News ANuclear Proliferation in Iran: A Cause for Concern or an Unfair Target?

[fargoth]

And how on the Earth can he get nukes when Iran's Nuclear activity is under cotrol of IAEA? Note that they don't have nukes right now!
That's pretty funny. Israel wants to bomb Iran because they're afraid Iran *might* get nukes 1 day and bomb them.(while they can't get nukes in this situation) And it sounds quite justifiable to anyone.

heh, under the control of IAEA? that doesn't mean they can't do it secretely... anyone heard about mordecai vanunu?
israel supposedly doesn't have nukes, but according to this guy, israel has lots of them...

why do you think iran can't make them too? the UN is a laugh, they have no real power, and no one gives a damn about them.

when iraq built their nuclear plant israel bombed it right away, and i think its justified, if iraq had nukes in the gulf war, the world was at a nuclear winter right about now... the only reason its not happening now to iran is that they got too many plants already, and a one bombing deal is out of the question... the only way is a full scale war, and there's no way israel is going to do that... i don't think anyone would.

so we'll just have to sit and hope that by the time iran would have their nukes they'll have someone else on the throne.
i think it would be much easier to assassinate and secretely replace the government then to force iran to stop persuing nukes.

 

[Lisa!]

heh, under the control of IAEA? that doesn't mean they can't do it secretely... anyone heard about mordecai vanunu?
israel supposedly doesn't have nukes, but according to this guy, israel has lots of them...
why do you think iran can't make them too? the UN is a laugh, they have no real power, and no one gives a damn about them.

UN is a laugh when it comes to what US is going to do since the real power is US.
*shrug*Israel could have Nukes because they have US support.
Anyway I'm not going to waste my time and talk to you about this subject. So let's say Iran has Nukes, they're going to use them. So US has the right to attack Iran. who cares when we're not the 1 who's going to decide on these things!

 

[alexandra]

After the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK said
"We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.
The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere. "

An admirable sentiment indeed - but only believable, alas, if it came from a nation whose government was actually opposed to war and decomissioned/withdrew/eliminated their own nuclear arsenal first. This is what gets me: how on Earth can the government of the only nation of the world that has ever actually used nuclear weapons and currently has the largest and most lethal arsony of all (and no qualms about using it) take this 'holier-than-thou' attitude with other nations? I know, I know - we're not talking ethics here, we're talking 'real' politics. But the irony of it all, the deadly irony!

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Here's a little story. When I went to school we always used to make bad jokes about blowing up the building, killing teachers etc. The teacher might say, "now now Billy, don't threaten your classmates with death threats. That's a no-no." and then that was that. No big deal until you actually did it.

Then a shooting occurred in Columbine high school. Everything changed. Suddenly kids got suspended just for drawing a violent picture.

Maybe one day in the past you could walk through the airport and go "wow, this car rental company's the bomb!" ... Not anymore.

What's the moral of the story? Well how seriously should you take threats?

Is Mahmoud saying these things because he really is that anti-zionist, or does he say them because it gets him popular support, considering how anti-zionist the population there is? Who knows.. But can we just take it lightly?

I was sarcastic about it before, but the reality is Iran is pursuing nukes. Why? I don't think it's so that they can admire the nukes for a day then put them in storage. Being naive like that is what comes back to bite you or your ally in the butt one day later.

alexandra, the difference is that all the people who currently have nukes, are not currently using them. Yes the United States has used them before, it was maybe not the best idea, but the difference was that U.S.A. was engaged in an actual war at the time. Otherwise, right now as we speak, the nukes aren't falling. Pakistan, Britain, Russia etc. are not dropping their nukes. They are sitting on them. If say Germany wanted to nuke Israel, they would.. Now Iran currently is not nuking Israel, but not for the same reason. They aren't holding back because they know it's wrong to use their nukes, they're holding back because they don't have the nukes to use! But they are 1) making threats to destroy Israel, and 2) pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Put two and two together.

On the one hand it may be a hypocritical double standard, but on the other hand, it's also realistic and prudent. It would be nice to treat everyone the same and allow every country to do whatever it wants to do without the fear of catastrophe, but unfortinatily the world we live in does not permit this.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

And how on the Earth can he get nukes when Iran's Nuclear activity is under cotrol of IAEA? Note that they don't have nukes right now!
That's pretty funny. Israel wants to bomb Iran because they're afraid Iran *might* get nukes 1 day and bomb them.(while they can't get nukes in this situation) And it sounds quite justifiable to anyone.

I wouldn't consider just attacking Iran because they might get nukes justifiable, however pursuing nuclear technology not in accordance with the nuclear non proliferation treaty, or in violation of any mandates of their supervision, would justify a pre-emptive war. Yes nuclear supervision is good, but like fargoth mentioned that's not going to be foolproof for stopping the manufacture of a nuke, especially after the enriched uranium is already there, as well as agreements with Syria to get around international pressure for the nuclear technology (which Iran has already made).

Plus Iran already demonstrated they don't respect the supervision anyway. They will do whatever they want to, not what others tell them to. They already broke the seals on their reactors without the go-ahead to do so, remember?

 

[Art]

I wouldn't consider just attacking Iran because they might get nukes justifiable, however pursuing nuclear technology not in accordance with the nuclear non proliferation treaty, or in violation of any mandates of their supervision, would justify a pre-emptive war. Yes nuclear supervision is good, but like fargoth mentioned that's not going to be foolproof for stopping the manufacture of a nuke, especially after the enriched uranium is already there, as well as agreements with Syria to get around international pressure for the nuclear technology (which Iran has already made).
Plus Iran already demonstrated they don't respect the supervision anyway. They will do whatever they want to, not what others tell them to. They already broke the seals on their reactors without the go-ahead to do so, remember?

This opinion is based on myths propogated by western governments following their own agendae. The non proliferation treaty expressly allows nuclear research for civilian use and so nothing Iran has done is in breach of this.
The level of enrichment required for power generation is something like 3% whereas the level needed for weapons grade material is around 97% thus requiring far greater sophistication in knowledge and technology to achieve.
As for the effectiveness of the IEAA, Israel never even signed up to the NPTA as they were busy building nukes so failure to stop them had absolutely nothing to do with shortcomings in the UN inspectorate as they weren't involved in any shape or form.
However the original 6 nuclear powers who all signed up to the agreement are in breach of it as part of the agreement was that these countries would dismantle their nuclear weapons capabilities and none of them has made even the slightest effort to do so, in fact since signing the treaty they have gone on to develop far more dangerous nukes.
It's also worth noting that the only country in the world currently considering using nukes during a conventional war is the good old US of A. They want to relable them 'bunker busters' and use them against hard to get at targets.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

This opinion is based on myths propogated by western governments following their own agendae.

The opinion is based on two things, my morals and the FACTS e.g. the constant threats of Israel's destruction, Iran's agreement with Syria pertaining to storage of nuclear material and other cooperation should international sanctions/pressure ensue, general anti-zionism etc. The media didn't skew this. It's reality, not CNN. This is an age old conflict dating back to biblical days. Only difference is now there (may be) nukes involved. I didn't suggest Iran did breach the NPT. I just said that I would support an invasion if they did. Now they did break the UN seals, who placed the seals on the equipment for whatever reason. Even if the seals should not have been there in the first place, or if Iran does have the right to make all the civilian energy they want, they still broke the seals, which shows they don't honor the supervision or its parameters. Yes I am aware that the USA certainly is not being very nonproliferative itself, but seeing the reality of the situation it isn't hard for me to justify this double standard.

It's also worth noting that the only country in the world currently considering using nukes during a conventional war is the good old US of A.

Really? Even so, does there have to be a conventional war going on in order to use a nuke?

 

[Art]

The opinion is based on two things, my morals and the FACTS e.g. the constant threats of Israel's destruction

Aren't you forgetting Israel's pearl harbour style bombing (i.e. no warning - no declaration of war) of Syria and Iraq's nuclear research sites and there recent threats to bomb Iran? The Arabs may talk a lot but with Israel it seems action speaks louder than words.

This is an age old conflict dating back to biblical days.

The state of Israel has only existed since 1948.

I didn't suggest Iran did breach the NPT. I just said that I would support an invasion if they did.

So then you are agreeing that if Iran chooses to continue developing their capacity to process uranium for use in nuclear power reactors they should be allowed to do so and the US should stop threatening dire consequences if they don't desist from exercising their legitimate right?

Now they did break the UN seals, who placed the seals on the equipment for whatever reason. Even if the seals should not have been there in the first place, or if Iran does have the right to make all the civilian energy they want, they still broke the seals, which shows they don't honor the supervision or its parameters.

The seals were put on as a show of good faith to allow discussions to take place between the EU 3 and Iran. As the final proposals made by the EU 3 were unacceptable to Iran they closed out on the discussions and took off the seals.

Yes I am aware that the USA certainly is not being very nonproliferative itself, but seeing the reality of the situation it isn't hard for me to justify this double standard.

Perhaps in your mind but many of us in this world would like to see the NPT implemented in full and nuclear weapons eliminated in their entirety.

Really? Even so, does there have to be a conventional war going on in order to use a nuke?

If you were familiar with the non-proliferation treaty you would know that the main reason countries sign up to it is because the nuclear powers signed up to never using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear signatory. So the new rules of nuclear use the US gov't are looking for would be in total contravention of what they signed up for.
I personally wouldn't like to see any more countries developing nuclear capabilities but the current arguments against Iran being pushed by Washington are riddled with hypocrisy and downright dishonest.

 

[Tzar]

Aren't you forgetting Israel's pearl harbour style bombing (i.e. no warning - no declaration of war) of Syria and Iraq's nuclear research sites and there recent threats to bomb Iran?

How can you possibly compare Japan bombing US, for no humane reason at all, and Israel bombing Iraq's nucear facilities, for self defence. YES, for self defence. Anyone who undrstands the mentality of Sadam, understands that he would use nukes to bomb Israel at his first chance. And so will that crazy, current Iranian president. He WILL nuke Israel if he gets nukes. Of course my opinion will never be validated because Israel will never allow Iran to get nukes and will bomb it before it does, even if it means a full scale war (which it doesn't). Its not US who will bomb Iraq, its Israel, and it will do it in the next few months.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I seriously doubt Iran will nuke Israel at first chance. We all know that would mean the total destruction of anything anywhere within the Iranian border. The reason they want nukes is so that the rest of us won't mess with them. They don't want the U.S. coming in there the way it happened in Iraq.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

The state of Israel has only existed since 1948.

This is true. The official country of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants have only been on that lot for sixty somethin' years. Before then I think it was a roller hockey rink owned by the vikings who must have conquered the land from the martian empire...

So then you are agreeing that if Iran chooses to continue developing their capacity to process uranium for use in nuclear power reactors they should be allowed to do so and the US should stop threatening dire consequences if they don't desist from exercising their legitimate right?

See that's the problem... legitimate right...That's where we differ. I know it sounds unfair, but I'm biased. My team already has nukes. So does Israel. And we're pals. Israel was on that little chunk of land long before any Arabs came around too. Finders keepers. Yet many Iranians are mad, they want it for their new religion too! They were just a little late. So certain looney individuals hold some kind of anti-zionistic grudge they could just push that red button. Now here in the United States we have unconstitutional state laws that prohibit gun purchase/ownership for people diagnosed correctly/incorrectly) with mental conditions present or past. Hell this guy Mahmoud here says the holocaust never happened!

 

[EnumaElish]

IMHO Iran will (and should) be a harder sell for the U.S. administration.

 

[fargoth]

I seriously doubt Iran will nuke Israel at first chance. We all know that would mean the total destruction of anything anywhere within the Iranian border. The reason they want nukes is so that the rest of us won't mess with them. They don't want the U.S. coming in there the way it happened in Iraq.

with your logic you can't understand the "shahids" -suicide bombers, these people don't value other's or their own lives... and the current president of iran is one of these madmen... he doesn't care the whole world would be destroyed, he'll have his 72 virgenes anyway for killing all these jews who don't deserve to live in his view.

 

[russ_watters]

...it is true that we have had many discussions about this issue. Never once have I conceded to your argument that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago - I have conceded to other errors I have made in other discussions on other issues.

What you conceded was regarding the data - you started changing the definition of "poverty" after realizing what the data showed, but what the data shows is that the number of people living on $1 a day is half what it was 20 years ago. (I probably should have avoided the word "poverty" in my previous post and gone straight to the data) That's the global picture: the American picture is in the income statistics of the US: every income bracket has shown marked improvements in the past ~20 years. Thus your assertion that a very small few have improved and the rest have gotten worse (whether you are talking about the US in particular or the world as a whole) is clearly false.

I would not argue a case that I considered to be untrue; why should I?

I have several ideas about that, but this isn't the place to discuss people's motives.

If all was right with the world, if it truly was getting better for all, why on Earth would I want to argue the opposite case? [emphasis added]

Actually, that's part of your tactics: what you just said there is not equivalent to (or rather, exactly opposite of) what you said before. You said most are getting worse. Adding those universalities is a truly weak - not to mention dishonest - debate tactic.

If all you wish to claim is that the world is not now perfect, fine, I agree - but that is not what you said. You said the world is actually getting worse for most people on an individual economic basis. That is a statement of mathematical simplicity and 1+1=wrong. A person who was making $1 a day 20 years ago and is making $2 a day today, by virtue of 1st grade math, is making more money and able to live better than 20 years ago. $2>$1

So, to clarify...
This is my understanding of global poverty: while GDPs of 'developing' nations show an increase in wealth, this wealth is very unequally distributed. The GDP is a total; this total can increase without having equal benefits for all.

That is true, but it does not directly address the previous assertion of yours...

While the local bourgeoisies in 'developing' nations may be profiting from capitalism (as attested by rising GDPs, for example), this is happening at the expense of the poor, who are getting poorer and whose living conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate (education, health systems and basic social services are being privatised, making them inaccessible to poor people, for example). This is the case even in the 'developed' capitalist countries, the USA included. Reality is more complex than the simplistic outcome that measures such as GDPs suggest. This, in any case, is my understanding of and position on this topic.

You made a number of assertions there that are factually wrong. I won't go over them individually because they are covered by the false blanket assertion you made on the previous page.

Getting more specific about being wrong doesn't make wrong right. The blanket assertion that "the poor...are getting poorer" is factually wrong when you use objective, absolute scales for defining poverty (which is what you did in your previous statement) - Ie, if you define "poor" according to how much money is in your pocket or food is on your table compared with 10 years ago. What you have done in previous threads and are about to do again here is to start with a sweeping statement about absolute prosperity, then argue for it with evidence about relative prosperity.

Poverty is difficult to define. It can be measured in absolute terms with a baseline of 0 in which case it is probable that in percentage terms there are less people living in poverty today than 50 years ago but if measured in relative terms in respect to differential incomes within a given population I believe most folk would agree poverty has increased hugely over the same time period as the process of capitalism necessarily shifts wealth to the already wealthy.
The point being before arguing whether poverty has increased or decreased it seems necessary to agree what the definition of poverty should be.

You are correct, Art, but fortunately alexandra's initial statement was one of absolute prosperity, not relative prosperity. I should have been clearer in pointing that out right away.

Further (and this is an argument for another thread), the idea that "poverty" is something that can even be measured on a relative scale at all is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Lisa!]

1 question: wouldn't it endanger Palistinian's lives as well if some country use Nukes against Israel?

with your logic you can't understand the "shahids" -suicide bombers, these people don't value other's or their own lives... and the current president of iran is one of these madmen... he doesn't care the whole world would be destroyed, he'll have his 72 virgenes anyway for killing all these jews who don't deserve to live in his view.

Has he ever mentioned that they should kill all the jews who live in Israel? I mean I've heard he said Israel should be wipped off the map? but has he mentined it should happen by killing them?
Have you ever asked a muslim who's shahid?

*Sounds like I can't avoid this discussion*

 

[Art]

with your logic you can't understand the "shahids" -suicide bombers, these people don't value other's or their own lives... and the current president of iran is one of these madmen... he doesn't care the whole world would be destroyed, he'll have his 72 virgenes anyway for killing all these jews who don't deserve to live in his view.

The powers of the president of Iran are very limited compared to the the powers of the US president and so your fears are baseless.

PRESIDENT
The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. The constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.

In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm

 

[fargoth]

The powers of the president of Iran are very limited compared to the the powers of the US president and so your fears are baseless. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm

i guess the supreme leader isn't a zionist lover, and i think he also posses the mentality of islamic fundamentalists, which means he doesn't give a damn about suiciding while killing the "evil sinners" when he'll get the chance.

 

[Art]

This is true. The official country of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants have only been on that lot for sixty somethin' years. Before then I think it was a roller hockey rink owned by the vikings who must have conquered the land from the martian empire...

Or perhaps the 300,000 arabs who despite securing a UN resolution granting them the right to return have been refused permission to do so by Israel.

See that's the problem... legitimate right...That's where we differ. I know it sounds unfair, but I'm biased. My team already has nukes. So does Israel. And we're pals. Israel was on that little chunk of land long before any Arabs came around too. Finders keepers. Yet many Iranians are mad, they want it for their new religion too! They were just a little late. So certain looney individuals hold some kind of anti-zionistic grudge they could just push that red button. Now here in the United States we have unconstitutional state laws that prohibit gun purchase/ownership for people diagnosed correctly/incorrectly) with mental conditions present or past. Hell this guy Mahmoud here says the holocaust never happened!

First off I personally have no problem with Israel and fully support their right to continue to exist as an independant state although to be honest because of the way they behave I am very glad I don't have them for neighbours.
I also believe they have the right to defend themselves against their enemies but all too often their 'defensive' measures in response to terrorist attacks seem more petty and spiteful than effective counter-measures.
As for your admitted dual standards; again as I have already said I would not like to see Iran (or anybody else) developing nuclear weapons but I think this should be achieved in a global context of nuclear disarmament rather than the "he can have them because he's my buddy but he can't cause I don't like him" If the US wants to follow the 'might is right' policy then fine, there's not a lot anybody can do about it at this time but it would be nice if they just came out and said it instead of treating the rest of the world as if we were cretins feeding us pathetic propaganda to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Art]

i guess the supreme leader isn't a zionist lover, and i think he also posses the mentality of islamic fundamentalists, which means he doesn't give a damn about suiciding while killing the "evil sinners" when he'll get the chance.

Any sources or references to support this statement?

 

[fargoth]

Any sources or references to support this statement?

"After meeting Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yasin in 1998, Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed that Iran would not recognize Israel "even for one hour" and would "continue to struggle against this cancerous growth." In 2000, he explained that the only "remedy" for Israel was "to destroy the root and cause of the crisis," and in a statement reported by Reuters later in the year he called Israel a "cancerous tumor" which "should be removed from the region." The next year, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, widely regarded as a pragmatist, noted that Israel was more vulnerable to nuclear attack than Muslim countries "because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." For his part, former president Mohammed Khatami, often held up as Iran's leading moderate, has described Israel as "a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world" and argued that "all of Palestine must be liberated.""

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=w051031&s=karshmiller103105"

Or perhaps the 300,000 arabs who despite securing a UN resolution granting them the right to return have been refused permission to do so by Israel.

when israel declared independence every arab country in the region fought against it, do you think it would have been different if the palastinians won the war?
why should a country accept the return of declared enemies who wish the people of the country to die, and don't accept the idea that the land is their's?

 

[Art]

"After meeting Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yasin in 1998, Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed that Iran would not recognize Israel "even for one hour" and would "continue to struggle against this cancerous growth." In 2000, he explained that the only "remedy" for Israel was "to destroy the root and cause of the crisis," and in a statement reported by Reuters later in the year he called Israel a "cancerous tumor" which "should be removed from the region." The next year, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, widely regarded as a pragmatist, noted that Israel was more vulnerable to nuclear attack than Muslim countries "because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." For his part, former president Mohammed Khatami, often held up as Iran's leading moderate, has described Israel as "a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world" and argued that "all of Palestine must be liberated.""
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=w051031&s=karshmiller103105"

when israel declared independence every arab country in the region fought against it, do you think it would have been different if the palastinians won the war?
why should a country accept the return of declared enemies who wish the people of the country to die, and don't accept the idea that the land is their's?

Are you suggesting that the entire UN (including the US) got it wrong when they passed the resolution? Are you saying that as Israel won the war they were entitled to seize the properties of Palastinian civilians who owned the title deeds to that land? If so please explain how this differs from the policies pursued by Hitler's 3rd Reich?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Or perhaps the 300,000 arabs who despite securing a UN resolution granting them the right to return have been refused permission to do so by Israel.

Hey I was just saying that the fued there goes back a long long time, it seemed like you were saying that Israel wasn't a state until 1948 and so there was no issue prior to then and I was trying to be sarcastic to say no that's not the case. It only became official in 1948. The Jews have regarded that land as their promised land ever since biblical days. They were always there. In varying numbers, and ruled by different people, but always there. The Arabs, the ones we know as the Palestinians, didn't even show up until like 636 a.d. or something like that when they conquered it from the Byzantines. The byzantines ruled the Jews before then. Now in the last century they said enough already and finally planted the star flag to make it official, and DEFEND their right to that land. The U.N. who you say granted the land back to the Palestinians is also a new organization.. The anti-zionism however (i.e. anti Jews on that land) has been going on at least since the seventh century. Islam wasn't even invented until hundreds and hundreds of years after the old testament. So the bottom line is, the Jews were there first and it is their rightful land, therefore, if we're talking about "rights", then the U.N. arbitrarily stepping in and granting any of that land to Arabs who don't deserve it would be about as legitimatly authoritative as them placing "do not use" seals on Iranian nuclear equipment.

First off I personally have no problem with Israel and fully support their right to continue to exist as an independant state although to be honest because of the way they behave I am very glad I don't have them for neighbours.
I also believe they have argue that pointlessly forever.the right to defend themselves against their enemies but all too often their 'defensive' measures in response to terrorist attacks seem more petty and spiteful than effective counter-measures.

Yeah I've noticed it too. I'm not completely happy with the way either U.S.A. or Israel has handled their military operations.

As for your admitted dual standards; again as I have already said I would not like to see Iran (or anybody else) developing nuclear weapons but I think this should be achieved in a global context of nuclear disarmament rather than the "he can have them because he's my buddy but he can't cause I don't like him"...

I personally like that policy. Ideally, it would be nice to have the bill of rights be sacred, but on the other hand, I don't want a delusional skitzophrenic shooting at his halucinations in public. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer for this and it's morally similar to what we're talking about; I also respect the right to nuclear energy as a valid view so we could argue this aspect forever but it would be pointless.

But as for your plan for everyone to universally get rid of all their nukes, it would be awesome if that could be realized. But it can't. Nobody who has nukes is giving them all up. Ain't going to happen. Even if all western countries and India Pakistan etc. did, that doesn't ensure that Iran or any other states wouldn't try to obtain them. So for this other future scenarios and solutions are considered.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Are you saying that as Israel won the war they were entitled to seize the properties of Palastinian civilians who owned the title deeds to that land?

See here's the thing. Palestinians don't have the title deeds to that land.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

i guess the supreme leader isn't a zionist lover, and i think he also posses the mentality of islamic fundamentalists, which means he doesn't give a damn about suiciding while killing the "evil sinners" when he'll get the chance.

Any sources or references to support this statement?

I know you weren't asking me, but Iran is an Islamic theocracy. The Quran is statutory. That is where you'll find the evidence for this. I'd post it for you but it's off topic.

 

[Art]

See here's the thing. Palestinians don't have the title deeds to that land.

I beg to differ -

56 Years On, Palestinian Refugees Still Have Home Keys

GAZA CITY, May 15 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Thousands of Palestinians took to the streets across the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Saturday, May 15, to commemorate the 56th anniversary of Nakba (loss of Palestine), showing keys and title deeds of their usurped homes.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/15/article07.shtml

The helpless old farmer doesn't know who to turn to to claim compensation. He continues to brandish a derisory and useless piece of paper: the title deed delivered by the British to his father in 1936.

http://www.bma-alqods.org/englishsite/news0040.htm

Even the Israeli gov't do not question the existence of the land deeds held by the Palastinians they have simply chosen to ignore them.

 

[Bilal]

Originally Posted by fargoth
with your logic you can't understand the "shahids" -suicide bombers, these people don't value other's or their own lives... and the current president of iran is one of these madmen... he doesn't care the whole world would be destroyed, he'll have his 72 virgenes anyway for killing all these jews who don't deserve to live in his view.

hmmmm

May be I have to join this discussion to balance the Zionist propaganda !

First:

Shahids is Arabic: refers to the ‘’death of people during defending the country’’, even the Israeli army calling their victims in the Arabic Israeli TV as ‘’Shahids of IDF”. Additionally, we call people whether they are religious or not as “shahids” if they died during fighting the enemies. For example, Guevara is called shahid by many leftist people in ME.

Islam used also this term to describe the people who died in defensive and offensive wars , but also other groups of people are covered by this definition. Prophet Mohammed defined them: Shahids are those who died while defending their country, tribe (family or nation), and travelers (in the sake of getting knowledge)).

Suicide is not considered as shahid in Islam, but the Zionist propaganda along with “New Born Christian” propaganda is strong enough to change the facts.

In our education system, there are 90 minutes/week as religious studies: Islam for Muslims and Christianity “catholic and orthodox” for Christian. We used to hear always this story in our religious classes: “A brave Muslim soldiers impressed other Muslims by his fighting against the pagan army. Muslims soldiers asked about the opinion of Prophet Muhammad about this brave solider. The prophet told them:” I afraid he will be not shahid”. Muslims soldiers surprised from this answer, but at the end of the battle. They knew that this solider was severely wounded, and then he committed suicide to get rid from the pains. Accordingly he is not shahid anymore.

This story clearly indicated who commit suicide is not shahid, but some scholars said: that Palestinian can use this tactic if they have no alternative. Of course there opinion is valid for specific time and place as ‘’exceptional rule’’.


I would like to add also that 40% of suicide attacks in Palestine are done by ''secular and leftists groups".

The first suicide attack in ME was in 1956, when a Christian Syrian called Joul Jamal attacked a French worship by his small boat during the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt. Also most of suicide bonders in 80s are planned in Lebanon by leftists and nationalists.

Second:

Jews golden age was under Muslims rule, whether in Spain or in Baghdad, so why Muslims in middle ages did not slaughter them as the Christian did several times if their religion ordered them to do that?

Did Muslim force the Jews to wear specific clothes? Did they put them in concentrations camps; did they stole their money and slaughtered them as crusaders did?

The former president of Israel ''Ezra Wisemean" admitted in 1999 that Muslims and Jews had a very peaceful history compared with Christian. –He continued” Muslims never declared crusaders wares and they never revenge from Jews for Jesus blood”;


To claim that Islam encourage his followers to kill the Jews is against the history, logic and Islam teachings, but as they said: if you repeat the lies thousands of times, nobody will believe , but if you repeat them millions of times it will be documents as facts!

Unfortunately the Zionists and the ‘’New born” Christian built around 3000 anti Islam homepages in the last 4 years to convert their lies into facts. The costs of this intrnet propgand exceed 2 billion dollars.

 

[fargoth]

hmmmm
May be I have to join this discussion to balance the Zionist propaganda !
First:
Shahids is Arabic: refers to the ‘’death of people during defending the country’’, even the Israeli army calling their victims in the Arabic Israeli TV as ‘’Shahids of IDF”. Additionally, we call people whether they are religious or not as “shahids” if they died during fighting the enemies. For example, Guevara is called shahid by many leftist people in ME.
Islam used also this term to describe the people who died in defensive and offensive wars , but also other groups of people are covered by this definition. Prophet Mohammed defined them: Shahids are those who died while defending their country, tribe (family or nation), and travelers (in the sake of getting knowledge)).
Suicide is not considered as shahid in Islam, but the Zionist propaganda along with “New Born Christian” propaganda is strong enough to change the facts.
In our education system, there are 90 minutes/week as religious studies: Islam for Muslims and Christianity “catholic and orthodox” for Christian. We used to hear always this story in our religious classes: “A brave Muslim soldiers impressed other Muslims by his fighting against the pagan army. Muslims soldiers asked about the opinion of Prophet Muhammad about this brave solider. The prophet told them:” I afraid he will be not shahid”. Muslims soldiers surprised from this answer, but at the end of the battle. They knew that this solider was severely wounded, and then he committed suicide to get rid from the pains. Accordingly he is not shahid anymore.
This story clearly indicated who commit suicide is not shahid, but some scholars said: that Palestinian can use this tactic if they have no alternative. Of course there opinion is valid for specific time and place as ‘’exceptional rule’’.
I would like to add also that 40% of suicide attacks in Palestine are done by ''secular and leftists groups".
The first suicide attack in ME was in 1956, when a Christian Syrian called Joul Jamal attacked a French worship by his small boat during the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt. Also most of suicide bonders in 80s are planned in Lebanon by leftists and nationalists.
Second:
Jews golden age was under Muslims rule, whether in Spain or in Baghdad, so why Muslims in middle ages did not slaughter them as the Christian did several times if their religion ordered them to do that?
Did Muslim force the Jews to wear specific clothes? Did they put them in concentrations camps; did they stole their money and slaughtered them as crusaders did?
The former president of Israel ''Ezra Wisemean" admitted in 1999 that Muslims and Jews had a very peaceful history compared with Christian. –He continued” Muslims never declared crusaders wares and they never revenge from Jews for Jesus blood”;
To claim that Islam encourage his followers to kill the Jews is against the history, logic and Islam teachings, but as they said: if you repeat the lies thousands of times, nobody will believe , but if you repeat them millions of times it will be documents as facts!
Unfortunately the Zionists and the ‘’New born” Christian built around 3000 anti Islam homepages in the last 4 years to convert their lies into facts. The costs of this intrnet propgand exceed 2 billion dollars.

islam as a religion can be interpreted in lots of ways - like every other religion (which is why i dislike religions so much as they give people excuses to do stupid things)
its true that the othman empire which was islamic treated the jews better then the christians in europe (although, anti-semitism was not always a part of christianity...)

its true not every islam believer is mad, and i believe most of them to be peace seeking.

but there are interpretations that are held by fundamentalists that approve suiciding while fighting for islam.

"Particularly since Sept 11, it is essential to understand the Islamic motivation of suicide terrorists. “Shahada” - Death for Allah - as a religious tenet of Palestinian Islam, is different than “Martyrdom” in Judeo - Christian tradition. In Palestinian Islam, a person must aspire to Die for Allah, or he is not a complete Muslim. The promotion of Shahada includes promises of heavenly rewards, including 72 virgins of Paradise. Jihad - war for Allah - is said to be a religious necessity, the only way to honor, in PA religious ideology."

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part10.html"

israel don't call the people it eliminates shahids, they call them terrorists, because they organize mass killing of civilians just like osama bin laden did.

the arab nations call the suicide bombers shahids, and not only the people who kill isralli people, they call these who crashed into the twin towers shahids, and the ones who suicided in england and france shahids too...

so saying that by definition shahids has nothing to do with suicidal madmen is wrong.

 

[fargoth]

Perhaps your extremist sources are colouring your view or more likely simply reinforcing it?? but here is a more balanced report on Al Khameni's attitude http://www.ww4report.com/node/929/print

the only conclusion is that he is two faced, the site i quoted from didnt put words in his mouth, its what he said.
if he says something else now, it doesn't mean he has changed his mind, it just says he realized its better to keep low inorder to secretely make his nukes...

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Well Art I said that literally but I didn't mean it that way so my fault... I mean they have the official deeds... but they don't have the official claim... in which years were these deeds recorded?

So basically a wolf pees on a tree. Then another wolf comes along later and pees on the same tree.. Before you know it the two wolves are fighting. Moral of the story.. There's a conflict. You ever get up to go get a snack or somethin' and call your seat so no one else takes it, because you were there first? It's kind of like that. But yeah it's all just legal mumbo jumbo.. And I guess picking sides is a natural side effect of that.

 

[Bilal]

islam as a religion can be interpreted in lots of ways - like every other religion (which is why i dislike religions so much as they give people excuses to do stupid things)

There are many sectors in Islam as any other religion. For example, Al qaeda do not consider Iran as Muslim nation! And they hate Muslims Shia more than American. Because of that most of suicide attacks in Iraq are directed against Shia Iraqi.

In, Islam there is two major sectors: Sunni 90% and Shia 10%.

There are 4 major schools in Sunni Islam: Maliki , Shafei, Hanafi and Hanbali. Hanbali (around 5% of Muslims) is the smallest group and they are they have most strict rules concerning the social and political life. Among the followers of this sector, there are what called Takfiri or what called in the West (extremist Wahabi), this sector represents around 5% of hanbali school …. All our troubles come from this small group which represents a very small percentage among the major Muslims schools. The activists of this sector are counted by ten thousands among 1.6 Billion Muslims.

its true that the othman empire which was islamic treated the jews better then the christians in europe (although, anti-semitism was not always a part of christianity...)

You can check the golden age of Jews …
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/golden.html

Jews and christian are considered in Islam of middle ages as “Dimmi”, which means (protected people). Those groups are mostly treated well particularly in Islamic Spain-Andalusia from 8th -15th century: all are got equal rights. Prophet Mohamed said : who harm a “Dimmi” is considered as guilty as who harm me.

"Particularly since Sept 11, it is essential to understand the Islamic motivation of suicide terrorists. “Shahada” - Death for Allah - as a religious tenet of Palestinian Islam, is different than “Martyrdom” in Judeo - Christian tradition. In Palestinian Islam, a person must aspire to Die for Allah, or he is not a complete Muslim. The promotion of Shahada includes promises of heavenly rewards, including 72 virgins of Paradise. Jihad - war for Allah - is said to be a religious necessity, the only way to honor, in PA religious ideology." http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part10.html"

The paragraph you mentioned is just a piece of propaganda which is speared regularly by Israeli propaganda machine as a part of the Palestinian - Zionist conflict.

- Palestinian – Israeli conflict is political not religious conflict. 18 % of Palestinian are Christian, and they resist actively the Zionists. The most oldest Palestinian resistance organizations after Fatah, are PPRF and PDPF are established by two Palestinian Christian: George Habash and Naief Hawatmeh.

- First suicide bomber was done by Syrian nationalist Christian (Joul Jamal) in 1956 as I mentioned before.
- In 80s, all the suicide bombers attacks were in Lebanon against Israeli military targets. Most of these attacks are done by non religious people (e.g. Syrian socialist party and the communist party)
- PA is secular authority; they have nothing with Islamic organizations (i.e. Hamas and Islamic Jihad).
- 40% of suicide attacks are done by non religious organizations (e.g. PLO).
- Palestinian Orthodox Church support also the suicide bombers and call them as martyrs.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=18393

israel don't call the people it eliminates shahids, they call them terrorists, because they organize mass killing of civilians just like osama bin laden did.

You are completely wrong!

What about the massacres of Sharon? He murdered in 1982 around 20000 civilians in Lebanon, and he was forced to retire by his people. In 2000, they elected him again and they call him as one of their historical heroes.

Here you can find some information about massacres of Sharon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

Yitzhak Shamir, was a Jews terrorist who murdered many British soldiers , doctors and nurses, and he attacked the Palestinian civilians. He was wanted dead or alive to the British army after his collaboration with the NAZI Germany in 2WW. His leader Seturn was killed by British army. This horrible terrorist became the Israeli PM for 8 years in 80s and 90 s!

You can find an article about this terrorist written by a Jews holocaust survivor called Israel Shahak:

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_shahak/shahak39.asp

the arab nations call the suicide bombers shahids, and not only the people who kill isralli people, they call these who crashed into the twin towers shahids, and the ones who suicided in england and france shahids too...

so saying that by definition shahids has nothing to do with suicidal madmen is wrong.

hmmmmm
So what you means by Arab nations!

Did you know that the terrorists of ALqaeda attacked most of the Arab countries? Did you hear how they bombed the Hotels in Jordan in Palestinian wedding party? Did you hear about the daily attacks in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia? Arab nations are the first victims of those terrorists.

Palestinian are fighting against the occupation, but they never bomb any target outside the conflict region. It is justified resistance and protected by the international laws because the people are fighting for their freedom. Of course, as any resistance there are mistakes as targeting the Israeli civilians.