.

In 2000 Iran had no problems, no 11.9 no Iraq Afganestan war and no little nuclear problems, so why would it at that time being bad for Iran as you said "Nah, the "dark master" doesn't wish to be exposed too much (he's already in enough trouble). "

The AMIA and the Israeli embassy bombings...

-=P=-

12-11-2004, 05:51 PM

@S'13

And maybe little green men from Mars mislead them and gave them the wrong information

Come on -=P=-

You cant expect anyone to take national intelligence reports as fact... Come on S`13

Some of the findings are mentioned in the source I provided.
As you know, not all details of the report can be revealed (that is the nature of intelligence reports and criminal investigations).

The question is can you give me any facts ?

In law sometimes there can be enough evidence to connect a person to a crime, yet not enough to extradite him (law can be very obsequious).
Also the two shooting attacks on the British embassy in Teheran after the arrest of that diplomat could have influenced the court's decision...

Which shootings ? Anyway to me it looks like the Argentineans could not bring up any facts, that was the reason he became free....

Even if those instruction were in the form of a "request", that is still taking part in these group's decision making... Especially as they were given directly to the officials of these groups.

Wishes are ok, saying that the intefada should going on and that all groups should act under one name is something a friendly nation can wish to the Palis.

The AMIA and the Israeli embassy bombings...

Sorry I don’t understand what’s that now :roll:

Kojak

12-13-2004, 02:41 PM

At this point when you've guys have mongled 6 pages of "yes-no-didn't I tell you" dialogue, I wonder if it might work out better using private messages? ;)

-=P=-

12-13-2004, 04:22 PM

S'13

12-13-2004, 04:28 PM

@Kojak

I did wrote that in the hope that if some day someone again comes with the same arguments as S13, which is very likely, I can say I dealt with that story in the xyz... thread, don’t come to me with this again. p-)

Well, I can't say I believe someone will come one day and make the same argument you made but anyway, I have explained myself. :)

Grimmer

12-14-2004, 06:24 AM

Back to the topic.

What if Iran would have the bomb?
Nuclear weapons are more political weapons than tactical. Nuclear weapon gives you immunity. In middle-east this means power.

Just think about it,
Israel is the about the same size as Vancouver island, with 5 milj people.
One nuclear strike at one of the major citys would pretty much take care of them. Now, think that you're one of those mullahs and you would have the power to remove jews from middle-east permanently. In history you would be hailed as the hero and the liberator of the palestinians and the man who kicked the jews from middle-east.

Now, think about your country, its currently being sieged by hostile forces from all directions. Nuclear weapon would give your country a shield from them. It would also give you voice in the international community, when a leader of a nuclear armed country says something, everybody listens.

A nuclear armed iran would change the power balance in middle-east radically. Its pretty clear that israel cannot allow this or the united states.

The Irani young who make half of the population are against the mullahs and admire the western way of life. They know nothing about times of shah. In next 10-15 years the Iranian political scene is going to change beyound recognition. What will happen to the nukes when the political/civil war will errupt?