Attack on Iran

[spooony]

America’s top intelligence official says Iran is increasingly willing to conduct attacks in the United States or against U.S. interests overseas, but does not appear to have decided to build a nuclear weapon.
In written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said last year’s foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington shows that some Iranian officials “are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived actions that threaten the regime.” He said such officials could include the country’s supreme leader.
Iran has denied taking part in assassination plots and insisted it has no intention of building nuclear weapons. On that second point, Clapper told senators Iran could be telling the truth, at least for now.
“They are certainly moving on that path, but we do not believe they have made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon," said Clapper, adding that the extent to which Iran enriches uranium will be a key signal of its intentions.
Also appearing before the Intelligence Committee, CIA Director David Petraeus agreed with Clapper’s analysis, but said Iran’s current enrichment activities already surpass what is needed for a peaceful nuclear program.
“Factually, the amount of 20 percent enriched uranium that they have exceeds any requirement, for example, for the Tehran research reactor for the foreseeable future," he said.

Iran not declaring all their nuclear resources plus developing long range missiles that with current payload and accuracy will be military infective if anything but a WMD warhead is used. Some people think they have the right do with their nuclear stockpile whatever they want. What do you guys think?

 

[Scarfman]

I stopped reading at "Factually ..." The US Govt are liars, why listen to anything they say. If they want to attack (and fuck knows why they do), they will fabricate a reason and FoxNews will sell it to the people.

 

[spooony]

I stopped reading at "Factually ..." The US Govt are liars, why listen to anything they say. If they want to attack (and fuck knows why they do), they will fabricate a reason and FoxNews will sell it to the people.

I don't listen what the news or media report. I draw from sources like official reports.
Did you read the last report of the Security Council?

While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.
53. The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2011/iran_iaea_gov-2011-65_111108.pdf

Lets not forget the missile that was sabotage and killing Irans head scientist while he was fiddling with a missile instead of working on his peaceful uranium at a local enrichment site.

Why are they developing a long range missile that is military ineffective without a nuclear payload?

Looking at he range of the missiles

I think Israel have the right to be concerned.

Then this report from MEC who is Iranian opposition about a site Iran was hiding. If MEC did not report it Iran would never have reported it. So can you trust them when they are not even showing everything to the inspectors?

 

[Scotty]

I stopped reading at "Factually ..." The US Govt are liars, why listen to anything they say. If they want to attack (and fuck knows why they do), they will fabricate a reason and FoxNews will sell it to the people.

Agree that the US will do what they want. But that also applies to Iran. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

 

[spooony]

Agree that the US will do what they want. But that also applies to Iran. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

Well said. I know the US thing, media etc etc but I have to come to a conclusion myself after reading various reports and facts I wouldn't trust them at all as well.

 

[Godfrey]

The post-Islamic regime in Iraq is pretty bad, though the country has had a very bad run of leaders. I'd rather see them deposed by internal action than the despicable Middle East string pulling of the US.

 

[spooony]

The problem is the countries laws are Islam and not common and statutory law like most of the countries have.

A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other. The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.
Under Islamic law, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights. The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less. Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim. In fact, a Muslim can never be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

 

[Schadenfreude]

The problem is the countries laws are Islam and not common and statutory law like most of the countries have.

A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other. The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.
Under Islamic law, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights. The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less. Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim. In fact, a Muslim can never be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

So the US wasn't a democracy before emancipation? Australia not before 1967? Actually the US constitution still has some references to slaves in it.

It's really only been a recent fashion of the rest of the world to respect people regardless of race, gender or creed - and we're not really very good at it either.

 

[suckerforred]

The problem is the countries laws are Islam and not common and statutory law like most of the countries have.

A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other. The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.
Under Islamic law, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights. The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less. Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim. In fact, a Muslim can never be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

No offence Spoony, but do you really think that South Africans are in a position to lecture on democracy. And before you see red a jump on me, all democracies have their problems, even Oz. IMO the democracy debate is entirely seperate from the Islamic Law debate, which is also seperate from the 'should America interfere with the governance of another nation' debate. (Or anyone for that matter).

And with reference on the Security Council reports, what was their opinion on (report into) the WMD in Iraq issue? Not doubting, I honestly don't remember therfore asking the question.

My personal opinion on the matter at hand - I don't think that nuclear wepons should be allowed at all in the world. Having said that, we can not uninvent them and people are going to use what ever they have at their disposal to defend their terrority - from the smallest unit of an individual to the largest unit of the world. Yes I know an individual is not likely to have acces to nuclear wepons and the world comment relies on the existance of aliens.

My hard nose bitch sick of them all fighting opinion - lock the boarders into the middle east and let them fight it out themselves. Last one standing gets the jersey. Yep and that has its problems as well before someone shouts at me.

 

[Scarfman]

I'm getting out of this thread now because I'm going to go fucking apeshit on you spooony if I hear another word.

 

[spooony]

No offence Spoony, but do you really think that South Africans are in a position to lecture on democracy. And before you see red a jump on me, all democracies have their problems, even Oz. IMO the democracy debate is entirely seperate from the Islamic Law debate, which is also seperate from the 'should America interfere with the governance of another nation' debate. (Or anyone for that matter).

And with reference on the Security Council reports, what was their opinion on (report into) the WMD in Iraq issue? Not doubting, I honestly don't remember therfore asking the question.

My personal opinion on the matter at hand - I don't think that nuclear wepons should be allowed at all in the world. Having said that, we can not uninvent them and people are going to use what ever they have at their disposal to defend their terrority - from the smallest unit of an individual to the largest unit of the world. Yes I know an individual is not likely to have acces to nuclear wepons and the world comment relies on the existance of aliens.

My hard nose bitch sick of them all fighting opinion - lock the boarders into the middle east and let them fight it out themselves. Last one standing gets the jersey. Yep and that has its problems as well before someone shouts at me.

We never had a religion govern out country. Fools maybe but we still had a common and statutory law. I did not say what is correct and what is wrong I explained only the difference between Islam law and the laws what you get in a democracy.

The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Quran and Sunnah. A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political. The people are never to be placed above the Quran and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah.

So do not think I preach or point at there is no democracy I am clearly explaining the difference between Islamic and Democratic type of countries and laws. Iran is ruled by Islamic law like we are ruled by laws. But those laws were made by a man who organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.

 

[spooony]

I'm getting out of this thread now because I'm going to go fucking apeshit on you spooony if I hear another word.

Ape shit about what? Eh?

 

[suckerforred]

So do you believe that Islamic law and democracy are mutually exclusive?

 

[suckerforred]

Oh and do you believe that this is any different / better then the catholic belief of the 'God' and the Pope?

The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Quran and Sunnah. A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political. The people are never to be placed above the Quran and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah.

Not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to understand. Personally I believe that religion of all shapes, creeds and colours are responsible for more wars, destruction and heart ache in this world than anything else and find most 'religious' people a bunch of hypocrites. But I also recognise that what I think is a generalisation.

 

[barbarian]

What does Iran's theocracy and perceived lack of civil liberties have to do with their nuclear program?

To be honest I am not sure what this thread is trying to achieve. Of course we don't want Iran developing the bomb, and of course we don't want the US to attack. It is a very sticky situation. Ahmedinijad is a nut, but that hardly unusual, especially in the Middle East.

 

[spooony]

Oh and do you believe that this is any different / better then the catholic belief of the 'God' and the Pope?



Not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to understand. Personally I believe that religion of all shapes, creeds and colours are responsible for more wars, destruction and heart ache in this world than anything else and find most 'religious' people a bunch of hypocrites. But I also recognise that what I think is a generalisation.

What about Sadam killing all those muslims because they're believes differ a bit from the current Islamic law? MEC what do you think they are? Muslims as well but their believes is a bit different than what the law governs and they will get killed if arrested. Islamic law and the Muslims are two seperate entities. One is the law that govern the country

 

[spooony]

What does Iran's theocracy and perceived lack of civil liberties have to do with their nuclear program?

To be honest I am not sure what this thread is trying to achieve. Of course we don't want Iran developing the bomb, and of course we don't want the US to attack. It is a very sticky situation. Ahmedinijad is a nut, but that hardly unusual, especially in the Middle East.

Because two countries can't live together. One wants to wipe the other from the middle east due to the fact they believe in something different. What that mean is they are outsiders which are Israel and can be killed. I think you forget about the country that is in striking range from them. I mean if a country parade a long range missile with the slogan Israel must be wiped from the earth on it would you not get concerned? In truth and reality its because they do not believe in what Iran believe. That makes you fair game to be attacked cause that is what the commandments say. That I give has every bit to do with the issue and concerns. I just provided back ground info on it

 

[barbarian]

I'm sorry Spoony but you are talking shit. You are dealing in simplistic stereotypes and clearly have a very limited knowledge of Sharia Law and Islam more broadly.

So much like Scarfy I am leaving this thread and suggest others do the same.

 

[suckerforred]

OK, so religious beliefs result in wars, destruction, murder and atrocities. Nothing new there. All have been involved at some point in time. No arguement here. With regards to the catholic comment - google spanish inquisition. For the record I disagree with what they did here as much as I disagree with what Sadam did in Iraq and Hitler did in Germany.

I ask again - do you believe that Islamic law is mutually exclusive to demoracy? I don't. I believe that demoracy can exist, in some form, with Islamic law, same as it can exist in some form with christanity, catholicism, buddism and all other religions. I realise that we may not all agree with what form that takes, but lets face it the laws in Aust were initally based on the laws of England which have deep roots in christian faith. Whether that is good bad or indifferent is not my call really. I am lucky I have the abiltity to speak up and freely about what I do and do not agree with. The point I am trying to make is that if the people of a country vote for and support a particular regime or set of laws, then why should we become involved because they do not match what we see as right or 'democracy'. Just because you support the Bok's I am not going to Nuke you. I respect the fact that you have your beliefs and wish to understand how you got them.

I think that it is a concern that Iran may or may not have the ability to have nuclear wepons. The same as I think that it is a concern that the USA, Russia, Pakistan, England, China and France have nuclear wepons. From my point of view it will only take one or two of these 'regimes' to get a flea in their ear about the other and there is the potiential for all hell to break loose and destroy a fair chunk of humanity. I also think that at times the above countries behave as school yard bullies - 'We've got nukes, but you can't have them' sound almost like 'This is my ball and you can't play with it'. IMHO.

 

[Godfrey]

I'm not sure that what Spoony is saying is all that offensive. I might be interpreting wrong - but is he saying that having a religious Theocracy is undemocratic. That is certainly true. The current Iranian theocracy is a curse on that country and it's people. Note that this is not saying that Islam is the curse, merely the regime.