PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March



HMGovt
10-01-2006, 10:20 AM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

bassnation
10-01-2006, 10:52 AM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

does anyone think this is likely or just net rumours? i find the idea of this very worrying.

matt b
10-01-2006, 11:18 AM
i think we have every reason to be worried marc- remember bush and his cronies want nuclear war because it will hasten their ascent to heaven


from znet.org:

Newsweek: Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?

Chomsky: He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.

The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.

mms
10-01-2006, 12:11 PM
repeated here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

but interested to know where their sources come from for sure..

denied here but discussed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4240261.stm

IdleRich
10-01-2006, 01:21 PM
It's difficult, on the one hand a nuclear Iran is surely a bad thing and ought to be avoided if possible (there is another whole debate there about why one country should be allowed nuclear weapons and not another but if there are some that shouldn’t then Iran is one of them at present (as is the US)) but a pre-emptive nuclear strike can surely never be justified.
One of the main arguments used by those in favour of a nuclear deterrent is that no one would ever attack a country with such a powerful defence and there would therefore be no war; if countries with nuclear weapons can strike pre-emptively then this completely breaks down. If Iran does in fact already have nuclear weapons then the knowledge that it was about to face a nuclear attack would be the perfect reason to use them, what I’m trying to say is that if you have an admitted policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike that actually reverses the idea of mutually-assured-destruction and means that countries facing countries with nuclear power would be more, not less likely to attack.
You would hope that even the even the present US administration would hesitate before changing the present balance but I’m not that confident to be honest.

HMGovt
10-01-2006, 01:50 PM
does anyone think this is likely or just net rumours? i find the idea of this very worrying.

It is worrying. I'm not sure the new 32-inch High Definition TV I've ordered will arrive in time to catch the show.

bassnation
10-01-2006, 01:55 PM
It is worrying. I'm not sure the new 32-inch High Definition TV I've ordered will arrive in time to catch the show.

best not book that holiday i had planned in april i guess. by then we'll all be living underground and mutating from all that radiation.

HMGovt
10-01-2006, 01:56 PM
I live within 25 miles of a big US airbase and I've noticed a definite increase in activity in the past month - dozens of F-15s heading to the base for a start - never saw any before December and I've lived here for a while - plus various large transport planes.

And my god, have you seen the latest Army recruitment ads? There was a one during a Big Brother commercial break last night. THE most militarised Armed forces ad i've ever seen. No more manning checkpoints, digging kids out of rubble or touchy feely stuff like that - no, the army is now looking for mechanised infantry, who'll leap out of troop carriers, teeth bared, guns drawn.

I visited the 'secret nuclear bunker' at Kelvedon Hatch last week, maybe it's skewed my judgement.

IdleRich
10-01-2006, 02:01 PM
Those news stories both predate Sharon's aneurysm. I would have thought that the Israelis might find it difficult to get too involved in something like this until they know who is running the country, so with a bit of luck you might get the tv in time.

don_quixote
10-01-2006, 02:22 PM
sounds very far fetched to me

bassnation
10-01-2006, 02:28 PM
sounds very far fetched to me

not sure about the nuclear side of things, but an airstrike on their uranium enrichment sites is more than possible.

IdleRich
10-01-2006, 02:41 PM
Yeah, why would it need to be a nuclear strike? Not that I'm totally comfortable with a unilateral "conventional" strike either. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with Iran having the bomb and I don't see them just agreeing to halt work unlesss they believe that they are actually under threat, maybe that's what it's all about, brinkmanship.

droid
10-01-2006, 03:12 PM
One lesson that all developing nations have learned since the invasion of Iraq (and not North Korea), is that the only sure-fire deterrent to US and British aggression is the development of nuclear strike capabilities.

Even if Iran wasnt being run by a bunch of psychopathic facists and had a responsible and democratic government - building a bomb would still be the smart thing to do tactically... how else are you to defend yourself from all those nuclear armed nations that have been after your oil for the last 60 years or so?

IdleRich
10-01-2006, 03:36 PM
"Even if Iran wasnt being run by a bunch of psychopathic facists and had a responsible and democratic government - building a bomb would still be the smart thing to do tactically"

No disagreement there, it's in Iran's interest to have the bomb. Equally it's in the rest of the world's interest for them not to have it.
I don't want Iran to have the bomb because they are being run by a bunch of psychopathic fascists who are likely to use it whereas the US and British governments' don't want them to have it because they prefer the status quo as it is but we want the same thing on this one I think.

dominic
10-01-2006, 04:41 PM
not only is there a lot of oil in iran, the country also has a very large share of the world's natural gas resources

natural gas will be the "bridge" fuel b/w the oil economy and some kind of post-natural resource economy

an independent iran therefore poses a threat to the so-called american way of life -- and it's only by having a nuclear capacity that iran can be independent

so even if iran were not run by what someone upthread refers to as "psychopathic fascists," a nuclear iran would be very difficult for an energy-hungry america (and the rest of the west -- face it, we're all complicit b/c we all enjoy the benefits relative to others) to deal with

but i find it hard to believe that u.s. would resort to tactical nukes to eliminate iran's nuclear capacity -- that would be upping the ante several times over in terms of inviting a wmd attack against nyc or some other american city

droid
10-01-2006, 06:03 PM
an independent iran therefore poses a threat to the so-called american way of life -- and it's only by having a nuclear capacity that iran can be independent

so even if iran were not run by what someone upthread refers to as "psychopathic fascists," a nuclear iran would be very difficult for an energy-hungry america (and the rest of the west -- face it, we're all complicit b/c we all enjoy the benefits relative to others) to deal with


Kind of explains why the West has done everything in its power to prevent independent development in resource rich regions since forever. The 'threat of a good example' is far more dangerous in the eyes of political and military planners than the threat of a limited Nuclear defense. (which is all N.Korea or Iran could feasibly manage in the near future). Hence the demonisation of Cuba, Vietnam, Iran etc...

Who was it that said that giving nuclear weapons to every nation is the best way to prevent war? In the current climate of global gangsterism, wild west style interventions, and disdain for international law - he might have been onto something....

polystyle desu
10-01-2006, 10:05 PM
Perhaps closer then we knew .
Saw just the headline about US - Iran nuclear on the browser news on the way in ...

Paul Hotflush
11-01-2006, 01:30 PM
This thread is the best yet. Easily the funniest thing I've read on this board (and there have been a few!).

bassnation
11-01-2006, 03:18 PM
This thread is the best yet. Easily the funniest thing I've read on this board (and there have been a few!).

my favourites are the comedy foaming-at-the-mouth neo-con satires that get posted here - can't we have more of those paul? ;)

alternatively you could always argue the point.

polystyle desu
11-01-2006, 05:11 PM
Well, there's plenty of neo- con & Bush league actions to foam about (Jack Abramoff/Tom Delay , NSA wiretapscooping up every International call made , email & private mail taping )
, some we are finding out about now / some have been tripping along unseen since they got the bright ideas .

Sure, disinformation is only half the NSA's and their brothers budget
but when you see & hear the news that Iran unsealing their nuclear facilities yesterday what does it make you think ?
Removed enough from what's going on out there to be so 'over it' ?
Oh it's a real cheery laugh alright

Omaar
11-01-2006, 05:37 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1684130,00.html

craner
11-01-2006, 06:15 PM
Yes...Blair threatens Iran with...the UN Security Council!

Uh, that's a bit different to nuclear bombs.

Face it, Hotflush is right, the premise of this thread is only slightly less absurd than you responses.

Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.

Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)

It's also absurd that you worry more about a non-existant US nuclear attack than the very real prospect of Iran's imminent nuclearisation.

It also reminds me of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter's scoop about the US plans to attack Iran in June.

Last June!!

Oops, that didn't go very well, did it?

craner
11-01-2006, 06:16 PM
Also, I was wondering, why the end of March?

Is it to coincide with my birthday, or what?

Hmm.

droid
11-01-2006, 07:13 PM
Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.

Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)


I actually agree with you that the chances of a nuclear attack against Iran are non-exsistent at the moment. A non-nuclear pre-emptive strike in the near future is a perfectly feasible possibility though.

Remember Osirak?



It's also absurd that you worry more about a non-existant US nuclear attack than the very real prospect of Iran's imminent nuclearisation.

Yes. Truly absurd to worry about the most aggressive nation on Earth possibly attacking ANOTHER oil rich Muslim country who's development it has historically done everything in its power to control.

Its much more satisfying to obsess about the evils of our official enemies, eh Oliver? No difficult questions to answer there...

bassnation
11-01-2006, 07:29 PM
Yes...Blair threatens Iran with...the UN Security Council!

Uh, that's a bit different to nuclear bombs.


thats how blair reacted for sure. but what did the americans say, oliver?



Face it, Hotflush is right, the premise of this thread is only slightly less absurd than you responses.

Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.


its already happened, twice in the last six years. pre-emptive attacks, that is, rather than nuclear armageddon.



Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)


that didn't stop them with iraq and there weren't any weapons there!

after saying all that, i have to admit i'm not sure why they'd need nukes when normal ariel bombardment works just fine.

matt b
11-01-2006, 07:36 PM
after saying all that, i have to admit i'm not sure why they'd need nukes when normal ariel bombardment works just fine.

wash the fuckers into submission! whiter than white! :) (sorry marc)

bassnation
12-01-2006, 08:29 AM
wash the fuckers into submission! whiter than white! :) (sorry marc)

lol, you know it took me a minute to get that joke - bit slow this morning! must remember to spell check my utterances :)

craner
12-01-2006, 09:10 AM
How many times...there is no military option!

Do you know how vexed the Bush administration is about that? How happy they'd be if your fears were true? How convenient an Osiraq option would be?

But Osiraq is the point: it was a clear target. Blasting Saddam's one nuclear reactor (supplied by France) set back his nuclear programme decades (good work I think). But Iraq in 1980 is not Iran in 2006: Iran's nuckear programme is far more advanced. There's, what, about 18 known nuclear research/production sites in Persia. And US intelligence isn't even that good: there's no real actionable intelligence that could KO the production line.

So, I ask again, where will they strike, o wise ones? What will they strike?

Also, any kind of action can be met with strong measure by Iran: by racheting up their terror proxies from Iraq to the occupied territories to the Caspian States, or blockading the Strait of Hormuz.

This has more significane in, say, the State Dept. that you seem to realise.

Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear? (http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200601100812.asp)

bassnation
12-01-2006, 09:39 AM
Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear? (http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200601100812.asp)

i'd like to see everyone disarm, including israel. that country has gone nuclear a long time ago. never see you shouting about them. they are easily as belligerent as iran alhough sharon is not quite as unhinged as irans leader. double stanards, oliver. maybe iran are just following the wests example.

craner
12-01-2006, 10:10 AM
When in doubt, raise Israel. Tres bon.

matt b
12-01-2006, 10:15 AM
How many times...there is no military option!

a US gvt official refused to rule anything out on Today (R4) this morning- so there is a military option (Hans Blix also mentioned this)- the issue is whether they use it.

craner
12-01-2006, 10:18 AM
So what is it? Explain the military option.

bassnation
12-01-2006, 10:20 AM
When in doubt, raise Israel. Tres bon.

its a fair point though oliver. i guess ultimately we all want the same thing - stopping nuclear proliferation and avoiding bloodshed. its just an issue of consistency - you can't condemn one country and then support your ally when it does exactly the same. what kind of message does that send out?

matt b
12-01-2006, 10:25 AM
Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear? (http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200601100812.asp)

well that article seems to be saying that there can be no threat in the middle east to american dominance- its simply unacceptable (goes against the concept of pax americana. what do the people who actually live in the middle east think about that mr craner- are they allowed any self determination (and just to be sure, i don't want Iran to get nuclear capabilities, but i can see why they might see such a move as important)?

matt b
12-01-2006, 10:27 AM
So what is it? Explain the military option.

i'd guess ranging somewhere from providing support to armed militias to full scale invasion

i would hope that the nuclear option is not on the table

craner
12-01-2006, 10:33 AM
I've never in my life supported Isreal's nuclear programme. If you knew me better you'd know that I'm a supporter, in fact, of Modechain Vanunu as well as the Isreali State. (Square that circle!)

Iran is currently uniquely awful. Iran with nukes will be a regional superpower run by fanatics. Iran is now strong enough to, to some extent, influence decisions made by China and Russia. Iran feels it's owed the Caucas States, at least. Iran has 6 submarines. Iran is now capable of building its own subs. When you look at it, they pretty much run global terrorism. All terror groups, except, like the Mek, at some point look to Tehran, or feel the febrile fondle of the Mullahs. But this is all cool, though.

The really important point is that Isreal has nukes and therefore I'm a hypocrite.

craner
12-01-2006, 10:34 AM
What armed militias?

How would a full-scale invasion be mananged?

Are you just talking nonsense?

craner
12-01-2006, 10:35 AM
Rather than dismissing the article, can you respond to the three senarios Robbins sketchs?

Or is this thread a complete waste of time?

craner
12-01-2006, 10:38 AM
And people in the Middle East - who knows? They probably think many different things about many different things...being different people. Do you mean Arabs, Persian, Kurds, Christians, Sunnis, Shias, Liberals, Islamists, Democrats, Marxists, Students, Cab drivers,...whom?

bassnation
12-01-2006, 10:39 AM
I've never in my life supported Isreal's nuclear programme. If you knew me better you'd know that I'm a supporter, in fact, of Modechain Vanunu as well as the Isreali State. (Square that circle!)

The really important point is that Isreal has nukes and therefore I'm a hypocrite.

ok, i stand corrected - good on you oliver (i don't mean this in a sarcastic way)

i guess its as wide of the mark as accussing us of wanting iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

craner
12-01-2006, 10:47 AM
I didn't do that.

matt b
12-01-2006, 10:48 AM
What armed militias?

How would a full-scale invasion be mananged?

Are you just talking nonsense?


why should i have to be an expert on military affairs?

you asked me a question, i offered some options why is that nonsense?



Rather than dismissing the article, can you respond to the three senarios Robbins sketchs?

well now you've asked people to, may be they will.



And people in the Middle East - who knows? They probably think many different things about many different things...being different people. Do you mean Arabs, Persian, Kurds, Christians, Sunnis, Shias, Liberals, Islamists, Democrats, Marxists, Students, Cab drivers,...whom?

that's exactly the point- all of those groups should decide, not simply america or the various dictaors in the region. what's your point?

craner
12-01-2006, 10:52 AM
Look, all I'm saying is that the actual experts on military affairs know (even in America!) that there is no feasible military option. I'm not a military expert either, but I have been reading some. And that's the non-partisan conclusion. So, you know, stop worrying about it. Worry about Iran's nukes instead. That's my whole point.

matt b
12-01-2006, 10:58 AM
Look, all I'm saying is that the actual experts on military affairs know (even in America!) that there is no feasible military option. I'm not a military expert either, but I have been reading some. And that's the non-partisan conclusion. So, you know, stop worrying about it. Worry about Iran's nukes instead. That's my whole point.

ok. thanks. on the whole i agree with you, except that on radio 4 this morning a US official (non-military) did not rule out any options, which i assume includes military ones. clearly, we both hope that he has been talking without official authorisation and is wrong.

surely the key issue, regardless of which 'side' you are on is the esculation of the dispute and the potential for anyone involved to get 'trigger happy'?

craner
12-01-2006, 11:08 AM
Maybe. I think the key issues are that Iran is going to get nukes, it's too late to stop them now, how does the world deal with all the awful regional and global consequences of that, and the demographic timebomb within the Islamic Republic and the democratic revolutionary potentials of that too (which is not really to do with US dominance, but is in their long term interest, as it is in Iran's: this is surely sensible?)...

then, as my friend says, you can start to consider future Chinese Superpower. Ha.

craner
12-01-2006, 11:09 AM
So say I, the Desmond Morris of Doom.

droid
12-01-2006, 11:56 AM
When in doubt, raise Israel. Tres bon.


Yeah right. Cos Israel has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the ongoing war and strife in the Middle East.

Fact is Oliver, one nuclear armed nation surrounded by non-nuclear armed 'enemies' is a recipe for proliferation and escalation, whether or not they are facing the 'existential threat' of being destroyed by their miltarily weaker neighbours or not...

Again i kind of agree with you that the military options are few - after all the US only attacks WEAK enemies who cant possibly defend themselves. Y'know, the Panama's, Nicuragua's and Iraq's of the world... but if there are no plans to attack Iran, then why, pray tell has the drumbeat for war started beating again so loudly?

Personally, given the constant Israeli, Turkish and US military presence in Irans airspace and borders, the continuing use of covert operations and subversion inside Iran, years of diplomatic threats, and the fact that Israel has had a vested interest in eliminating its only credible rival in the region for - oh 25 years or so, i think the chances of some kind of attack is far more likely than say, Iran annihiliating Israel in a Nuclear holocaust...



So, you know, stop worrying about it. Worry about Iran's nukes instead. That's my whole point.

Thats your ONLY point. Dont worry what the good guys are doing - their crimes are irrelevant... these lads are REALLY evil!

Way to stick to doctrine... have you been reading 1984 again? :)

IdleRich
12-01-2006, 12:10 PM
American foreign policy is always terrible and belligerent but it really would be a disaster or a different order if Iran had nuclear power.

“I think the chances of some kind of attack is far more likely than say, Iran annihilating Israel in a nuclear holocaust”

Probably true, but only because if they don’t prevent Iran getting the bomb the latter part of that statement becomes a very real possibility.

droid
12-01-2006, 12:24 PM
Iran with nukes will be a regional superpower run by fanatics. Iran is now strong enough to, to some extent, influence decisions made by China and Russia. Iran feels it's owed the Caucas States, at least. Iran has 6 submarines. Iran is now capable of building its own subs. When you look at it, they pretty much run global terrorism. All terror groups, except, like the Mek, at some point look to Tehran, or feel the febrile fondle of the Mullahs. But this is all cool, though.

Might I add, The Iranian hordes are only 2 days march from Jerusalem. They hate our freedom and drink the blood of our children. They pull newborn babies from incubators. They are responsible for all the evil in the world, and they will stop at nothing less than the total destruction of Western civilisation.

Textbook stuff Oliver! Im surprised youre not working for a major newspaper with those kind of insights. Combine your internalised doctrine with your actual belief in the words of Tony Blair (something I still cant quite believe), and youll have a bright future in the world of politics... :D



Probably true, but only because if they don’t prevent Iran getting the bomb the latter part of that statement becomes a very real possibility.

Yes - because the second that Iran becomes Nuclear capable, it will fire warheads at Israel, triggering a nuclear response from Israel and the US, and the utter annhilation of Iran (including its Mullahs), Israel and Palestine. :confused:

As far as Im aware facist dictators and regimes do not tend to committ mass suicide just when they have gained the means to stay in power indefinitely...

IdleRich
12-01-2006, 12:43 PM
"Yes - because the second that Iran becomes Nuclear capable, it will fire warheads at Israel, triggering a nuclear response from Israel and the US, and the utter annhilation of Iran (including its Mullahs), Israel and Palestine."

You've only go to listen to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I admit I had to look that up) has said about Israel to see why they are afraid. Could be just talk and a nuclear attack seems completely irrational I agree but would you risk it if you were sitting where they were sitting, fundamentalist religious leaders are hardly noted for their rational actions?
I'm not saying that I would condone a US or Israeli attack on Iran. I would prefer it if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons and I would prefer it if that could be achieved by diplomatic means, that's all.

jasonh
12-01-2006, 12:49 PM
As far as Im aware facist dictators and regimes do not tend to committ mass suicide just when they have gained the means to stay in power indefinitely...

Let's hope that they are that sensible - when you have a theocratically based political system, you can expect logical assumptions to be thrown out of the window sometimes.

A diplomatic solution to this would be preferable, but I wouldn't be surprised if the sabre-rattling starts soon, especially if Israel starts to feel threatened. Iran have already promised to "wipe Israel off the map" - do they need any encouragement to do so?

jasonh
12-01-2006, 12:54 PM
The above applies just as much to the US - as close as you will ever get to a theocracy without it being enshrined in any constitution. If Dubya is as daft as he often appears, dropping a nuke or two "in the name of the lord" wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.

Again, hopefully nothing will come of this, as is often the norm.

matt b
12-01-2006, 01:02 PM
Rather than dismissing the article, can you respond to the three senarios Robbins sketchs?

scenario one:
the concern of the author seems to be that iranian nuclear capability stops the US doing what it wants eg: "Currently the Coalition would respond by sending a flotilla to force an entry, probably accompanied by a punitive air campaign against every available worthwhile target in Iran".

not necessarily a bad thing.


scenario two:
iran doesn't need to do this- it is a shi'ite country, like much of iraq and saudi arabia. they can just wait for the US to finish 'delivering freedom and democracy' to iraq and then discuss unification with the democratic gvt of iraq, which will be shia dominated.

scenario three:
yes, the repression of the iranian population by its leaders is a huge issue. does the US give a shit about democracy in such countries? given recent attempted subversion of democracy in venezuala* and the make up of the populations of iran, iraq and saudi arabia and that democratic gvts in those countries would rethink the issue of (whisper it) oil, i would guess the last thing the US wants is democracy.


*oops, that should read "recent support for democracy in venezuala"

Paul Hotflush
12-01-2006, 01:04 PM
Let's hope that they are that sensible

No, lets ensure that we never have to find out for sure!

jasonh
12-01-2006, 01:09 PM
No, lets ensure that we never have to find out for sure!

True enough!

bassnation
12-01-2006, 01:19 PM
No, lets ensure that we never have to find out for sure!

i think thats something everyone can agree on.

droid
12-01-2006, 02:17 PM
A diplomatic solution to this would be preferable, but I wouldn't be surprised if the sabre-rattling starts soon, especially if Israel starts to feel threatened. Iran have already promised to "wipe Israel off the map" - do they need any encouragement to do so?

I totally agree. I dont think the world will be a safer place in the future if Iran gets the bomb, but on the other hand, trying to prevent Iran from getting the bomb would be a good way to make the world a far less safer place now, as well as hastening a global economic meltdown...

Heres a good place to start the diplomacy. A scaledown of of military action aound Irans borders, followed by a return to diplomatic normality under the aegis of multi-lateral weapons inspections for all involved 'actors' including Turkey, Israel and the US, to ensure that they are all honouring their treaty obligations regarding WMD.

If anybody (the EU/NGO's/Tony Blair etc..) attempting to prevent escaltion and proliferation in the Middle East is to succeed, it must be seen to be fair, and that means treating all involved equally, and not simply focussing on the crimes (or possible future crimes in this case) of one party.

craner
12-01-2006, 02:20 PM
Of course, the global ambitions of the Revolutionary Republic's leaders and footsoldiers is all the fault of Israel. That is convenient.

And of course there's no point in trying to stop them getting nukes and we can't complain about it anyway because we all have them. If we gave up our nukes en masse, I reckon that the Iranian leaders wouldn't bother trying to get their own. I mean, they just want to be left alone reallty, don't they. Don't they?

As for Robbins, I reckon senario 1 is wrong: I don't think the Coaltion would bomb Tehran or doing anything much is Iran did engage in energy blackmail. They'd just about stretch to public bluster, backdoor "please don't" diplomacy, useless sanctions.

Matt b's almalgamation of Iranian and Iraqi Shi'ites is an elemental mistake: the idea that the political Shia are pro-Iranian is fallacy; the idea that they would abdicate national sovereignity if Iran asked is a ludicrous fantasy.

There are a few people in and close to the Bush Administration who care about Iranian democracy, a few more who think supporting its emergence would be good for US interests, and, unfortuately, quite a lot more who think that the better option would be to engage the mullahrocy in proto-detente. The Bush Administration doesn't have any policy on Iran. It's in total dissaray.

Iran's vast oil and gas reserves are important because of the leverage it gives them, in the Caspian, over Russia, China, and well the world.

Nuclear bombs will kill off any hope of democratic change in Iran.

craner
12-01-2006, 02:37 PM
You're dead right there Droid except that...ah...have you noticed how the Iranian's use Western diplomatic efforts as cover for carrying on doing exactly what they want to do?

craner
12-01-2006, 02:38 PM
You're too trusting. I mean, don't get me wrong, it speaks well of you.

droid
12-01-2006, 05:07 PM
You're dead right there Droid except that...ah...have you noticed how the Iranian's use Western diplomatic efforts as cover for carrying on doing exactly what they want to do?

Yep - Cos Western diplomatic efforts amount to pretty much nothing when Israel is overflying your border in (possibly nuclear armed) US supplied jets on a round the clock basis.

Token diplomatic efforts will get you nowhere, and the real thing will never happen, because the issue here is not the threat that Iran poses to the world (and I agree that the threat is real), its the threat that Iran poses to US geo-political aims - so real negotiation and diplomacy is impossible and has never/will not be attempted.

I would support the beginning of a wider regional disarmament process involving Egypt/Israel/Turkey/Syria and Iran. Israel could afford to give up a huge amount of arms and STILL maintain a credible deterrent against attack, and if such a process was seen to be fair, then surely world opinion would swing towards intervention in ANY country which rejected inspections, thus pulling the clock a few seconds back from midnight and unifying opinion in potential interventionist nations.

Stupidly idealist? Maybe. But as honest negotiation and diplomacy has NEVER been tried in the middle east, I guess we dont know if this kind of approach could work... the important thing is to try, and to be seen to try...


You're too trusting. I mean, don't get me wrong, it speaks well of you.

Whilst Im not 100% on this - didnt you say you that you actually trusted Tony Blair in another thread sometime last year?

Id trust Khomeni over that scumbag anyday! At least you know where you stand with the beardies! :D

dominic
12-01-2006, 07:40 PM
Look, all I'm saying is that the actual experts on military affairs know (even in America!) that there is no feasible military option. I'm not a military expert either, but I have been reading some. And that's the non-partisan conclusion.

why not summarize the gist of these arguments for us

that is, i find it hard to believe that u.s. could not mount an effective military assault on the iranian *state* and its facilities -- destroy the machinary of the state

droid
12-01-2006, 09:24 PM
why not summarize the gist of these arguments for us

that is, i find it hard to believe that u.s. could not mount an effective military assault on the iranian *state* and its facilities -- destroy the machinary of the state

He is basically right though Dominic.

Despite being a military minnow relative to the US and even Israel, Iran is still the goliath of Muslim nations, which is why the idea of an attack against them is so scary. Anything other than a short sharp strike against specific targets would suck the aggressor into a practically unwinnable ground war against an intensely patriotic and somewhat fanatical enemy. It would certainly be no Iraq. The repercussions could jeapordise the stability of other US clients in the region like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, possibly even leading to the US's worst nightmare - genuine self determination in the Middle East...

The ideal would be a repeat of 'the perfect coup', or some kind of covertly supported dissident movement. No doubt both of which are in the works already...

turtles
12-01-2006, 09:52 PM
Chiming in a bit late in the debate but oh well...

I think this whole "mutually ensured destruction" story maybe gets a little more credit than it deserves. For starters, on the american side, if you buy Chomsky's story that the invasion of Iraq was at least partially done as a proof-of-concept for the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attacks (just to show that they really mean it), then that whole nuclear posture review seems very scary. The whole slant of it seems aimed at creating a situation in which they can actually use nukes again without triggering quite the same level of mass hysteria and retribution that would be expected from a full scale nuclear attack. So since they've done something similar once already they might be willing to do it again, to prove another point.

The fact that no nukes have been used since WWII is very much a contingent thing. Just look at the Cuban missile crisis of an example of how extremely close we've come to nuclear war--and how stupid the people we have in charge of these nukes are.

Now given this, of course Iran getting nukes is a terrible thing, as terrible as Isreal, the US, Pakistan, India, Russia and everyone else getting nukes--these countries are all ruled by ideological idiots (and I mean idiot in terms of anyone to engage in the type of rhertoric and actions that they have done are idiots, not the "huh-huh bushie says dumb things" sense of idiot). I don't know about you people, but I have a very low opinion of the judgment of ALL these leaders. None of them are fit to have control over such destructive powers.

Oliver, I would really like to see some of these military analysts who say there's no chance of a successful attack on Iran, because I'm sure they're right. Unfortunately I remember reading such opinions before the Iraq war too, but once the American propaganda machine kicked into full gear they were very neatly pushed into the margins. If Iraq has taught us anything, it's that good advice is nothing to the Bush administration if they've already made up their mind otherwise.

Droid I think your plan of mutual diplomacy is the sane and reasonable thing to do, but I really it's going to get done.

Ahhhh, alright, I am very depressed re: current world political climate. please carry on.

dominic
13-01-2006, 12:30 PM
aren't destroying and conquering two different propositions?

that's probably the only clear-cut lesson i've derived from the iraq war

so my question is, why do the experts think that u.s. military cannot *destroy* iranian army, iranian command-and-control, iranian state?

granted, u.s. military will have a very hard time bringing *order* to this "intensely patriotic and fanatical" land, but that doesn't mean u.s. can't destroy what's there now

droid
13-01-2006, 01:37 PM
aren't destroying and conquering two different propositions?

that's probably the only clear-cut lesson i've derived from the iraq war

so my question is, why do the experts think that u.s. military cannot *destroy* iranian army, iranian command-and-control, iranian state?

granted, u.s. military will have a very hard time bringing *order* to this "intensely patriotic and fanatical" land, but that doesn't mean u.s. can't destroy what's there now

Well - of course they could just 'nuke the whole site from orbit', and wipe out the entire country, but that would hardly achieve anything would it? It would take years to bring oil production back online, and anyways, I dont think that irradiated oil would be of much use to anyone.

craner
13-01-2006, 04:04 PM
I think you're all getting a bit carried a way. It's not really to do with relative military capabilities of Iran and the US. Military strikes are unfeasible because

- Iran can cause economic chaos through energy blackmail
- they could cuase regional chaos by stoking their numerous terror proxies
- China and Russia, Iran's allies, would forcefully oppose any US action
- they would be no possible mandate and not even the UK would back the option

And, as I said, there's no easy Osiraq-esque target: the Iranian's learned something from Saddam's disaster. That's why the nuclear programme is scattered thought Persia in semi-secret sites. Obvious.
Also, Pentagon war gamers keep losing in Persia. That's what I heard.

Nuclear weapons would kill dead the hope and work of dissidentts and democracy and human rights movements and activists within Persia, the very people, incidentally, the US should be supporting.
It was gratifying that Bush mentioned Akbar Ganji but that was too token. You mistaken in thinking that the CIA somehow run some sinister underground democracy-promotion civilian-sabotuer programme. (Fuck the CIA anyway, the always get everything wrong - "hey, all we need is more sensible mullahs in charge, that'll keep things sweet...") It's obvious what the US should do. Where's the Farsi Radio Free Europe? That's what's needed.

So, destroying, conquering...you're taking yourselves away from politics, reality.

Don't you understand that the regime's nuclear ambitions are spured by lots of other things apart from Israel. I'd go so far as to say, even, that Israel is a bit of a red herring. It's almost useful tp peddle it.There are many potential reasons why Ahmedinejad has been allowed to say what he has, and not been silenced, and even backed up by Khamenei. Having said that, I think Israel is right to be very worried. And I don't see, despite not supporting their nuclear capability, why Isreal should start to unilateraly disarm in a region dominated by States who do not even recognise it's right to exist. Why should Israel be called upon to do something so stupidly suicidal?

droid
13-01-2006, 04:45 PM
You mistaken in thinking that the CIA somehow run some sinister underground democracy-promotion civilian-sabotuer programme.

Yeah - because that never happened before... :confused: Surely someone who knows so much about Iran also knows the root causes of the current political situation there.


I think Israel is right to be very worried. And I don't see, despite not supporting their nuclear capability, why Isreal should start to unilateraly disarm in a region dominated by States who do not even recognise it's right to exist. Why should Israel be called upon to do something so stupidly suicidal?

Translation: 'Why should Israel negotiate? Give an inch and the evil Arab hordes will drive them into the sea'...

Gotta love that doctrinal myth peddling, especially when its pursued so singlemindedly... :confused:

First of all - I said MULTI-lateral disarmament, so your argument is the usual straw man, and secondly, why should Iran be called upon to do something as stupidly suicidal as NOT arming itself?

As I mentioned earlier, the only credible deterrent to attack by the US and its client states is a nuclear one. Its the most obvious lesson of the entire Iraq debacle for 'failed states' to learn, and undoubtably Tehran has learned it well...

craner
13-01-2006, 05:20 PM
You think the CIA is the same now as the CIA 60 years ago or the CIA 30 years ago...? The CIA have been in total crisis for over a decade. Rather than patronise me, you could read up on its history. CIA's current incompetence vis a vis Iran is making some people rather wild with frustration.

Translation: 'Why should Israel negotiate? Give an inch and the evil Arab hordes will drive them into the sea'...

That was a wrong translation. I was merely saying that the world community, and the UN in particular, ask things of the Israeli State they wouldn't ask of any other. (And don't.)

If you think all my arguments are based on a straw man, then I don't think you've been paying attention to them. I'm sorry, but I don't have some devious anti-Muslim agenda.

I think we probably agree, but are cynical about different things, and invest hope elsewhere.

dominic
13-01-2006, 09:44 PM
So, destroying, conquering...you're taking yourselves away from politics, reality.

i mean only that surely the u.s. armed forces could take tehran and other major iranian cities by force, w/o having to resort to nukes -- simply use the same "blitzkrieg" tactics that worked against iraq -- such that the current iranian regime would be brought to a quick end

chaos would then be result, as in iraq == but the objective of destroying the iranian state would be accomplished


I think you're all getting a bit carried a way. It's not really to do with relative military capabilities of Iran and the US. Military strikes are unfeasible because

- Iran can cause economic chaos through energy blackmail

that's an argument for invasion and forcefully taking their oil fields and gas fields (if you're a naked imperialist)


they could cuase regional chaos by stoking their numerous terror proxies

that doesn't strike me as too great a deterrent to u.s. invasion


China and Russia, Iran's allies, would forcefully oppose any US action

if they were determined to make a stand now -- is china ready for a military conflict w/ u.s. or would it prefer to wait a couple more decades?

and wouldn't russia be more likely to acquiesce in u.s. desires, should things get to that point


they would be no possible mandate and not even the UK would back the option

even if iran were on brink of going nuclear? isn't it just as much in the (so-called) interests of uk and western europe to keep iran down as it is in the interests of the u.s.?


And, as I said, there's no easy Osiraq-esque target: the Iranian's learned something from Saddam's disaster. That's why the nuclear programme is scattered thought Persia in semi-secret sites. Obvious.

yes, but unless iranian state actually has a nuclear device ready to use, why should this matter? wouldn't the objective of a u.s. attack be to destroy the state first, and then they'd worry about what happens to any weapons or materials later?


Also, Pentagon war gamers keep losing in Persia. That's what I heard.

this is rather delphic


Nuclear weapons would kill dead the hope and work of dissidentts and democracy and human rights movements and activists within Persia, the very people, incidentally, the US should be supporting.

yes, but i'm assuming that u.s. military could destroy iranian state w/o using nuclear weapons -- simply do the same massive aerial bombardment song-and-dance coupled w/ lightening fast armored thrusts toward major iranian cities and total control of the sky and all electronic communication


Don't you understand that the regime's nuclear ambitions are spured by lots of other things apart from Israel.

yes, i think to have true independence in this world, a state has to possess nuclear weapons -- and this is especially the case for a country like iran, which, thanks to its rich oil and gas reserves, is the object of u.s. designs, i.e., either the u.s. dictates to iran, or iran will dictate to the u.s.

philtre
13-01-2006, 11:17 PM
Also, I was wondering, why the end of March?

Upcoming Iranian Oil bourse..? (http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html)

Padraig
14-01-2006, 12:32 AM
For many years I've had the greatest respect for Michel Chossudovsky's reportage, commentaries, and analyses. His incisive and startling reports on such as The Destabilization of Haiti (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html ) , America's Agenda for Global Military Domination (http://207.44.245.159/article8303.htm), or America's War for Global Domination (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5428.htm), are superb case studies on the ongoing ominous implications of US foreign policy.

His latest article, faithfully continuing that agenda, unfortunately sees him over-intensifying [not a bad/unhealthy thing] his understandably warranted paranoia, viz:


The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Sure, but it ain't gonna happen, just as similar manoeuvres vis-a-vis China some months ago ( see The Largest Covert Operation in CIA History (http://207.44.245.159/article8218.htm) by the always brilliant US forpol analyst, Chalmers Johnson*****article below) withered away into nothing more than ritualistic macho displays of assertive territorial re-positionings/re-entrenchments ...

Besides, "civilian-safe" US nukes have been operationally-ready for a least a decade.

What makes us, or anyone else, eager to assert that the US Administration is itching to use Iran as a now-convenient nuke testbed? Simple knee-jerk displacement of the unprecedented Iraqi failure?

Mmmm

*****Sailing Toward a Storm in China

U.S. maneuvers could spark a war.

By Chalmers Johnson

July 15, 2004 "Los Angeles Times" -- Quietly and with minimal coverage in the U.S. press, the Navy announced that from mid-July through August it would hold exercises dubbed Operation Summer Pulse '04 in waters off the China coast near Taiwan.

This will be the first time in U.S. naval history that seven of our 12 carrier strike groups deploy in one place at the same time. It will look like the peacetime equivalent of the Normandy landings and may well end in a disaster.

At a minimum, a single carrier strike group includes the aircraft carrier itself (usually with nine or 10 squadrons and a total of about 85 aircraft), a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a combination ammunition, oiler and supply ship.

Normally, the United States uses only one or at the most two carrier strike groups to show the flag in a trouble spot. In a combat situation it might deploy three or four, as it did for both wars with Iraq. Seven in one place is unheard of.

Operation Summer Pulse '04 was almost surely dreamed up at the Pearl Harbor headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command and its commander, Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, and endorsed by neocons in the Pentagon. It is doubtful that Congress was consulted. This only goes to show that our foreign policy is increasingly made by the Pentagon.

According to Chinese reports, Taiwanese ships will join the seven carriers being assembled in this modern rerun of 19th century gunboat diplomacy. The ostensible reason given by the Navy for this exercise is to demonstrate the ability to concentrate massive forces in an emergency, but the focus on China in a U.S. election year sounds like a last hurrah of the neocons.

Needless to say, the Chinese are not amused. They say that their naval and air forces, plus their land-based rockets, are capable of taking on one or two carrier strike groups but that combat with seven would overwhelm them. So even before a carrier reaches the Taiwan Strait, Beijing has announced it will embark on a crash project that will enable it to meet and defeat seven U.S. carrier strike groups within a decade. There's every chance the Chinese will succeed if they are not overtaken by war first.

China is easily the fastest-growing big economy in the world, with a growth rate of 9.1% last year. On June 28, the BBC reported that China had passed the U.S. as the world's biggest recipient of foreign direct investment. China attracted $53 billion worth of new factories in 2003, whereas the U.S. took in only $40 billion; India, $4 billion; and Russia, a measly $1 billion.

If left alone by U.S. militarists, China will almost surely, over time, become a democracy on the same pattern as that of South Korea and Taiwan (both of which had U.S.-sponsored military dictatorships until the late 1980s). But a strong mainland makes the anti-China lobby in the United States very nervous. It won't give up its decades-old animosity toward Beijing and jumps at any opportunity to stir up trouble — "defending Taiwan" is just a convenient cover story.

These ideologues appear to be trying to precipitate a confrontation with China while they still have the chance. Today, they happen to have rabidly anti-Chinese governments in Taipei and Tokyo as allies, but these governments don't have the popular support of their own citizens.

If American militarists are successful in sparking a war, the results are all too predictable: We will halt China's march away from communism and militarize its leadership, bankrupt ourselves, split Japan over whether to renew aggression against China and lose the war. We also will earn the lasting enmity of the most populous nation on Earth.

Chalmers Johnson's latest book is "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic" (Metropolitan, 2004).


Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

Wrong
15-01-2006, 01:24 AM
So what is it? Explain the military option.

Here's one possibility (http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_kenmacleod_archive.html#113604467556645 447). In particular:


It may also seem insane for the US to rattle sabres at Iran when 140,000 US troops are 'bogged down' in Iraq. But the nature of the threat seems to be radically different to the threats and ultimate invasion of Iraq. The US is not threatening to invade Iran. Through indirect means (and perhaps also in private diplomatic communications), the US administration is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

It was leaked in July to a US conservative website that "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from vice-president Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" (The American Conservative, August 1). The claim has not been denied. More recently, there was a leak of a draft Pentagon document containing a more general account of plans for first use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike - not merely in response to a terrorist attack, but to 'threats' like the Iranian nuclear fuel enrichment programme (see New York Times September 11). The document has been confirmed as genuine.

Buick6
15-01-2006, 03:38 AM
..oh well I guess it's time to pull out the 'World destruction' 12" by TimeZone, might come true 20 years later!

D84
17-01-2006, 12:43 AM
Here's a great comment on this topic which was linked on this blog (http://stoush.net/) as
The Best Comment In The History Of The World (http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2006/1/14/135611/977/22#22).

It's pretty good.

Here's a couple of choice quotes out of many:

It opens with:


Speaking as a Canadian who is fond of judicious language, I feel that this situation deserves careful and measured thought. So let me just open with:

Is your entire f*cking country on crack??? Are all you Americans out of your cotton picking minds??? Are you completely freaking delusional? Homicidal? Psychotic? Have you lost any shred of a moral compass? WHAT IN THE NAME OF JESUS H. CHRIST ON A CRUTCH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!!

some meat:


Stop and think back five years. What did we have five years ago? A moderate reformist Iranian government making overtures to the United States, rebuilding its relationship with Europe, liberalizing its society, and modernizing its economy.

9/11 comes along, the Iranians are overflowing with sympathy. Mass candlelit vigils are held in Tehran. Iran offers aid and cooperation. Iran hates the Taliban who have executed Iranian diplomats and massacred Afghan Shiites. Iran hates Saddam Hussein. Iran hates Al Quaeda which is a Sunni Fundamentalist organization which declares Shiites infidels and subhuman. Iran shares its intelligence with America, it even arrests Taliban hands them over. So we've got the Iranian spring right, things are finally going to sort out?

And what happens? The Bush administration rebuffs every Iranian overture and does its best to instigate a cold war. Afghanistan is invaded, and suddenly, the Iranians are looking at American troops and allies on their eastern border. Then Iraq is invaded, and its American troops and allies on their western border. Then bases and treaties in Uzbekistan and whoops, there's more American troops and allies on the northern border. The Persian Gulf is filled with American warships and carrier fleets.

read on (http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2006/1/14/135611/977/22#22)

geto.blast
31-01-2006, 07:41 PM
does anyone think this is likely or just net rumours? i find the idea of this very worrying.


The israelis will use sites like http://www.debka.com/ to let "feelers" out : let a rumor out and then see what the reactions are.

Is anyone going to call Israel on the double-standard seeing as they have a huge undeclared Nukes arsenal... or would that be anti-semetic?

here s a nice analysis http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/12/ten-reasons-for-iran-talk.html

droid
01-02-2006, 09:25 AM
Is anyone going to call Israel on the double-standard seeing as they have a huge undeclared Nukes arsenal... or would that be anti-semetic?


I think thats already been mentioned once or twice - and yes - according to some people here, it is anti-semetic to do so.

tryptych
02-02-2006, 01:39 PM
this just gets worse and worse...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1700266,00.html

Grievous Angel
02-02-2006, 04:32 PM
SEMITIC!

"Semetic" means the tendency of living systems to make signs based on any persistent regularity. Apparently.

To be anti-semetic would be to be against living systems making signs, which is surely unconsionable on an Internet discussion forum.

geto.blast
02-02-2006, 05:04 PM
SEMITIC!

"Semetic" means the tendency of living systems to make signs based on any persistent regularity. Apparently.

To be anti-semetic would be to be against living systems making signs, which is surely unconsionable on an Internet discussion forum.

toutes mes excuses , je vais faire plus attention a l avenir m'sieur!

Paul Hotflush
03-02-2006, 02:11 PM
Is anyone going to call Israel on the double-standard seeing as they have a huge undeclared Nukes arsenal... or would that be anti-semetic?[/url]

Yes but the Israelis aren't going to nuke New York or hold the west to nuke/oil ransom.

If Israel didn't have the bomb we'd be in trouble. Despite all the diplomatic faffing, the main thing getting me to sleep at night is the thought that there's no way Israel will stand for Iran getting the bomb.

droid
03-02-2006, 02:18 PM
Yes but the Israelis aren't going to nuke New York or hold the west to nuke/oil ransom.

No - just Baghdad, or Damascus, or Tehran.. but Id guess you regard the threat to those cities as legitimate..




If Israel didn't have the bomb we'd be in trouble. Despite all the diplomatic faffing, the main thing getting me to sleep at night is the thought that there's no way Isreali will stand for Iran getting the bomb.

So - to get this straight... Thoughts of imminent (and possibly nuclear) attacks against a Muslim nation in one of the most politically volatile regions of the world helps you sleep at night?

That explains a lot...

Paul Hotflush
03-02-2006, 02:53 PM
No-ones going to get nuked... :cool:

clappa
12-02-2006, 04:52 AM
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/telegram/0,1082,66875912_852__,00.html , which is sourced from some UK newspaper.

In my humble opinion none of the relevant questions are being asked in this thread: What right does USA, Israel and Turkey have to bomb a third world country?

Paul Hotflush
13-02-2006, 10:38 AM
In isolation, none. But then none of those countries is talking about destroying a state, unlike Iran.

droid
13-02-2006, 10:48 AM
In isolation, none. But then none of those countries is talking about destroying a state, unlike Iran.

Uh-huh. Theyre generally too busy actually destroying societies (Iraqi/Palestinian/Kurdish) to bother with threats and posturing...

In response to clappa's question. Might = Right - thats the no. 1 rule of geopolitics... International law be damned!

Omaar
13-02-2006, 12:21 PM
In the Telegraph on Sunday:

"Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months.""

full article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3MCPV5IRYVUQFQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml)

Ness Rowlah
13-02-2006, 12:26 PM
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/telegram/0,1082,66875912_852__,00.html , which is sourced from some UK newspaper.



It's a shorter rewrite of this in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml)

Padraig
16-02-2006, 10:07 PM
Iran Update
--------------------------------------
As Iranbodycount publishes its findings Iran Consequences Of War (http://www.iranbodycount.org/): "This briefing paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive", a US poll [Americans think Iran may use nukes (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11913.htm)] reports that eight out of 10 respondents predicted Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to attack the United States or Israel. Six out of 10 respondents said Iran itself would deploy nuclear weapons against the United States ... as Ray McGovern asks Who Will Blow the Whistle Before We Attack Iran? (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11909.htm) - With no perceptible demurral from inside the government, George W. Bush launched a war of aggression, defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal as "the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"-like torture, for example.

[... John Pilger : "[I]Has Tony Blair, our minuscule Caesar, finally crossed his Rubicon? Having subverted the laws of the civilised world and brought carnage to a defenceless people and bloodshed to his own, having lied and lied and used the death of a hundredth British soldier in Iraq to indulge his profane self-pity, is he about to collude in one more crime before he goes." ...]

Then there's former UK Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, who has recently said
that Britain cannot "realistically" rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear programme.

[I]Then there's Russia: Amid the escalating crisis around Iran's nuclear programme, Russia said last week [Russia confirms missile defence contract with Iran (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1408706.cms)] that it will still arm Tehran with missiles that can secure nuclear facilities from attacks ... while Russian political expert Mikhail Delyagin [Russian Political Expert Predicts US Missile Attack on Iran (http://mosnews.com/news/2006/02/14/delyagin.shtml)] speculates that the U.S. will launch a missile attack against Iran this summer ... as Russia voices strong opposition to sanctions against Iran [Russian Foreign Minister voiced here Wednesday his country's strong opposition to any possible sanctions against Iran (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0602158078224518.htm)] ... as Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11957.htm) : Russia's top military chief today warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran and a top diplomat voiced hope that close cooperation with China could help resolve the Tehran nuclear crisis.

Then there's China: China said last week [China welcomes Iran-Russia nuclear talks (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP103048.htm)] that it welcomed talks between Iran and Russia next week on plans to defuse the crisis over Tehran's atomic programme, but refused to say whether it would join the meeting.

And Iran's responses: Ahmadinejad vows his country will continue on the road to victory, labels Bush warmonger who should be put on trial, while Iranian Vice President Esfandyar Rahim Mashaee said [Iran dismisses US threat over nukes (http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/02/10/d60210012622.htm)] "We are not afraid of attacks by the United States or by other countries on Iran's nuclear installations
because we have nothing to hide, we have no installations
to produce nuclear weapons." ... as Iran resumes enrichment work: "Iran has continued its nuclear drive within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT, but if we see that you want to deprive us of our right using these regulations, know that the people will revise their policy in this regard," Ahmadinejad said (http://www.centralchronicle.com/20060214/1402191.htm).


[I]And the US/Israeli responses: [Mofaz: Iran combining radical platform with nuclear weapons - danger for Israel (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3216736,00.html)] ... Pimping a war ... as US threatens Iran with new sanctions (http://snipurl.com/mlrc): Threatening new sanctions, the United States accused Iran on Wednesday of defying the world by resuming uranium enrichment for nuclear fuel without resolving suspicions it secretly wants to build atomic bombs ... meanwhile Rice Says Iran Is Openly Defying The World (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/c56b55ef-2f62-4e60-9c98-93071c729fce.html) : Speaking at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice said Washington is examining the full range of possible punitive sanctions on Iran, as she asks for $75M to foster democracy in Iran: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress on Wednesday for $75 million this year to build democracy in Iran (http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=83390), saying the U.S. must support Iranians who are seeking freedoms under what she called a radical regime. Another U.S. Coup In Iran? ... In a private meeting with European diplomats this week, a former senior U.S. official raised the idea of launching a dozen B2 bombers in an air raid (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11870.htm) aimed at crippling key Iranian nuclear facilities ...

... [I]continued in following post ...

Padraig
16-02-2006, 10:17 PM
Iran Update [continued]

Elsewhere, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says [Facing a potential nuclear holocaust at the hands of Iran (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/11/123752.shtml?s=ic)] the United States must do everything in its power to bring about regime change there, even if it means invading that nation ... as the World Jewish Congress launches a campaign against Iran [World Jewish Congress launches anti-Iran campaign (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/681155.html)] following the nuclear crisis and the anti-Semitic statements of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Further, the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a resolution [House condemns Iran's nuclear program (http://tinyurl.com/bnwtw) ] condemning Iran for its nuclear program, and urging the international community to apply sanctions to deny it the ability to develop atomic weapons ... Moreover, Bush now planning huge propaganda campaign in Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329413536-110878,00.html): The Bush administration made an emergency request to Congress yesterday for a seven-fold increase in funding to mount the biggest ever propaganda campaign against the Tehran government, in a further sign of the worsening crisis between Iran and the west ... and US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11879.htm): "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months ... and again, Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11881.htm): Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists ... as the propaganda persists: Pentagon plans to derail Iranian atomic bomb test (http://tinyurl.com/avmuq) - Iran has drawn up designs for a deep underground tunnel with remote-controlled heat and pressure sensors as part of what Western intelligence officials believe are preparations for a secret atomic test.


The French response: Propaganda ? France accuses Iran over nukes (http://tinyurl.com/bnab8): The French foreign minister has accused Iran of pursuing a clandestine military nuclear programme ... while French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy branded Iran's nuclear programme [Selling a war?: Iran nuclear programme is 'military' (http://www.centralchronicle.com/20060217/1702192.htm)]for the first time today as a "clandestine, military" project.


According to Mike Kress [The Urgency of Now: Stopping the War on Iran (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11868.htm)], the neo-cons will use their tool at the UN, Ambassador John Bolton, to help create an international crisis and thereby justify attacks on Iran. Though there's no evidence to prove that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, Iran's refusal to halt its lawful nuclear programs will become the pretext for America's next unnecessary war. And Thomas Harding argues ['10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11890.htm)]: More than 100 American bombers, many based on carriers in the Gulf, would take part in a huge simultaneous surprise air attack on 20 key nuclear and military facilities.

Finally, Amnesty condemns Iran's treatment of ethnic minorities (http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/2006/02/amnesty-condemns-irans-treatment-of.html) : The administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has come under severe criticism from Amnesty International in a report entitled "New government fails to address dire human rights situation", which was published this week.

---------------------------
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3239/207/1600/hiroshima.1.jpg

The Wind Will Carry Us: 31st March 2006 - Iran's Nuclear Meltdown? (http://subject-barred.blogspot.com/2006/02/wind-will-carry-us-31st-march-2006.html)

corneilius
03-03-2006, 07:45 AM
Here's a fine article explaining the motivation behind these and other wars.

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1389

The nuts and bolts are this - in 2000 iraq announced they were going to start trading their Oil in Euros, creating an alternative to the US dollar which was then, and still is, the ONLY currency you could buy Oil in - hence every country HAS to have US dollar reserves to ensure they have supply of Oil.

Iran are due to start trading Oil in Euro's on March 20th ....... oh dear! It seems that quite a lot of countries want to trade in Euros, to have an alternative to the US dollar ... which would over time devalue the dollar, causing US imports to become expensive, and US exports to become cheap...........

Do read the article, it's very informative, draws on the history of the US dollar as a global currency, the link between the UK and the US who control the International Petroleum Exchange and the abandonment of the use of the gold standard to peg currency values.

Venezuela, an Oil exorter is also on the US hitlist, though they cannot label it a terrorist state like they did Irq and Iran and North Korea ........

Oh by the way the justifications for these wars, such as the 'war on drugs'. the 'war on terror', the 'real' fear of Iraqi/Iranian WMD, bringing Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East, and the inclusion of North Korea in the 'axis of evil' was just a standard advertising pr ploy, propaganda if you will. The fact that it has worked for so long should worry us, as in how have our minds been so conditioned to believe this tripe? To ignore the very real hurt, damage and death caused by these wars fought for 'our own good'?

Easy to blame the war mongerers, harder to face the responsibility that WE LET THEM DO IT FOR SO LONG!

droid
03-03-2006, 09:13 AM
Here's a fine article explaining the motivation behind these and other wars.

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1389

The nuts and bolts are this - in 2000 iraq announced they were going to start trading their Oil in Euros, creating an alternative to the US dollar which was then, and still is, the ONLY currency you could buy Oil in - hence every country HAS to have US dollar reserves to ensure they have supply of Oil.

Iran are due to start trading Oil in Euro's on March 20th ....... oh dear! It seems that quite a lot of countries want to trade in Euros, to have an alternative to the US dollar ... which would over time devalue the dollar, causing US imports to become expensive, and US exports to become cheap...........



Hmm.. this is only one aspect of a very complex situation. Bottomline, the US is not going to attack Iran over a change to Euro... it simply cant do it. They're fairly fucked as it is considering the disintergration of Iraq, and the rise of the left in Latin America, so, important as it may be, theyre not going to start a suicidal war over something like this...

I hate to agree with Craner on this, but there really is scant possibilty of any kind of major military attck against Iran in the near future... subversion/coercion/infiltration... all options (and probably happening as we speak - see Condis recent rejected donation of $20 mil to Syrias dissident democrats), but war is out of the question, tactically, politically and economically.

The US simply does not attack strong enemies...

droid
06-03-2006, 11:53 AM
Oh the sheer hypocrisy of it all!




U.S., India finalize nuclear deal

The U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finalized a historic nuclear power deal after Thursday’s talks in New Delhi, BBC reported.

Under the agreement, the U.S. will share its civilian nuclear technology with India, even though New Delhi won’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In return, India will have to separate its military nuclear program and open its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection.

The deal represents a major shift in the policy of the U.S., which imposed temporary sanctions on India in 1988 after it concluded nuclear tests.

Speaking at a joint press conference after the talks, Bush called the nuclear deal a “historic agreement”.

The American President also acknowledged that it may be difficult to sell the agreement to the U.S. congress, which has to endorse it. But he insisted that "It's a necessary agreement. It's one that will help both our peoples.”

Singh said that New Delhi had finalized a plan to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities, a move necessary for the deal to be implemented.

Most Indians oppose the U.S.-India nuclear deal, and had been urging the government to cancel it.

Communist parties and Muslim groups are opposed to Bush’s visit to India, and are leading protests across the country.

A meeting of the Indian parliament has been delayed after MPs from communist and socialist parties organized a sit-in to protest Bush’s visit.

Tens of thousands of people have also gathered at a large ground in New Delhi. On Wednesday, more than 100,000 protesters, mainly Muslims, rallied at the same venue.

Thousands of Indians also held a demonstration in the eastern city of Calcutta in a protest organized by 30 leftist groups.

The protesters carried placards that read: "Bully Bush, Go Home," and chanted "Death to Bush."

Many Indians oppose the U.S.’s foreign policy, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. India, a predominantly Hindu nation of more than 1 billion people, has the world’s second-largest population of Muslims.

During his visit, President Bush will also go to the southern city of Hyderabad, one of India's high-technology hubs.

The U.S. President will go to neighboring Pakistan on Saturday, where he says he will mediate between Islamabad and New Delhi in resolving the decades-long Kashmir dispute.

On Thursday morning, an explosion took place near the U.S. consulate in the Pakistani capital, Karachi, killing more than four people, including an American working at the consulate.

But Bush said the attack in Karachi won’t prevent him from traveling to Pakistan.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10699

Omaar
09-03-2006, 12:37 PM
18 March International day of action:

Troops home from Iraq, Don't attack Iran.

Is putting Iran on the agenda like this really a good idea for the Anti-war movement? I'd have thought introducing the topic of Iran at this point would shift the debate towards a dichotomy of should we/shouldn't we attack Iran, which is exactly what certain parties desire, no? That is, as soon as people start saying: "don't attack Iran" people will start thinking that maybe we should be attacking Iran. Or will it just raise awareness?

craner
09-03-2006, 02:33 PM
Awareness of what?

Padraig
09-03-2006, 03:31 PM
18 March International day of action:

Troops home from Iraq, Don't attack Iran.

Is putting Iran on the agenda like this really a good idea for the Anti-war movement? I'd have thought introducing the topic of Iran at this point would shift the debate towards a dichotomy of should we/shouldn't we attack Iran, which is exactly what certain parties desire, no? That is, as soon as people start saying: "don't attack Iran" people will start thinking that maybe we should be attacking Iran. Or will it just raise awareness?

So, er, to following your line of reasoning: people should start saying, "attack Iran" and then people will start thinking that maybe we shouldn't be attacking Iran?? Or censor all discussion and debate and protest, while the hawks meanwhile proceed with their planned invasion???

Very illuminating ...

Omaar
09-03-2006, 04:14 PM
Or censor all discussion and debate and protest, while the hawks meanwhile proceed with their planned invasion???

Very illuminating ...

Yeah obviously that's what I meant.

Please illuminate me on why that's illuminating ...

Padraig
10-03-2006, 12:07 PM
Yeah obviously that's what I meant.

Please illuminate me on why that's illuminating ...


http://www.askderekscruggs.com/images/nothing-to-say-so-blog.gif

What is THAT which you obviously meant?

"I have nothing to say and I am saying it." http://www.uclm.es/artesonoro/olobo2/Reuni%97n/im%87genes/5.jpg

[Duchamp n' Cage]

bassnation
10-03-2006, 01:09 PM
What is THAT which you obviously meant?

come on mr padraig - he was only asking for our opinions! ;)

Omaar
11-03-2006, 08:47 AM
Padraig - there's no need to be so glib and patronising.

I think it's reasonable to ask whether now, in terms of strategy, would be the best time for the anti war movement to introduce a debate on invading iran, in terms of the way this would interact with how things are currently being spun in the media. Anyway, the way things are being spun in the last week has turned markedly anway, with the coverage given to Bolton's remarks for instance - so perhaps the timing is almost right.

How you hypothetically extend my line of reasoning is sort of illogical anyhow.

Buick6
11-03-2006, 11:30 AM
The US simply does not attack strong enemies...


Japan and Germany?

droid
11-03-2006, 05:41 PM
Japan and Germany?

I should have qualified that statement with 'by choice', but as you mention it:

The US only joined the war against Germany after Russia had broken the German army, and Britain had effectively driven the Nazis out of Africa and were advancing on Italy, they effectively joined the winning side.. Even then US intervention was motivated as much by fear of Russian domination of Europe and its economies as it was by altruistic defence of European 'freedom and democracy'...

Japan on the other hand pre-emptively attacked the US, and, whilst not diminishing the crimes of the Japanese, I think its fair to say that their main successes involved guerilla warfare in tropical jungles, and that facist forces were inevitably decimated when faced with large scale set battles with the US army and navy - midway being a prime example. The fact that the US bombed Japanese cities with impunity, killing millions of civilians, whilst japanese assaults on US soil (except Pearl Harbour) amounted to one single casualty who was killed by a primitive bomb which was attached to a large balloon (and was one of thousands released by Japanese civilians to hopefully float across the Pacific and kill Americans), surely gives some idea of the huge gap between Japanese and American power and technology at the time.

If your looking to establish a pattern to US intervention Its more useful to look at post war episodes, as in most cases, the US picked and choose their opponents, such as:

The Phillipines #53
Greece
Korea
Dominican Republic
Vietnam #82
Laos #61
Cambodia #59
Panama #63
Grenada #74
Libya
Serbia #80
Lebanon #85
Liberia #6
Haiti #5
Afghanistan #30
Sudan #55
Iraq
Cuba
Guyana
Nicuragua
El Salvador #65
Colombia #24

Ive included the global rankings for poverty rates for some of the countries above to give some idea of JUST how poor some of these countries are, but even without further evidence - its hardly a list of military behemoths is it?

Padraig
13-03-2006, 03:01 AM
Bassnation: come on mr padraig - he was only asking for our opinions!

WHAT are you talking about? "Our opinions" - what are those - parasitic - entities? Opinions on what? Iran is about to be fucking invaded by US state-terrorists, and THIS is all you have to contribute? "Let's express our opinions about whether we should even discuss it ...???"



Padraig - there's no need to be so glib and patronising.

I think it's reasonable to ask whether now, in terms of strategy, would be the best time for the anti war movement to introduce a debate on invading iran, in terms of the way this would interact with how things are currently being spun in the media. Anyway, the way things are being spun in the last week has turned markedly anway, with the coverage given to Bolton's remarks for instance - so perhaps the timing is almost right.

How you hypothetically extend my line of reasoning is sort of illogical anyhow.

It is you here who is being outrageously glib and patronising - and hopelessly reckless. Don't you know anything about Iran, and what the US is doing there, and the global implications?

"in terms of strategy": WHAT strategy? Surely you mean - disavowed - fantasy?

"best time for the anti war movement": WHAT best time? WHAT anti-war movement?

Listen, the US have been actively planning to invade [already well begun] Iran for over a year, but you'd like to wait until the racist establishment media announce it "officially" before Shouting Off and Acting Out ...

I was going to provide yet another update on the US' latest plans and manoeuvres regarding Iran, a replica to the leadup to the Iraqi invasion of 3 years ago (this time with the added advantage of there being NO ANTI-WAR MASS PROTESTS WHATSOEVER, no Feb 2003), but, hey, I'm wasting my time HERE.

So go back to fucking sleep ...http://www.ezthemes.com/previews/r/ripvanwinkless.jpg ... Rage Incorporated ...

droid
13-03-2006, 09:54 AM
Have to say thats one of the ugliest and arrogant posts Ive seen on here in the last year or so.


WHAT are you talking about? "Our opinions" - what are those - parasitic - entities? Opinions on what? Iran is about to be fucking invaded by US state-terrorists, and THIS is all you have to contribute?

No its not. For the reasons outlined in the many posts above, and because the Bush administration hasnt suddenly developed suicidal tendencies. Thats not to say that all attempts to 'normalise' official hostility to Iran should be resisted, but I dont think sanctimonius and sensationalist bullying is the way to change peoples minds...


It is you here who is being outrageously glib and patronising - and hopelessly reckless. Don't you know anything about Iran, and what the US is doing there, and the global implications?

:confused: Oh ironies of ironies. If youre such a genius, why dont you go all out and give us your date for the invasion then? Spring/Summer seems to be a good bet . Scott Ritter said the invasion would come in June last year, this thread is about an invasion happening right now - but summer 07 is free... - you want to take it? Put some money behind that big mouth of yours?

Its all about LIC at this stage, not large scale military action.... thought you might have known that... :confused:



I was going to provide yet another update on the US' latest plans and manoeuvres regarding Iran, a replica to the leadup to the Iraqi invasion of 3 years ago (this time with the added advantage of there being NO ANTI-WAR MASS PROTESTS WHATSOEVER, no Feb 2003), but, hey, I'm wasting my time HERE.

Oh nooo! Please Padraig, please impart your precious knowledge to us ignorami, because nobody here has a clue, and we're just a bunch of fools blindly following the whims of the mass media and the 'racist establishment'... Perhaps this place: http://www.infowars.com/ would be more you kind of thing? No New world Order Schills to disagree with you there...

Tell me - does it hurt your neck, having to converse with us lowly mortals from your lofty heights?


So go back to fucking sleep

Ah, the befuddled, arrogant and impotent cliche of the conspiracy theorist... wondered when youd come out with that classic. Tells us more about your attitude to politics and other people, and, might I add, your failure to engage and convince than it does about this board...

Ive got an idea - why not post up a few more pretty pictures? After all, if no-one knows what youre on about, no-one can say that youre wrong... :D

bassnation
13-03-2006, 10:15 AM
WHAT are you talking about? "Our opinions" - what are those - parasitic - entities? Opinions on what? Iran is about to be fucking invaded by US state-terrorists, and THIS is all you have to contribute? "Let's express our opinions about whether we should even discuss it ...???"

padraig, this is extremely rude and ill-tempered.

i agree with a lot of your posts and for the most part you are preaching to the converted. its belligerance and hostility like this that is the root of most of mankinds problems.

if you are unable to discuss these things in a civil manner then maybe we shouldn't bother. i have better things to do with my time than get involved in flame wars.

MATT MAson
13-03-2006, 09:46 PM
Woah, this is all getting a bit lively.

I vote we throw John Simpson into the mix to calm everbody down (although I've often suspected he's under the control of the illuminati, he does kind of look like a lizard...).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4800986.stm

Padraig
13-03-2006, 11:15 PM
This is indeed comic.


Have to say thats one of the ugliest and arrogant posts Ive seen on here in the last year or so.

When is the last time you've looked in the Mirror? You've had quite a few here in the past few months, not that you'd ever recognise them, always demanding to have the last word on everything, however ridiculous.


No its not. For the reasons outlined in the many posts above, and because the Bush administration hasnt suddenly developed suicidal tendencies. Thats not to say that all attempts to 'normalise' official hostility to Iran should be resisted, but I dont think sanctimonius and sensationalist bullying is the way to change peoples minds....

What posts? Your ones? All of the articles I've read, by some of the world's leading geo-political analysts and commentators, take a very different position; but we'll leave it all to Droid with his magical knowledge of everything. The Bush administration hasn't suddenly developed suicidal tendencies, they've had them for quite some time, along with their "sanctimonius and sensationalist bullying" which has indeed changed peoples' minds ...



Oh ironies of ironies. If youre such a genius, why dont you go all out and give us your date for the invasion then? Spring/Summer seems to be a good bet . Scott Ritter said the invasion would come in June last year, this thread is about an invasion happening right now - but summer 07 is free... - you want to take it? Put some money behind that big mouth of yours?

Its all about LIC at this stage, not large scale military action.... thought you might have known that...

I've already done just that on this forum; your selective amnesia is touching.



Oh nooo! Please Padraig, please impart your precious knowledge to us ignorami, because nobody here has a clue, and we're just a bunch of fools blindly following the whims of the mass media and the 'racist establishment'... Perhaps this place: http://www.infowars.com/ would be more you kind of thing? No New world Order Schills to disagree with you there...

Tell me - does it hurt your neck, having to converse with us lowly mortals from your lofty heights?

Its a novel way of polishing one's boots.

[BTW, I don't hold much faith in your research abilities, unable to source Craner's political affiliation. Interesting how he neither confirmed nor denied such affiliation (very Rumsy), while you tried to downplay it ...].



Ah, the befuddled, arrogant and impotent cliche of the conspiracy theorist... wondered when youd come out with that classic. Tells us more about your attitude to politics and other people, and, might I add, your failure to engage and convince than it does about this board...

Ive got an idea - why not post up a few more pretty pictures? After all, if no-one knows what youre on about, no-one can say that youre wrong...

"Conspiracy theorist"??? What are you ranting on about? All the evidence comes from published and official sources. Next you'll be claiming that Chomsky (your ostensible "hero") is a conspiracy nut, like the paranoid Zionists luv to shout out.

PRETTY PICTURE FOR DROID http://dumbassquestions.com/donkey.jpg








padraig, this is extremely rude and ill-tempered.

Delighted to be of service.


i agree with a lot of your posts and for the most part you are preaching to the converted. its belligerance and hostility like this that is the root of most of mankinds problems.

Abject passivity is the root of such, which, as it happens:


if you are unable to discuss these things in a civil manner then maybe we shouldn't bother. i have better things to do with my time than get involved in flame wars.

Ah yes. Don't bother discussing it, which of course was Omaar's original suggestion. And now you've - conveniently - got a pretext for your pre-existing prejudice

[BTW, It was Omaar who started the flame, which you then proceeded to defend, and are now continuing to do so.]

Posting Amateurs!! :D :cool: .......... http://coldforged.org/images/dork.jpg

bruno
13-03-2006, 11:22 PM
a typically apocalyptic (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB14Ak02.html) angle (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC14Ak02.html) on all this by spengler, resident horseman at the asia times. enjoy!

droid
14-03-2006, 09:14 AM
... All of the articles I've read, by some of the world's leading geo-political analysts and commentators, take a very different position...

...All the evidence comes from published and official sources. Next you'll be claiming that Chomsky (your ostensible "hero") is a conspiracy nut, like the paranoid Zionists luv to shout out.

Like Michel Chossudovsky???? And you really expect anyone to take this seriously? :confused:

And Chomskys' my 'hero' now is here? Im sure hell be ecstatic to hear that. Maybe you can mention it to him next time you take tea with him...


along with their "sanctimonius and sensationalist bullying" which has indeed changed peoples' minds ...

I was talking about you here, not the Bush Administration


...BTW, I don't hold much faith in your research abilities, unable to source Craner's political affiliation. Interesting how he neither confirmed nor denied such affiliation (very Rumsy), while you tried to downplay it ...

1. I didnt really give a fuck - but since he was here i though it was worth asking rather than wasting my own time 'exposing' his evil political credentials...

2. A think tank is very different to a lobby group. You obviously dont agree.

3. Hes been paying me on the sly to be his foil here on Dissensus in order to enhance his credibility. The cheques are signed by Rumsfeld himself.. :confused:


This is indeed comic.

Something we do agree on. I thought youd given up posting here in favour of greener pastures? Or were you just throwing your toys out of the pram again...?

Anyway - last word goes to you Padraig. This has descended into nonsense, and I really cant be arsed continuing a discussion with someone who is so hostile, arrogant, sanctimonius and utterly convinced of his own brilliance.

Are you 16 years old by any chance? :D

Padraig
14-03-2006, 05:54 PM
[Droidian Twaddle snipped ...]

Are you 16 years old by any chance? :D

http://images.giftservices.com/images/medium/6262b.jpg http://www.geocities.com/devilbabyisborn/images/frontimage.jpg

ambrose
15-03-2006, 01:08 PM
i htought dissensuse was meant to be the clever version of ILE?

seems to have turned into the noize board. padraig is jon williams and i claim my £10

Padraig
16-03-2006, 12:04 AM
i htought dissensuse was meant to be the clever version of ILE?

seems to have turned into the noize board. padraig is jon williams and i claim my £10

Was there something particularly urgent or pressing that you wanted to articulate about the current Iranian crisis or do you prefer to spout out inane, grammatically-challenged diarrhoea, execrable Noize masquerading as "cleverness"? Like the other smug buffoons here, you are a zombie idiot and I've already claimed my #@#@# ...

Drink http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/jvincent/diarrhoea_files/image003.jpg Then Eat http://www.artshole.co.uk/arts/artists/Patrick%20Jones/Zombies.jpg

Paul Hotflush
16-03-2006, 10:00 AM
End of March is approaching...

UFO over easy
28-03-2006, 02:12 AM
After all, if no-one knows what youre on about, no-one can say that youre wrong... :D

Hahaha... My contribution (probably the only one I'll make on this forum) to the thread is to laugh and then leave :)

Good reading though, thanks for the articles droid and co.

luka
07-12-2015, 05:15 PM
Yes...Blair threatens Iran with...the UN Security Council!

Uh, that's a bit different to nuclear bombs.

Face it, Hotflush is right, the premise of this thread is only slightly less absurd than you responses.

Any contact with diplomatic and geopolitical reality would quickly disabuse you of the notion that the US can actively consider any preemptive strike, let alone nuclear.

Where would they strike? Do you know how many suspected nuclear sites there are in Iran? (Hint: lots.)

It's also absurd that you worry more about a non-existant US nuclear attack than the very real prospect of Iran's imminent nuclearisation.

It also reminds me of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter's scoop about the US plans to attack Iran in June.

Last June!!

Oops, that didn't go very well, did it?

Craner and scuba team up

luka
07-12-2015, 05:40 PM
WHAT are you talking about? "Our opinions" - what are those - parasitic - entities? Opinions on what? Iran is about to be fucking invaded by US state-terrorists, and THIS is all you have to contribute? "Let's express our opinions about whether we should even discuss it ...???"




It is you here who is being outrageously glib and patronising - and hopelessly reckless. Don't you know anything about Iran, and what the US is doing there, and the global implications?

"in terms of strategy": WHAT strategy? Surely you mean - disavowed - fantasy?

"best time for the anti war movement": WHAT best time? WHAT anti-war movement?

Listen, the US have been actively planning to invade [already well begun] Iran for over a year, but you'd like to wait until the racist establishment media announce it "officially" before Shouting Off and Acting Out ...

I was going to provide yet another update on the US' latest plans and manoeuvres regarding Iran, a replica to the leadup to the Iraqi invasion of 3 years ago (this time with the added advantage of there being NO ANTI-WAR MASS PROTESTS WHATSOEVER, no Feb 2003), but, hey, I'm wasting my time HERE.

So go back to fucking sleep ...http://www.ezthemes.com/previews/r/ripvanwinkless.jpg ... Rage Incorporated ...

Original padraig

trza
07-12-2015, 06:17 PM
its crazy how john kerry and the group of five countries and iran might win a nobel peace prize now.

Mr. Tea
07-12-2015, 06:19 PM
its crazy how john kerry and the group of five countries and iran might win a nobel peace prize now.

Well if Saudi Fucking Arabia can be chosen to head the UN Human Rights panel... :eek:

craner
07-12-2015, 09:15 PM
Still waiting for Bush's nuclear strike against Iran.

Nobody ever reminds Hersh about his follies.

I had more common sense than he did, and I was in my twenties. I guess I wasn't being paid money to write rubbish by The New Yorker.

droid
07-12-2015, 09:27 PM
In your FACE 2006 Padraig.

craner
08-12-2015, 09:18 AM
[BTW, I don't hold much faith in your research abilities, unable to source Craner's political affiliation. Interesting how he neither confirmed nor denied such affiliation (very Rumsy), while you tried to downplay it ...].


Lol. This forum was seriously bonkers back in the day.

trza
08-12-2015, 02:04 PM
Iran is one of the most peaceful places in the Middle East today. Fewest terror attacks in the region.

Mr. Tea
08-12-2015, 02:19 PM
Iran is one of the most peaceful places in the Middle East today. Fewest terror attacks in the region.

Looking back, I'm rather puzzled by Craner's description of Iran as "running global terrorism". Even if we look only at Islamist terror, isn't about 97% of it Salafist/Wahhabist, i.e. fundamentalist Sunni, and not Shia as it would be coming from Iran?

Or have things changed that much in nine years?

craner
08-12-2015, 03:40 PM
In those days, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is still the case, the Iranians were quite happy to fund Sunni groups, and those Sunni groups were quite happy to take the money. The 'Sunnis don't work with Shia' cannard was a major fallacy of the period, particularly beloved of liberal intelligence analysts. Iran was the biggest state sponsor of terrorist groups in the world in 2006, or whenever this thread was started.

droid
08-12-2015, 03:43 PM
Nonsense. Completely depends on how you define 'terrorist', and even then...

craner
08-12-2015, 03:44 PM
It's a toss-up between the Iranians and the Saudis, anyway.

craner
08-12-2015, 03:45 PM
and even then...

Can't wait to see your list of state sponsors of terrorism.

trza
08-12-2015, 04:15 PM
Inside Iran is peaceful, even though half the people aren't Persian even by generous accounting.

droid
08-12-2015, 04:25 PM
"The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Mr. Tea
08-12-2015, 04:58 PM
Inside Iran is peaceful, even though half the people aren't Persian even by generous accounting.

Well that's hardly surprising, it's got a highly developed secret police and thuggish goons everywhere to enforce the will of the government. There was widespread unrest following the farcical 'election' in 2009, if you remember, which resulted in brutal repression and the deaths of not a few protesters along with god knows how many arrests, extrajudicial imprisonments and instances of torture and rape.

Mr. Tea
08-12-2015, 06:04 PM
In those days, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is still the case, the Iranians were quite happy to fund Sunni groups, and those Sunni groups were quite happy to take the money. The 'Sunnis don't work with Shia' cannard was a major fallacy of the period, particularly beloved of liberal intelligence analysts. Iran was the biggest state sponsor of terrorist groups in the world in 2006, or whenever this thread was started.

Are you seriously telling me the Iranian state is funding, arming or otherwise assisting Sunni militants who regard all Shi'ites as the very worst sort of kaffir and would dearly love to overthrow the current Iranian regime?

sadmanbarty
08-12-2015, 07:05 PM
Are you seriously telling me the Iranian state is funding, arming or otherwise assisting Sunni militants who regard all Shi'ites as the very worst sort of kaffir and would dearly love to overthrow the current Iranian regime?

They definitely funded Hamas (though relations stifled when they took opposite sides in Syrian civil war) and still fund Islamic Jihad, both Sunni groups.

There's evidence to suggest that anti-Shia groups like Al Qaeda have collaborated with Iran/Hezbollah/Syria.

craner
08-12-2015, 08:48 PM
Yes, Mr Tea, I am saying exactly that. And I'm saying it very seriously. They have enemies other than each other, like Americans, Russians and Jews, and have worked together to fight them and still do. Iran, alongside Pakistan, was a key trainer and sponsor of the Taliban in the 1990s, for example. The transnational jihadis were willing to work with Americans to defeat the Soviets, but also had their eyes on the next fight against the "weaker" US (to paraphrase bin Laden himself). We aSre not the only purveyors of "my enemies' enemy" - I think you might be getting mixed up on this by the current Iranian fight against IS.

craner
08-12-2015, 08:51 PM
Droid, I suspect, doesn't even believe there are state sponsors of Islamist terrorism, unless the Saudis are behind it, in which case it is America's fault and has nothing to do with the Palestinian Resistance which is pure at source.

droid
08-12-2015, 08:52 PM
Define 'terrorism'.

droid
08-12-2015, 08:54 PM
...and has nothing to do with the Palestinian Resistance which is pure at source.

lol. Come into my web...

craner
08-12-2015, 09:05 PM
Why? Everybody knows exactly which groups we are talking about, and you are putting up a spurious and false diversion. I know you go in for creative accounting, because you seem to believe that only 2% of terrorist activity on European soil in the last ten years was linked to Islamists.

Let's cut to the chase then: do you consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation?

droid
08-12-2015, 09:22 PM
Why? and you are putting up a spurious and false diversion. I know you go in for creative accounting, because you seem to believe that only 2% of terrorist activity on European soil in the last ten years was linked to Islamists.


Erm, no, thats not my opinion. Thats the opinion of Europol. Take it up with them.


Everybody knows exactly which groups we are talking about.

Yes, terrorism is committed by the 'groups we are talking about, and the 'groups we are talking about' are terrorists.

So, once again - define terrorism.

craner
08-12-2015, 09:39 PM
But I'm happy to go with the definition you posted, I am questioning the way you are using it - with unsaid insinuation and subtext. So let's go to the details.

craner
08-12-2015, 09:44 PM
Case study # 1: Hamas

Case study # 2: Contras

Case study # 3: MEK

Case study # 4: Kurdish Peshmerga

Let's do it.

Mr. Tea
08-12-2015, 09:49 PM
Fucksake, not this again. It was allegedly "0.7%", not 2%, and I pretty thoroughly debunked the misuse of statistics at the time. Let's move on.

craner
08-12-2015, 09:51 PM
Droid will never live to forget posting that pie chart.

craner
08-12-2015, 09:54 PM
I was saying to Luke earlier, Dissensus is like the ultimate co-dependant, toxic family. Introduce a new partner to the dinner table and they would flee in horror at the casual contempt being thrown around, but members can never leave.

droid
08-12-2015, 10:12 PM
lol. That chart was completely and utterly correct. It measured the number of terrorist incidents in Europe over a given period.

As I said at the time, you can argue about deaths caused, severity of attacks etc, but the frequency of incidents is immutable. The numbers dont lie.

Also, I dont remember anyone 'debunking' anything, I do recall someone slinking off after throwing their toys from the pram though (and not for the first time).

Guess my memory is faulty - shame we cant just go and check.

droid
08-12-2015, 10:14 PM
Case study # 1: Hamas

Case study # 2: Contras

Case study # 3: MEK

Case study # 4: Kurdish Peshmerga

Let's do it.

Case Study 1: UK & US in Iraq

Case Study 2: Israel in Gaza

Case Study 3: Israel in Lebanon

Case Study 4: UK in Northern Ireland

craner
08-12-2015, 10:22 PM
We can do them all Droid. Let's compromise our lists. One of yours then one of mine. You start with UK and US in Iraq.

craner
08-12-2015, 10:25 PM
I mean, my list was weighted against me in two cases, which is why I chose them (for balance) and yours is all pet causes, but otherwise...let's still do it.

trza
08-12-2015, 10:26 PM
mke?

droid
08-12-2015, 10:28 PM
There's nothing complicated about this. Its very simple in fact.


But I'm happy to go with the definition you posted, I am questioning the way you are using it - with unsaid insinuation and subtext. So let's go to the details.

That was a US federal definition, I actually dont wholly agree. Here's the one that makes most sense to me.

The use of force which targets civilians for political, economic, religious, social or military aims.

As 'unlawful' is almost meaningless when states can create laws to justify violence.

So, if we presumably object to terrorism as defined above, it is on moral grounds, and morality must be universal or it is meaningless, regardless if it is committed by state or non-state actors.

In no particular order:

Hamas rockets in Israel - terrorism
Fatah suicide bombs in pizzerias - terrorism
Hezbollah assassinations of politicians - terrorism
IRA bombing off-duty soldiers in Birmingham - terrorism
Basque letter bombs sent to councilors - terrorism
Paris, Mumbai, London, Madrid - terrorism
Israel bombing of Gaza, Lebanon - terrorism
Turkish attacks on PKK politicians - terrorism
Death squads in El Salvador - terrorism
The Blitz - terrorism
Firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg - terrorism
Murder of civilians on Bloody Sunday - terrorism
Shelling of Grozny - terrorism
US/UK bombing of Belgrade - terrorism
Hiroshima, Nagasaki - terrorism
US in Vietnam - terrorism
Shock & awe and invasion of Iraq - terrorism (you supported this one IIRC?)

You can argue about the severity of each act, the possible justifications, extenuating circumstances etc. Obv state terror tends to be on a much greater scale, but the principle is the same.

droid
08-12-2015, 10:30 PM
I mean, my list was weighted against me in two cases, which is why I chose them (for balance) and yours is all pet causes, but otherwise...let's still do it.

lol 'Pet causes' Funny that the most youve talked about politics in years is on a thread about your particular obsession.

Any sign of the revolutionary guard yet? Have you checked under the stairs?

craner
08-12-2015, 10:39 PM
So you have expanded the argument so far that even the Blitz counts, which handily helps you to elude the open challenge I laid down. I'm not hiding here, Droid, this is the 'New Politics'. UK and US in Iraq: how did they support terrorism in this case?

droid
08-12-2015, 10:47 PM
Really? :slanted:To take just one example, they deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure with the openly declared aim of putting pressure on the Iraqi people to oust Saddam.They didn't 'support' terror, they were the terrorists.


"the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."... ..."You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

'Eluded'? The blitz is self-evidently an act of terror. Textbook in fact

Here's one for you.

Is it hypocritical to condemn one group for their actions whilst supporting others as they commit similar (or much worse) acts?

craner
09-12-2015, 08:04 AM
No, I don't consider state military to be terrorist organisations. That's a completely useless starting point. I knew from the beginning that your argument was going to end up being "the US are the terrorists" - it just took a bit longer to get it out of you than I expected.

craner
09-12-2015, 08:07 AM
What a waste of time, though.

droid
09-12-2015, 08:43 AM
No, I don't consider state military to be terrorist organisations. That's a completely useless starting point.

Yes, useless for your purposes, thats true.


I knew from the beginning that your argument was going to end up being "the US are the terrorists" - it just took a bit longer to get it out of you than I expected.

Im applying a moral principle based on a definition you agree with. Seeing as you agree with that definition, please explain why its not terrorism when a state bombs civilians but it is terrorism when other groups do. Its a very simple question.

Or you could just weasel out of it with some tired insinuations - your choice.

sadmanbarty
09-12-2015, 08:43 AM
No, I don't consider state military to be terrorist organisations. That's a completely useless starting point.

Earlier you said you were happy to use the definition Droid posted, but now you're adding the caveat that it can't include a countries military.

Edit: Looks like droid beat me to it.

droid
09-12-2015, 08:44 AM
What a waste of time, though.

I dunno. Its been an interesting glimpse of your moral universe.

droid
09-12-2015, 08:48 AM
Earlier you said you were happy to use the definition Droid posted, but now you're adding the caveat that it can't include a countries military.

Edit: Looks like droid beat me to it.

It's the old 'state/non-state' distinction beloved by security analysts, politicians and professional slimeballs. It obviously slipped past him. He's a bit rusty at this game.

craner
09-12-2015, 09:36 AM
Eh? The concept of state terrorism is massively contested, and has no legal basis. When you talk about 'Shock and Awe' you seem to be talking about a war crime.

It's not the definition of terrorism that's at issue, but the way you are applying it.

droid
09-12-2015, 09:41 AM
Eh? The concept of state terrorism is massively contested, and has no legal basis. When you talk about 'Shock and Awe' you seem to be talking about a war crime.

It's not the definition of terrorism that's at issue, but the way you are applying it.

There's absolutely no reason it can't be both.

And the concept of 'terrorism' is massively contested and probably has less legal basis (in IL) than 'state terror'.

sadmanbarty
09-12-2015, 09:42 AM
Eh? The concept of state terrorism is massively contested, and has no legal basis. When you talk about 'Shock and Awe' you seem to be talking about a war crime.

It's not the definition of terrorism that's at issue, but the way you are applying it.

I agree that terrorism tends to denote acts by non-state actors or paramilitary organisations, but you agreed to use a definition that didn't specify that.

craner
09-12-2015, 09:55 AM
Well, alright, but then Droid did sneak out the word 'unlawful' after the fact, just to make the defintion even more amorphous than it already was and therefore able to swallow up the Blitz. 'State terror' is a fanastic way to obfuscate the actions and culpability of not-state terror groups, a very useful conceptual tool for terrorists themselves.

But I think the distinction between state and non-state is obvious and useful - I was not describing the Iranian regime (or even the IRGC) as terrorist entities, but as state sponsors of terrorism. IRGC actions in Syria are acts of war.

sadmanbarty
09-12-2015, 10:02 AM
Well, alright, but then Droid did sneak out the word 'unlawful' after the fact

He didn't need to, deliberately targeting civilians is inherently unlawful under international law.

droid
09-12-2015, 10:04 AM
Creating an artificial moral distinction between the murder of civilians dependent on whether the murderer is flying an F16 or planting a car bomb is a very useful conceptual tool for propagandists, apologists for terror and the morally challenged.


But I think the distinction between state and non-state is obvious and useful

Yes we know you do, but you seem unable to provide any moral justification for this distinction.


sneak out the word 'unlawful' after the fact

You could give snideness a rest y'know, it stinks of desperation. I didnt 'sneak' anything. Ive been completely upfront and transparent in my arguments and rationale here.

droid
09-12-2015, 10:08 AM
So fundamentally I guess Im saying that for a definition of 'terrorism' to be useful, it must be a moral, not a political definition.

So yes, the Germans, the Russians, the US, the Iranians, the Iraqis, and every other state can all commit acts of terror in the course of an armed conflict, and these acts may also be war crimes.

Acts of terror committed by non-state actors is 'non-state terrorism'.

I dont see how this can be seen as the least bit controversial.

craner
09-12-2015, 10:09 AM
I'm not making moral distinctions, I'm simply stating that the conceptual and legal distinction is not artificial - the murder of civilians by state actors is already addressed by human rights law and war crime conventions.

craner
09-12-2015, 10:10 AM
So fundamentally I guess Im saying that for a definition of 'terrorism' to be useful, it must be a moral, not a political definition.


This could well be the heart of our disagreement.

sadmanbarty
09-12-2015, 10:16 AM
Differentiation between terrorism and military actions or, to be more Droid friendly, non-state terrorism and state-terrorism is useful in terms of how you respond.

To respond to a non-state actor you would launch a criminal investigation or a counter-insurgency depending on the circumstances.

Responding to a military would require a declaration of war or the launch of an insurgency, depending on the circumstances.

droid
09-12-2015, 10:30 AM
This could well be the heart of our disagreement.

The fact is that there is neither a theoretical or practical international consensus on the legal definition of terrorism. Historically it was generally used to describe action of governments against populations.

There are all sorts of shades of grey, but I dont believe that there is a 'fundamental qualitative difference' between the bombing of an apartment building in Gaza by Israel or rocket attacks on an apartment building in Ashkelon by Hamas. A car bomb in a market in Beirut or an artillery shell in a market in Grozny.

I understand why it useful to limit the description to non-state actors only. It demonises official enemies and lets governments commit the same (or worse) acts with relative impunity.

In this sense 'terrorism' becomes a meaningless designation in moral terms (as most people understand it), and becomes a tool of propaganda. Quite simply - terrorism is what they do.

Mr. Tea
09-12-2015, 10:33 AM
As an example of a situation where the distinction between state and non-state terror was not just a theoretical nicety: didn't the US government justify the indefinite detention-without-charge and general mistreatment of prisoners in Guantánamo on the basis that they were combatants, and therefore not entitled to the legal rights afforded to civilian prisoners, but also non-state combatants, and therefore not entitled to the rights afforded to POWs according to the Geneva Convention?

craner
09-12-2015, 10:40 AM
On the contrary, it is the redefinition of terrorism on moral terms alone that transforms it into a propaganda tool. Israel is already treated like a moral pariah due to its destruction of Gaza, and the UN machinery is largely arranged against it. The actions are covered and targerted by international law, and terror statutes and acts are irrelevant to the case. Unless, of course, you want to conflate Hamas and Israel, but that is just a rhetorical, propaganda tactic.

craner
09-12-2015, 10:44 AM
but also non-state combatants, and therefore not entitled to the rights afforded to POWs according to the Geneva Convention

Yeah, the Bush administration had to hire an expensive lawyer to push that piece of sophistry.

droid
09-12-2015, 10:51 AM
On the contrary, it is the redefinition of terrorism on moral terms alone that transforms it into a propaganda tool. Israel is already treated like a moral pariah due to its destruction of Gaza, and the UN machinery is largely arranged against it.

And rightly so. They have been ignoring the UN since 1948


The actions are covered and targeted by international law, and terror statutes and acts are irrelevant to the case. Unless, of course, you want to conflate Hamas and Israel, but that is just a rhetorical, propaganda tactic.

Yes, they are covered by international law etc which is in most cases, only valid if the state concerned signs the treaty or when referred to by the UN.

But I'm all in favour of implementing an ICC for non-state terror. Terror groups must sign up for the court to have jurisdiction and ISIS & Al-Qaeda can be permanent members of the referring body.

BTW, Im not conflating Hamas and Israel. Israel is far more dangerous.

craner
09-12-2015, 10:57 AM
But I'm all in favour of implementing an ICC for non-state terror. Terror groups must sign up for the court to have jurisdiction and ISIS & Al-Qaeda can be permanent members of the referring body.


Fucking hell, good luck with that!

droid
09-12-2015, 11:10 AM
Fucking hell, good luck with that!

lol. Yes, it's a completely ridiculous concept, that's my entire point.

craner
09-12-2015, 11:23 AM
Fair enough.

HMGovt
04-01-2016, 11:41 AM
Absolutely massive 30-years-style schismic war brewing between Saudi and allies (gulf states, Sudan just declared) and Iran and allies (Russia?). That should sort the oil price out.

HMGovt
16-02-2016, 11:13 AM
Absolutely massive 30-years-style schismic war brewing between Saudi and allies (gulf states, Sudan just declared) and Iran and allies (Russia?). That should sort the oil price out.

Heh, Roger Boyes in the Times had a rough night

THE TIMES
Tuesday, February 16

How Syria could drag global powers into wider conflict
Published at 12:01AM, February 16 2016
The third world war could arrive without the understood rituals of ultimatums delivered and defied, . Instead, conflict might arrive incrementally as one power after another enters the fray to protect clients.

Northern Syria is approaching that moment. The battle for Aleppo will determine the survival of Assad. That is why such a high premium is being placed on control of the Azaz corridor, the strip of land that serves as a supply route from the Turkish frontier to eastern Aleppo, Syria’s second city.

There are four potential flashpoints.

1. Trigger-happy turkey
Ankara can see its policy in the Middle East collapsing. It hopes Azaz will be a base for Turkish-backed rebels to snatch back eastern Aleppo once Islamic State has been weakened by western airstrikes. If Azaz falls to the Kurds, however, they will be in a strong position to form a hostile state on the Turkish border. Preventing that is so important for the Turks that they may send in ground troops and risk a flare-up between Nato and Russian forces.
Will Nato troops follow Turkey on the ground? No. But if Russian jets stray into Turkish air space, provoking an aerial clash, Ankara could call on Nato for collective defence — and a big war edges closer.

2. Putin v Erdogan
Russia is concentrated on blocking Turkey. It has delivered weapons to 5,000 Kurdish fighters and its aircraft have attacked a convoy of rebel supplies crossing from Turkey into Syria.
If the Azaz corridor is closed, Russia will help Assad forces to block other Turkish border crossings. If this were to be followed by the ethnic cleansing by Russia and Syria of Turkmens, Turkish public opinion would demand action, even at the risk of confronting the Russians.

3. Putin’s gamble
It could be part of President Putin’s gameplan to provoke Turkey into military action against the Syrian Kurds. This would push the Kurds into joining the Russian alliance alongside Assad, Iran and Hezbollah. The West would be denied its only effective partner on the ground in the war against Isis and the balance of advantage would shift in Assad’s favour. This could prompt a change of heart in the West and nudge the US into sending ground forces. Turkey v Kurds becomes US v Russia.

4. Saudi Arabia v Iran
The wild card is the force of Saudi jets at Incirlik base in Turkey. It seems they are part of the assault on Raqqa rather than the looming battle for Aleppo. The entry of Riyadh, which is also talking about sending in troops, could be pivotal. It would not take much — the Russian downing of a Saudi jet and the Iranian seizure of the pilot — for two fronts to merge: Shia v Sunni, Russia v Nato. Then all bets are off.

craner
16-02-2016, 12:26 PM
Boyes is always quite apocalyptic, though. Not that he's wrong, mind you.

Mr. Tea
16-02-2016, 12:44 PM
Anyone heard anything new about this rumour that the Saudis are trying to buy nukes from Pakistan?

HMGovt
16-02-2016, 01:01 PM
Anyone heard anything new about this rumour that the Saudis are trying to buy nukes from Pakistan?

Yes, heard about that before. Long-standing arrangement. There's so much ill-feeling and mistrust around right now, anything could happen and as recent evidence shows, probably will.

Fairly detailed piece on it all here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

trza
16-02-2016, 04:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsRyroMNYO8

craner
04-05-2016, 09:22 AM
Britain out of Syria; Victory to Assad! (http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=statements&subName=display&statementId=57)

craner
04-05-2016, 09:26 AM
Meanwhile, the British parliament has voted to join the imperialist invading forces in Syria, enabled in no small part by our great ‘anti-war leader’ Jemermy Corbyn, who granted the rabidly pro-imperialist Parliamentary Labour Party a free vote on the question.

Corbyn had been a lonely voice in verbally ‘opposing’ the bombing of Syria, but, in practice, his opposition amounted to precisely nothing, since granting a free vote to his MPs meant facilitating the very thing he claimed to be ‘taking a stand’ against.

Corbyn attacked from the Left!

sufi
13-06-2018, 10:15 PM
1006653547763691521