• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Attack on Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I'm also not sure he was being as offensive as people are taking it.

No matter what religion, if it is an extreme sect of it, then it is always going to compete with a countries law. If the religion holds beliefs that don't match the the law, then extremists are likely to follow the religious beliefs over the law.

And yes, if women or other adult segments of society aren't allowed to vote, then it can't be considered a true democracy.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
To put this in context - we don't have a democracy - Australia is a Constutional Monarchy - and the Monarch is also claimes to be God's representitive on Earth as head of the Church of England. We have no problem oppressing people and still claiming "Democracy".

The Americans spend a lot of effort in avoiding the laws they have in their own country - and international law. Congress is supposed to be the part of the US govt which declares war, but they haven't since (I think) 1964 - so what do they have going on now then? Guantanimo bay - where's the rule of law there? They redifined torture, or do it in foreign countries.

And don't even get me started on South Africa.

Iran - so far, have done what? Fought with Iraq? Where they were slaughtered by chemical weapons, and the UN negotiated a peace treaty?
 
S

spooony

Guest
In an address to the “World without Zionism” Conference held in Tehran on October 26, 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:

Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that this Jerusalem- occupying regime [Israel] must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement.

In the same speech of October 26, 2005, Ahmadinejad returned to the theme of Israel as dirty vermin which needed to be eradicated: Soon this stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable.


The theme of the Israeli germ or microbe is also a common one with the Iranian president. In his speech before a crowd in Bandar Abbas on February 20, 2008, Ahmadinejad said:

In the Middle East, they [the global powers] have created a black and filthy microbe called the Zionist regime, so they could use it to attack the peoples of the region, and by using this excuse, they want to advance their schemes for the Middle East.

According to President Ahmadinejad, ridding the world of the germ Israel is possible and imminent. On April 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad insisted that Israel was “heading towards annihilation.” He added that Israel was A dried, rotten tree that will collapse with a single storm.

The President of Iran told a press conference on March 14, 2008, held during a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Senegal The Zionist regime is on its way out [destructible].

Referring to the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Little Satan”), Ahmadinejad said at a military parade on April 17, 2008

The region and the world are prepared for great changes and for being cleansed of Satanic enemies.

For Ahmadinejad, Iran’s support for the Palestinians will help them destroy the State of Israel. He told a press conference on May 13, 2008:

“This terrorist and criminal state is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians.”

A day later, Ahmadinejad spoke in Gorgan, in northern Iran, declaring,

“Israel’s days are numbered,” adding that “the peoples of the region would not miss the narrowest opportunity to annihilate this false regime.”

In a public address shown on the Iranian news channel on June 2, 2008, Ahmadinejad again reiterated:

“Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off the face of the world.”

Clearly, Ahmadinejad’s call for the imminent destruction of Israel was not a one-time event in 2005, but rather publicly declared on multiple occasions.

Ahmadinejad was fully prepared to make his assertions about Jews and Israel in the Western press, as well. In an interview that appeared in the French daily Le Monde on February 5, 2008, he said the Jews of Israel are: “a people falsified, invented, [the people of Israel] will not last; they must leave the territory.”

From the interview it is clear he believes that Israelis will not endure and will not continue to stay on the territory on which they are living. This is not a call for a change of government or new policies alone, but rather for the removal of Israel’s Jewish population from the country, either by ethnic cleansing or physical destruction.

Resalat, a conservative Iranian daily, published an editorial on October 22, 2006, entitled “Preparations for the Great War,” in which it reflected on a speech given by Ahmadinejad two days earlier. It stated:


“It must not be forgotten that the great war is ahead of us, perhaps tomorrow, or in a few months, or even a few years. The nation of Muslims must prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist regime, and remove this cancerous growth (emphasis added)"

Notice how he use propaganda bend Islamic rules to gain support from other Muslims around the world. Most of them don't see or hear these things that is really going on. Lets continue shall we.

Even before Ahmadinejad himself spoke about wiping Israel off the map, the Iranian regime used such expressions but did not leave any doubt about what stood behind this phraseology. By juxtaposing its call for Israel’s elimination with a Shahab 3 missile during a military parade, the Iranian regime itself has clarified that these expressions about Israel’s future do not describe a long-term historical process, in which the Israeli state collapses by itself like the former Soviet Union, but rather the actual physical destruction of Israel as a result of a military strike.

The Shahab 3 missile has a range of 1,300 kilometers and can reach Israel from launch points in Iranian territory. Once Iran has completed the production of sufficient quantities of highly enriched uranium – or weapons-grade plutonium – there is no reason why Iran cannot deploy a future Iranian nuclear weapon on a Shahab 3 missile in order to carry out Ahmadinejad’s threat to wipe Israel off the map.

In the Iranian system, the highest ranking political authority is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khamenei has made statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad. In a Friday sermon on December 15, 2000 (shown on Iranian TV), he declared:


“Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.”

A month later on January 15, 2001, at a meeting with organizers of the International Conference for Support of the Intifada, he stated:

“The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.”

Iranian journalist Kasra Naji translated this sentence from the original Farsi as follows:

“It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.”

The difference between international reaction to Khamenei’s statements on Israel and those of Ahmadinejad in 2005 comes from the fact that Ahmadinejad’s declarations were made after the disclosure of Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2002-3, and the breakdown of EU-Iranian talks on halting the Iranian uranium enrichment program.

Why did Ahmadinejad talk about the destruction of Israel? Are his statements supported by religious laws and decrees? Do you think its really the US who are scared of Iran if they create a nuclear weapon? No they are out of range. Can you see now why I posted the background of Islamic law earlier?
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
I just skimmed over that - but you're saying he has just talked a lot right?

George W Bush declared a Crusade in the Middle East then invaded 2 countries, then tortured people, used white phosphorus, then held people without trial.

Politicians here say "We're going to stop the boats", but they don't really mean it, that's just what the public want to hear. In Iran, I think if you want to win an election you'd want to say things like “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.”
 

Godfrey

Phil Hardcastle (33)
Schadenfreude, I know I personally wasn't trying to say that Iran has done anything worth of an attack from the US. It's a complex issue, though I imagine that it depends on what you're referring to when one says "Iran". Is it the people or the regime? I think that regime has perpetrated many, many wrongs - against its own people. That's why a lot of truly proud Iranians self-identify as Persians to distance themselves from the regime. I think the black cloud of fundamentalism and imposed ignorance isn't unique to Islam at all. Indeed, if it weren't for the much more open-minded Middle Eastern leaders of the middle ages many important Greek philosophical and scientific works would be lost to mankind (Christianity was, of course, burning them).

So, I basically think that unless Iran is proven to be preparing for a nuclear attack against another nation the West should not attack them. The West have enough Iranian blood on their hands already after selling weapons to both sides and instigating the Iran/Iraq war. I lament that when the Shah was deposed in the 70s that an even greater evil was allowed to take hold. The only way for that to be overturned successfully is through their own people.

If anyone is looking for a fairly eye-opening book that deals largely with this period of Iranian history I strongly recommend "Persepolis". A graphic, autobiographical novel by Marjane Satrapi.
 

Elfster

Dave Cowper (27)
Iran does seem an interesting place. Though generally thought of as a 'middle eastern' place, Iranians (or Persians) do not see themselves as Arabic. It is quite a pity that in the last 50 years Iran has regressed into a barbaric, medieval theocracy (at last that is the image that is portrayed). I am quite sure that the Iranians would be more ammenable to western ways than a lot of other countries or groups in the 'middle east'. And I imagine that the general populace of the place would not want to wage war against others in the region.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I just skimmed over that - but you're saying he has just talked a lot right?

George W Bush declared a Crusade in the Middle East then invaded 2 countries, then tortured people, used white phosphorus, then held people without trial.

Politicians here say "We're going to stop the boats", but they don't really mean it, that's just what the public want to hear. In Iran, I think if you want to win an election you'd want to say things like “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.”

So you'd be happy if Gillard came out and said 'It is my mission to destroy New Zealand', if that was what was best to win her an election?

What a strange system of justification you have for someone talking about genocide.
 

suckerforred

Chilla Wilson (44)
So you'd be happy if Gillard came out and said 'It is my mission to destroy New Zealand', if that was what was best to win her an election?

What a strange system of justification you have for someone talking about genocide.

All depends, is it a world cup year?
 
S

spooony

Guest
All depends, is it a world cup year?
haha lol

Objection to Iran’s nuclear program is based on the fact that the West does not trust Iranian intentions, it does not accept Iran’s claimed need for nuclear energy as it possesses huge oil reserves. On the other hand, the West shows concern over the possibility that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of extremists within the Iranian regime and therefore become a direct threat to Western countries. The Western assumption is based on the weakness of the regime and the fragility of Iran’s embryonic democracy, which means that power, may fall into the hands of Western and Israeli enemies inside Iran. The West does not recognize Iran’s democratic, transparent and accountable framework for the presidential election process; it considers that Iran is undemocratic and insists that it is on a deviant path and thus a threat to global peace and security.

Again come back to democracy and the setup of a country. Unfortunately Iran's setup allow for such possibilities as well as to add a President who mentioned like stated in my previous post that he don't want Israel there.

Its easy to take a set of commands and bend it to favor your rule and setup so you can influence the people from your country from a young age through schools and the way they are brought up. Instead of both countries bringing up the youth in a peaceful society they are being brought up in hate. But Israeli leaders have the decency not to make statements like like that or promote hate speech where ever he goes.

Lets not forget In January 2002 Israel intercepted a ship carrying Iranian weapons to Palestinians and Hamas fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is a terrorist group and they were supporting and funding one.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
So you'd be happy if Gillard came out and said 'It is my mission to destroy New Zealand', if that was what was best to win her an election?

What a strange system of justification you have for someone talking about genocide.

I'd prefer he talk a lot and do nothing than the other way around.

And yes - if the general public of Australia felt strongly that it was in our strategic and national interest to invade New Zealand I GUARANTEE there will be a politician saying exactly that.

I personally think both the real situation and your hypothetical one are a disgusting way to run politics - but that's exactly what goes on the world over, so lets not get to upset about it. I'm sure the "drive the jews into the sea" line has been carefully tested to appeal to the Iranian market.
 
S

spooony

Guest
I'd prefer he talk a lot and do nothing than the other way around.

And yes - if the general public of Australia felt strongly that it was in our strategic and national interest to invade New Zealand I GUARANTEE there will be a politician saying exactly that.

I personally think both the real situation and your hypothetical one are a disgusting way to run politics - but that's exactly what goes on the world over, so lets not get to upset about it. I'm sure the "drive the jews into the sea" line has been carefully tested to appeal to the Iranian market.
But Iran has been doing a lot. They been supplying Hamas with more advance rockets for years plus other weaponry. Then there is the activity of the Iranian Quds Force which is focused in three main arenas in the Middle East: Lebanon, among Palestinians, and Iraq.

Lebanon is considered the finest example of Quds Force “success” and is used as the front line in the campaign against Israel. The Force operates in Lebanon through local headquarters nicknamed “the Lebanese corps.” Every activity undertaken by the Quds Force in Lebanon is coordinated with the Syrian regime, and Syria serves as the conduit through which weapons are shipped from Iran to Lebanon.

The Revolutionary Guards were behind the establishment of Hezbollah, originally set up to compete with and eventually replace the Amal Shi’ite movement, which is nationalist-secular, and which refused to subordinate itself to the revolutionary Islamic regime in Tehran.4 Since the beginning of the 1990s the Quds Force has fostered and supported Hezbollah. During that time it has managed to strengthen and install Hezbollah among the Shi’ites in Lebanon and to help the organization construct a vast military infrastructure with capabilities of a state and not of a terrorist organization. It has done that through generous funding (hundreds of millions of dollars a year), formulating operative plans, supplying with various types of weapons (including medium- and long-range rockets which can penetrate into the heart of Israel) and by providing Hezbollah operatives with military training.

Israel is largely forbidden from playing a public role as it would lead to tensions and the peace process will be broken off. So Israel must sort of keep quiet while statement are made that they must be wiped from the Middle East. Reason Saudi Arabia and Egypt broken off ties with Iran as they are known to support terrorist activities. Also Israel always retaliate and never initiated a attack that would lead to war since. Since 1967 they were defending themselves after they have been attacked. Now that Iran has almost nuclear capabilities they can't afford to do that anymore as it can mean the death of millions. So the US has to speak for them sort of. So they have to sit there to keep the peace but with the thought that the one who wants you gone are almost capable of a WMD. If Iran had nuclear capabilities as well they would control all the oil reserves as they would be able to strike or close down the Straight. That is 60 percent of the worlds shipping route with the transport of oil. If they block that the US can't really use they're superior navy to un block it as its too narrow and they will suffer heavy casualties and losses. They even practiced that scenario which was found they would suffer over a thousand casualties in under a hour.

So its not just for show they made those statements they are actively supporting terrorist organizations that attacks Israel.

I just skimmed over that - but you're saying he has just talked a lot right?

George W Bush declared a Crusade in the Middle East then invaded 2 countries, then tortured people, used white phosphorus, then held people without trial.

Politicians here say "We're going to stop the boats", but they don't really mean it, that's just what the public want to hear. In Iran, I think if you want to win an election you'd want to say things like “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.”
But the elections was already won. He said that at a Anti Zionist meeting. Again they are not a democratic but Islamic Republic. I explained the difference between the two earlier. Woman are not allowed to vote. In fact if they want to lay a rape charge they need 4 male witnesses otherwise they get stoned to death for adultery. Although they have a president he still acts like a dictator and make decisions like one. He does not need approval to commit any acts.

As for the Bush thing. Before US invaded Iraq Sadam killed thousands of Suri Muslims. That is why Iraq and Iran were fighting as the majority in Iran is Suri not Shiad like in Iraq. Also Saddam was clever by moving his stockpile to Syria before the US innvaded unfortunately did not live to see them again.

As for WP
WP was used in the Vietnam war to flush North Vietnamese soldiers out of their positions. In the December 1994, during the battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round.

The monitoring authority over the CWC, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, had Peter Kaiser, their spokesman, issue a statement on the topic of WP usage:

“No, it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use. If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.“

WP are used as a smoke as well which is non lethal
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
Ever seen Charlie Wilson's War? It's common practice these days to supply weapons and funds to those you share a common enemy with. Where did the IRA get it's funds? It's not from lemonade stands. The word terrorist also seems to be quite overused - and it's used to describe Israel regularly - so the label doesn't mean anything.

There aren't any democracies are there? Most of what you call a democracy are forms of representative government.

And I call bullshit on the WP - I've seen video of it being used as a weapon.
 
S

spooony

Guest
Spoony, you should really attribute the sources you're copy/pasting from.
It about a hundred books i have read. I will add the names later if your going to buy them or whatever as well as reports all over the Internet that I have compiled and I am not copying unless its a direct quote. Quotes I marked in quotes the rest is all coming from my keyboard. The NPA reports I linked earlier.

Ever seen Charlie Wilson's War? It's common practice these days to supply weapons and funds to those you share a common enemy with. Where did the IRA get it's funds? It's not from lemonade stands. The word terrorist also seems to be quite overused - and it's used to describe Israel regularly - so the label doesn't mean anything.

There aren't any democracies are there? Most of what you call a democracy are forms of representative government.

And I call bullshit on the WP - I've seen video of it being used as a weapon.
Yes but do you know what they use the WP bombs for. Its used for bunkers busters as it melts right through the bunker. It is the same as the Israeli's using Neutron Bombs against the heavily dug in tanks of Syria which they got from Russia as the normal anti material and anti missiles were ineffective. Do you know what a neutron bomb is? It is nuclear.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
Yes but do you know what they use the WP bombs for. Its used for bunkers busters as it melts right through the bunker. It is the same as the Israeli's using Neutron Bombs against the heavily dug in tanks of Syria which they got from Russia as the normal anti material and anti missiles were ineffective. Do you know what a neutron bomb is? It is nuclear.

So they're using WP to burn people out of bunkers... yep so that's using it as a weapon - which is a war crime right? Oh that's right - America refuses to let its citizens be tried as war criminals, but everyone else can.

Never heard of Israel using nukes... do you have a reference?
 
S

spooony

Guest
So they're using WP to burn people out of bunkers... yep so that's using it as a weapon - which is a war crime right? Oh that's right - America refuses to let its citizens be tried as war criminals, but everyone else can.

Never heard of Israel using nukes... do you have a reference?
It is either that or suffer losses trying to get them out of the bunker. Ironically the WP was from Iraq's own stock pile.
You must remember the neutron bomb is not like the A bomb effect sort of thing you get. It is designed to destroy the specific target and whatever is in it and also to destry tank columns.
Here is some info on the Neutron Bomb.

The 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War (called the Second Lebanon War in Israel) was an attempt by Israel at eliminating the MAD counter-force in Lebanon. It was an attempt that failed. The Syrians had purchased (and supplied to Hezbollah) a large number of very nasty, relatively low cost Russian AT-14 Kornet solid fuel anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and the Iranian trained Hezbollah commandos dug in massive numbers of concrete bunkers and firing positions. After over 50 Merkava main battle tanks were hit, and the high tech American made warplanes and pinpoint weapons proved ineffective, the handwriting was on the wall. Either use neutron bombs or lose a large number of Israeli solders to remove the Hezbollah threat; or declare peace and walk away for the time being ~ the Israelis chose the latter.
Link

Some more info on Anti Armor defenses
Precision-Guided Munitions and the Neutron Bomb
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
The argument against using chemical and biological weapons isn't that they're not effective - it's that they're not humane. The international community has agreed on principle that the use of those weapons debases us - and has made their use a war crime.

... and your argument is: "... but they're pretty good at killing people!"?

Your quote which you are using to say israel used nukes:

Either use neutron bombs or lose a large number of Israeli solders to remove the Hezbollah threat; or declare peace and walk away for the time being ~ the Israelis chose the latter.

Says that the Israelis chose to "declare peace and walk away for the time being" so we're still waiting for that reference.
 

Karl

Bill McLean (32)
haha lol

Objection to Iran’s nuclear program is based on the fact that the West does not trust Iranian intentions, it does not accept Iran’s claimed need for nuclear energy as it possesses huge oil reserves. On the other hand, the West shows concern over the possibility that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of extremists within the Iranian regime and therefore become a direct threat to Western countries. The Western assumption is based on the weakness of the regime and the fragility of Iran’s embryonic democracy, which means that power, may fall into the hands of Western and Israeli enemies inside Iran. The West does not recognize Iran’s democratic, transparent and accountable framework for the presidential election process; it considers that Iran is undemocratic and insists that it is on a deviant path and thus a threat to global peace and security.

Again come back to democracy and the setup of a country. Unfortunately Iran's setup allow for such possibilities as well as to add a President who mentioned like stated in my previous post that he don't want Israel there.

Its easy to take a set of commands and bend it to favor your rule and setup so you can influence the people from your country from a young age through schools and the way they are brought up. Instead of both countries bringing up the youth in a peaceful society they are being brought up in hate. But Israeli leaders have the decency not to make statements like like that or promote hate speech where ever he goes.

Lets not forget In January 2002 Israel intercepted a ship carrying Iranian weapons to Palestinians and Hamas fighting Israel in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is a terrorist group and they were supporting and funding one.


You're doing it again Spooony. How does any of us ever know what you write and what you copy from all over the net. As has been pointed out, it's helpful for others to know the source of your various proclamations.

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk...-standards-iran-vs-israel-senussi-bsaikri.pdf

The West does not recognize Iran’s democratic, transparent and accountable framework for the presidential election process; it considers that Iran is undemocratic and insists that it is on a deviant path and thus a threat to global peace and security.


And this

Lebanon is considered the finest example of Quds Force “success” and is used as the front line in the campaign against Israel. The Force operates in Lebanon through local headquarters nicknamed “the Lebanese corps.” Every activity undertaken by the Quds Force in Lebanon is coordinated with the Syrian regime, and Syria serves as the conduit through which weapons are shipped from Iran to Lebanon.

from here -

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_e0307.htm

or here

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0407/analysis/analysis-190407.htm

It's not some extemporaneous output resulting from how widely you read with some inevitable loose reproduction from source material - its a blatant cut and paste job, just like in the climate change thread.
 

Karl

Bill McLean (32)
As for the Bush thing. Before US invaded Iraq Sadam killed thousands of Suri Muslims. That is why Iraq and Iran were fighting as the majority in Iran is Suri not Shiad like in Iraq.

Sorry, what are Suri and Shiad?

Do you mean sunni and shia (or shi'ite)?

And I thought the Shia's were the majority in Iran? The Twelver Shia Branch of Islam is about 90-95% of the population I thought. Sunni's are a small minority in Iran, about 4 to 8%. Iraq is a Shia majority as well, so I can't see how any of the above from your post makes any sense at all.

See, this bit you probably wrote yourself, because if you cut and pasted it like so much of the rest of your contributions, you would have at least got the facts right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top