CNN journalist banned from Iran

[Touchmaster]

North Korea, which has a crazy regime running it, havent used their nukes on anyone because they are well aware that their own destruction would be the consequence - the only world power seriously threatening to use nuclear weapons at the mo is the US, which as the world's schoolyard bully, can get away with it!

 

[cnredd]

you would have to be insane to suggest that Iran would attack either US or Israel with nuclear weapons (which it wont have for years even if the supposed plans go ahead anyway), what possible motivation would it have to do so, knowing that it would be utterly destroyed in retaliation? havent really thought this through have you... and while the Iranian president is a highly unpleasant muslim fundamentalist, the country has never attacked another since the revolution, why would it start now? (and it has had more hardline presidents than this one..)

Allah wants it...

You're thinking rationally, and believing others will do so too...

What possible motivation did 19 people have to crash themselves into buildings?

What possible motivation do people have to blow themselves up in a bus station, hotel or subway?

They believe their death is for a greater glory, so while you say they will be "utterly destroyed", they view it as "martyrdom of the highest order"...

 

[cnredd]

North Korea, which has a crazy regime running it, havent used their nukes on anyone because they are well aware that their own destruction would be the consequence - the only world power seriously threatening to use nuclear weapons at the mo is the US, which as the world's schoolyard bully, can get away with it!

Read above post...

North Korea isn't rooted in religious doctrine...They haven't attacked anyone because they don't want the consequences, whereas governments that are rooted in religious doctrine welcome it...

BTW - France has just proclaimed to be willing to use nukes, so it isn't "just the US" as you claim...

 

[MSgt]

you would have to be insane to suggest that Iran would attack either US or Israel with nuclear weapons (which it wont have for years even if the supposed plans go ahead anyway), what possible motivation would it have to do so, knowing that it would be utterly destroyed in retaliation? havent really thought this through have you... and while the Iranian president is a highly unpleasant muslim fundamentalist, the country has never attacked another since the revolution, why would it start now? (and it has had more hardline presidents than this one..)

I just cannot believe how people are still so ignorant of Radical Islam. It's almost as if it is by design by refusing to acknowledge the threat. People's need to hang on to outdated conventions make this proposition of false security ludicrous. When dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. By focusing on the Government of Iran as the threat, we are punching thin air. The threat Iran poses is not as a government. It is their allegiance to "martyrdom." A nuclear explosion inside Israel, America, or in a European country (since he threatened all western countries that support the "Zionists") will not come from the Iranian government. It will not come through launch. It would be delivered in a small package through shipment of plane, truck, or suitcase by a terrorist or "soldier for Allah." Iran would never claim it and all we would be able to do is use our intel to guess where it came from and think back to a time when we could have prevented Iran from having nukes in the first place.

Like I stated to you in another thread, pro-activity, the ability to acknowledge future threats, and the will to act is what we have on our side when attempting to prevent a greater conflict.

 

[MSgt]

This is not the first time Iran has used journalists as an example.

In Aug 2004, an Iranian security agent beat a female Canadian photojournalist to death in a Tehran prison. Apart from recalling its ambassador—a meaningless gesture given Ottawa’s weakness—the Canadian government was impotent to respond and merely 'publicly' demanded a trial. The Iranians agreed to hold a trial. After all, the killer’s identity was no secret, the circumstances were well known and there had never been serious charges against the victim, Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-born Canadian citizen. The trial was a mockery. The acknowledged murderer was acquitted, of course. Months before the trial, Ms. Kazemi, whose skull had been crushed, was ruled to have died of natural causes. The regime hardliners had a grand, old laugh while thumbing their noses at Canada.

Canada’s response? The fact is that Canada was powerless to do anything. The hardliners of Iran took that into account as they methodically chose their victim. Ottawa was simply judged as unable and unwilling to respond to such a murder. Far more emigres active in Iranian affairs or journalism hold U.S. or British passports. They were safe enough, because killing a journalist protected by the great Anglo-American alliance would have been risky. What would Ottawa do?

This cynical murder should have resounded more powerfully than it had done. Canadians on the left may not like it, but the unmistakable lesson for Canada is that, when it defected from the great Anglolateral alliance that has defended freedom for almost a century, it lost its influence, its authority and the weight of collective power. (Perhaps countries in Europe are thinking the same thing with regards to Iran's nuclear situation?) Until Canada again stands shoulder to shoulder with her inevitable allies—those who share her core cultural heritage of the rule of law, democracy and the rights of the individual citizen—Ottawa will remain powerless, disdained by rogue states and manipulative Europeans alike. They need to rejoin the fold and stand, once again, against tyranny, against murderous ideologies, against the world’s deadly bigots.


We should be thankful that an American citizen was only merely banned from Iran. Were it not for who we are and our will to stand up to Iran's government, we would have been instead discussing the murder of an American journalist. And these are the people we should allow to build nuclear arms?

 

[Touchmaster]

You havent described to me the part where Iran has attacked another country? Or explained how terrorists have been linked to Iran? Or how Al-Quaeda and Iran hate each other, the first being Sunni-based and the second being Shiite?

 

[MSgt]

You havent described to me the part where Iran has attacked another country? Or explained how terrorists have been linked to Iran? Or how Al-Quaeda and Iran hate each other, the first being Sunni-based and the second being Shiite?

Are you 12? You need the obvious explained? You need common sense and history presented to you? The world is not a rational place. It is full of people who want peace on their terms, not in the interest of everybody. Clearly, terrorism and Radical Islam is not a matter of complete understanding with you. I'll do it this once, but next time do your own studying in to the matter instead of passing off opinions based on utopian fantasies. I detest linking to the Internet for proof of what the real world is.

The Iranian Constitution states that in order to attain its objectives the country's foreign policy must be based on "Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the freedom fighters of the world" (Article 3). Furthermore, "[Iran] supports the rightful struggle of the oppressed people against their oppressors anywhere in the world" (Article 154). These requirements, as well as a desire to export the revolution, are a primary factor behind Iran's support for what the United States identifies as terrorist organizations. Iran's more recent reliance on asymmetric warfare in its military doctrine, furthermore, underscores that such support will continue.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/01/347a2c5f-088a-408b-a632-d5fc64804671.html

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's installation as Iran's new president on August 6 is a triumph for Iran's hardliners, who now control all the important levers of power after thwarting the tentative reform efforts of outgoing President Mohammad Khatami. A dedicated revolutionary who rose up through the ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Ahmadinejad will likely put a more assertive and uncompromising face on Iran's foreign policy."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/em977.cfm

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 04 – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the jihad against Israel must continue and be strengthened, Iran’s semi-official daily Jomhouri Islami reported on Sunday.

“The only way to fight the Zionist enemy is to continue and increase resistance and jihad”, Ayatollah Khamenei said at a meeting on Saturday with secretary general of the Palestinian group Islamic Jihad, Ramadan Abdullah, the hard-line daily Jomhouri Islami wrote.

Iran’s official policy is to call for the annihilation of the Jewish state. The country’s clerical rulers have been strongly opposed to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ attempts to reach a comprehensive peace settlement with Israel.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3593


AGAIN.....
I just cannot believe how people are still so ignorant of Radical Islam. It's almost as if it is by design by refusing to acknowledge the threat. People's need to hang on to outdated conventions make this proposition of false security ludicrous. When dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. By focusing on the Government of Iran as the threat, we are punching thin air. The threat Iran poses is not as a government. It is their allegiance to "martyrdom." A nuclear explosion inside Israel, America, or in a European country (since he threatened all western countries that support the "Zionists") will not come from the Iranian government. It will not come through launch. It would be delivered in a small package through shipment of plane, truck, or suitcase by a terrorist or "soldier for Allah." Iran would never claim it and all we would be able to do is use our intel to guess where it came from and think back to a time when we could have prevented Iran from having nukes in the first place.

Show me the last time Israel attacked another nation? Yet we are supposed to stand by and watch Muslim nations continually attack them through nation sponsered and organization sponsered terrorism? Now we have Iran directly and publicly threatening Israel and we are supposed to respect their right to nuclear arms, because Iran hasn't attacked anyone? You are truly a card toteing member of the "Global Left."

 

[Touchmaster]

apart from Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Egypt of course.

 

[Touchmaster]

surely if Iran was going to attack anyone it would have done it by now..?

 

[MSgt]

apart from Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Egypt of course.

What was this? A reply to where Israel has attacked another nation? It's a frequent occuring thing - much of the world applies a double standard when accusing Israel of barbarity for inflicting civilian casualties as part of legitimate military operations, while overlooking the numerous Israeli civilians that are frequently and intentionally killed by Palistenian leaders and their subordinates. For Europeans, especially, Jewish lives count no more today than they did in 1944. Seems to me that Israel has been on the defensive and fighting for survival since 1949. You are confusing Muslim nations that invade into Israel to destroy them with Israel's actions to survive. Last I checked, Israel has never attacked into a coutry to plant a banner or to destroy it's people.

Arab and Iranian dictators oppress their subjects, sponsor about half of the world’s major terror groups and imperil Israel, the Middle East’s sole Democracy. 360 million people in Arab states and Iran are entitled to the same freedom and prosperity enjoyed by Europeans, Americans and Israelis.

9 out of 19 of the most repressive regimes in the world is in the Middle East or include Muslim extremists - Former Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Morocco (Western Sahara), Uzbekistan, and Russia’s Chechnya. http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/mostrepressiveregimes.pdf

The Middle East is also the hotbed of Jihad (Holy War), an ideology of world domination. Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups. The scourge of international terrorism now reaches far beyond the United States and Israel.


Nearly half of the world’s major terror groups are Arab and Iranian. 5 out of the world’s 7 state-sponsors of terrorism are Arab and Iranian – Iran, former Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm

In Arab and Iranian dictators' propaganda there is almost no problem that is not caused by the existence of Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy. Most of the Arab and Muslim states do not recognize Israel's right to exist. The freest Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East live in Israel. The Israeli government is the only one in the Middle East that is elected by free citizens -- including Arabs and Muslims. Israel is a free, Western country, which recognizes the individual rights of its citizens (such as their right to liberty and freedom of speech). It uses military force only in self-defense. The enemies of Israel, by contrast, are state sponsored terrorist organizations and dictatorships. They do not recognize the individual rights of their own subjects, much less those of the citizens of Israel. They initiate force indiscriminately in order to retain and expand their power.


But by all means, go right ahead and exonerate the Muslim world and condemn Israel for surviving.

 

[MSgt]

surely if Iran was going to attack anyone it would have done it by now..?

Again, your obtuse stance on this is laughable. The threat from Iran is not a nuclear launch. It is the extremists groups that will have the ability to receive munitions from an Islamic state that frequents the use of terror around the world.

"The only change that did occur in Iranian support of terrorism in recent years has essentially been a tactical one. Behind the scenes, Iran took steps to adjust its terrorist policy to the circumstances in the international arena—which is less tolerant of this type of activity—making sure its own actions could not be perceived as international terrorism. Iran replaced the direct involvement of Iranian agents in terrorist acts with that of proxy organizations—the most prominent being Hizballah, a central player in Iran’s terror strategy outside the Middle East as well. Iran also makes use of local terrorist units, (for example in Turkey and Azerbaijan), which it trains and sometimes even commissions to carry out terrorist acts against common enemies."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=362

In spite of its undercover nature, Iran’s worldwide involvement in international terrorism cannot always be concealed. Occasionally, events come to light that are proof of Iranian government's involvement in terrorist activities. For instance, the March 1996 discovery, in Belgium, of a specially-built Howitzer canon sent by ship from Iran to Germany to be used in a terrorist attack; or the involvement of the highest Iranian officials in the assassination of Kurdish leaders in Germany, the so-called “Mikonos Affair”.

The Islamic regime’s determination to continue supporting terrorism, in conflict with normal international behavior, has forced the Iranian Foreign Ministry to strive, under extreme international pressure, to offset the damage caused by this policy to Tehran’s economic and political ties. Iran does not deny its adherence to Khomeini’s "Islamic revolutionary ideology”, which supports all radical Islamic movements worldwide, but stresses that Iranian assistance is merely cultural, moral and humanitarian in nature.

http://mehr.org/iran_terrorism.htm

"After a bombing killed 19 U.S. airmen at a barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the Clinton administration struck back by unmasking Iranian intelligence officers around the world, significantly disrupting Iranian-backed terrorism, according to a high-level U.S. official and a former top official who was serving at the time of the operation."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-29-sapphire-usat_x.htm

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
"The only change that did occur in Iranian support of terrorism in recent years has essentially been a tactical one. Behind the scenes, Iran took steps to adjust its terrorist policy to the circumstances in the international arena—which is less tolerant of this type of activity—making sure its own actions could not be perceived as international terrorism. Iran replaced the direct involvement of Iranian agents in terrorist acts with that of proxy organizations—the most prominent being Hizballah, a central player in Iran’s terror strategy outside the Middle East as well. Iran also makes use of local terrorist units, (for example in Turkey and Azerbaijan), which it trains and sometimes even commissions to carry out terrorist acts against common enemies."

Hey, we use proxy organizations too, when we farm out our torture in "renditions". That's how we don't break our own laws.

 

[MSgt]

Hey, we use proxy organizations too, when we farm out our torture in "renditions". That's how we don't break our own laws.

Yeah, but we are not a danger to ourselves or to the masses. This is survival. America handing over a prisoner to the Belgians for interrogation (wrong or right) is quite a bit different than Iran handing over funds for the intention to cause death and destruction of civillians.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Yeah, but we are not a danger to ourselves or to the masses. This is survival. America handing over a prisoner to the Belgians for interrogation (wrong or right) is quite a bit different than Iran handing over funds for the intention to cause death and destruction of civillians.

True........

 

[stsburns]

If waging war with Iraq is wrong, then why is it OK to wage war with Iran? How do we know we won't fall for the same mess a second time? :mrgreen:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by stsburns:
If waging war with Iraq is wrong, then why is it OK to wage war with Iran? How do we know we won't fall for the same mess a second time?

Attacking Iran is also wrong.

 

[Kandahar]

If waging war with Iraq is wrong, then why is it OK to wage war with Iran? How do we know we won't fall for the same mess a second time? :mrgreen:

Because Iran actually has WMDs.

 

[akyron]

If waging war with Iraq is wrong, then why is it OK to wage war with Iran? How do we know we won't fall for the same mess a second time? :mrgreen:

War is never all that "OK" per se.
War is never a happy place.
Its just what you have to do to survive. Talk is cheap.
Where there is a price to be paid people pay more attention to whats going on and should think more carefully before taking actions that may have dire consequences..
Historically there will always be problems in the middle east anyway. There will be a second time and a third time and a hundredth time.



Tabari VIII:165 “There is nothing that you can do to make peace with him.”
Tabari VIII:164 “Sufyan went to Abu Bakr and asked him to intercede, but he refused. When Sufyan asked Umar to help [avert war], he replied, ‘No way. By Allah, if I had only ant grubs, I would fight you with them! Ali said, ‘Woe to you, Sufyan. When the Messenger has determined a thing it is useless for anyone to talk to him.’”
Qur’an 4:91 “You will find others who, while wishing to live in peace and being safe from you to gain the confidence of their people; thrown back to mischief headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and offer you peace besides restraining their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear sanction and authority.” [So if you wish to live in peace, but are perceived as being mischievous (i.e., non-Muslim), Allah has given his Jihad warriors “a clear sanction and authority to seize and kill” you.]


Heh.
That ant grub line is classic.

 

[Inuyasha]

Because Iran actually has WMDs.

I am sure that Iran has some pretty sophisticated weapons in their arsenal but the acronym WMD today has a very negative pall attached to it. The present administration over used it and they were wrong so often that WMD is like "crying wolf". It would be better to express the idea in other terms to garner any sort of support for the idea. Words are often more powerful then the actions they portray and this is certainly one of those instances.

 

[akyron]

I am sure that Iran has some pretty sophisticated weapons in their arsenal but the acronym WMD today has a very negative pall attached to it. The present administration over used it and they were wrong so often that WMD is like "crying wolf". It would be better to express the idea in other terms to garner any sort of support for the idea. Words are often more powerful then the actions they portray and this is certainly one of those instances.

I still think "Ill fight you with an ant grub" sounds pretty cool.
WMD is not very lyrical.

 

[Inuyasha]

I still think "Ill fight you with an ant grub" sounds pretty cool.
WMD is not very lyrical.

Good one akyron.:lol:

 

[stsburns]

You havent described to me the part where Iran has attacked another country? Or explained how terrorists have been linked to Iran? Or how Al-Quaeda and Iran hate each other, the first being Sunni-based and the second being Shiite?

Watch C-Span, or the History Channel, or anything from Discovery Channel Brands. "Don't seek him, he will find you"-Star Wars

 

[stsburns]

War is never all that "OK" per se.
War is never a happy place.
Its just what you have to do to survive. Talk is cheap.
Where there is a price to be paid people pay more attention to whats going on and should think more carefully before taking actions that may have dire consequences..
Historically there will always be problems in the middle east anyway. There will be a second time and a third time and a hundredth time.



Tabari VIII:165 “There is nothing that you can do to make peace with him.”
Tabari VIII:164 “Sufyan went to Abu Bakr and asked him to intercede, but he refused. When Sufyan asked Umar to help [avert war], he replied, ‘No way. By Allah, if I had only ant grubs, I would fight you with them! Ali said, ‘Woe to you, Sufyan. When the Messenger has determined a thing it is useless for anyone to talk to him.’”
Qur’an 4:91 “You will find others who, while wishing to live in peace and being safe from you to gain the confidence of their people; thrown back to mischief headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and offer you peace besides restraining their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear sanction and authority.” [So if you wish to live in peace, but are perceived as being mischievous (i.e., non-Muslim), Allah has given his Jihad warriors “a clear sanction and authority to seize and kill” you.]

Heh.
That ant grub line is classic.

Nice qoutes, I just don't buy into this whole Iran thing. I just don't like giving extremist ammo. I rather him hold a gun with nothing to fire, or they with foolishly not hold a gun. Speaking metaphoricly of course.

 

[stsburns]

Attacking Iran is also wrong.

I like you man. You have a set mind. That is admirable. :2wave:

 

[stsburns]

Because Iran actually has WMDs.

And "YOU" can proove that? And YOU can't find them in Iraq which is just one country away? Suspicious?