Iran

[HomeLAN]

They HAVE been asked to renounce the position that Israel has no right to exist. They refused. Benefit of the doubt expired immediately upon that refusal.

 

[MrBishop]

King Abdallah: Military Meddling in Iran Explodes ME
By Anadolu News Agency (aa), Amman
Published: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
zaman.com

King of Jordan Abdullah has warned that military intervention in Iran might cause the Middle East to explode.

King Abdullah told AFP that if force is used as an attempt tame Iran, the stability and security threat in the region will reach dangerous levels.

“I hope we’ll never get to this point,” the Jordanian king said. “Dialogue, patience, and diplomacy are the only solution.”

The Washington administration earlier announced that efforts to explore diplomatic channels will continue; however, military intervention remains an option.



[15:00:00]

Source

 

[Winky]

ie. Terrorist X fired an RPG into an Israeli building,
therefore we went in and mowed down his family's house to the ground.

The Jordanians had the right idea:
bulldoze the terr's house AND KILL HIS ENTIRE FAMILY!

Real incentive not too allow yer kid to become jihad Johnny.
No reward from Saddam but annihilation, yeah babee!

 

[MrBishop]

Muhammad Nazzal, a senior Hamas leader, conceded to Agence France-Presse that "Hamas must change its manners. We know that very well. But what we are saying is that we want a response from the Israelis. If you want Hamas to change its policies, you must also request that the Israelis change their policies."

 

[Winky]

Hey Bishy can't you hear the entire American
government cowering in fear and shakin'
in their boots due to that proclamation by
some raghead sultan?

I know I can! heh

 

[Winky]

Leesee a terrorist organization from a third werld non-country, spoutin' off v.s.

a nuclearly armed democratic nation with a big brother
in the form of the United States Hmmmm

I wunder which one is gonna blink?

 

[MrBishop]

They HAVE been asked to renounce the position that Israel has no right to exist. They refused. Benefit of the doubt expired immediately upon that refusal.

Did you expect them to turn around their policies on a dime? It's been two months.

In the middle east, where many countries are ruled by despots or monarchies, and especially where the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are specifically trying to bring democracy to life...don't you think that it's a wee bit hipocritical to immediatly denounce democracy in action?

 

[HomeLAN]

Did you expect them to turn around their policies on a dime? It's been two months.

You clearly do. You expect them to stop homicide bombings since they now run a government, and somehow you think they have something more to lose.

 

[MrBishop]

You clearly do. You expect them to stop homicide bombings since they now run a government, and somehow you think they have something more to lose.

They stopped a year ago...and chose to continue the cease-fire since getting into power.


It might be an oxymoron, but there is only one thing worth fighting for: Peace.

 

[HomeLAN]

They went into a temporary suspension a year ago. They already show signs of tiring of it.

December 5, 2005

The leader of Hamas said Friday his group was growing weary of its pact with the Palestinian Authority to avoid conflict with Israel.

"There is no room for truce. I say to our brothers in the [Palestinian] Authority that we are witnessing political stagnation," Khaled Meshaal said in a fiery speech at a rally in the Syrian capital of Damascus.

"I say it loud and clear, we will not enter a new truce. Our people are preparing for a new round in this struggle," Meshaal said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/09/hamas.israel/index.html

Once again. No truce. No recognition of Israel's right to exist, despite international pressure. A loooooong history of targetting civilians for death to further their agenda. I'd say they've squandered their shot at "benefit of the doubt".

I'm not surprised you don't, though.

 

[HomeLAN]

It might be an oxymoron, but there is only one thing worth fighting for: Peace.

Depends on how you define peace. Theirs is remarkably similar to that used by the Soviets in the cold war. It's a total absence of opposition to the militant Islamist state.

 

[catocom]

Well, Israel isn't releasing any information about justification, which they usually do in such cases.

ie. Terrorist X fired an RPG into an Israeli building, therefore we went in and mowed down his family's house to the ground.

Like I said....the whole story.
It seems to me that Hamas would try to disarm these 'terrorists' if they want
to get into the diplomatic arena.

 

[Gonz]

Terrorist X fired an RPG into an Israeli building, therefore we went in and mowed down his family's house to the ground.

A very reasonable response to a highly horrendous activity.

 

[MrBishop]

Like I said....the whole story.
It seems to me that Hamas would try to disarm these 'terrorists' if they want
to get into the diplomatic arena.

A reasonable request....except that this mini-invasion of late is hardly going to stifle support for the more extreme members of Hamas, or any other number of terrorist/extremist groups operating in and around Palestine.

Refuse to give Palestine the millions of dollars in taxes owed to them
Threathen the new leader of Palestine with assasination
Invade the country and destroy a prison
propose economic sanctions against Palestine

Doesn't seem like Israel WANTS Palestine to subdue the terrorist/radical elements in its country.
Doesn't seem like they want Palestine to change their mind about the eradication of the state of Israel.
Doesn't seem like they want peace at all.


Edit:
It's lucky that they've got a big brother in the form of the USA.

If it was some african country who was doing this to their neighbour and they got invaded and spanked for it...most people would sit back and say "They deserved it"

 

[HomeLAN]

Yeah, those poor, oppressed terrorists. Look what happens, just because you kill a few hundred civilians year after year.

I have no fucking sympathy. None.

 

[catocom]

Doesn't seem like Israel WANTS Palestine to subdue the terrorist/radical elements in its country.
Doesn't seem like they want Palestine to change their mind about the eradication of the state of Israel.
Doesn't seem like they want peace at all.

Not sure about that first part, but you hit the rest of it on the head.

 

[MrBishop]

I'm not surprised you don't, though.

Consider me a realist leaning towards optimism. I know that it will be difficult to create and maintain a peaceful plan for this area.

But what are the alternatives?

Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries most of whom would cheer if Israel suddenly dissapeared.

What's the plan? Go to war against all Muslim countries one by one and install puppet GVTs until Israel is voted "Most popular" in the middle-east?

 

[Winky]

suc all the oil outta the place
develop alternatives
let 'em go back to livin' in tents in the desert
sounds like a plan

 

[catocom]

What's the plan? Go to war against all Muslim countries one by one and install puppet GVTs until Israel is voted "Most popular" in the middle-east?

Nope just the un-democratized ones.
At least that's the understanding I have.

 

[MrBishop]

Nope just the un-democratized ones.
At least that's the understanding I have.

Saudi Arabia should be interesting.

**
How about we get back to discussing Iran and that particular dilema?

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Iran is ready to hold talks with the U.S. on Iraq, the country's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said, signaling a shift in Iran's policy toward the U.S. for the first time in more than two decades.

``We will appoint a negotiating team for talks soon,'' Larijani told Iran's parliament during a closed session, the state-run Iranian news agency IRNA reported. The comment came in response to an offer by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of one of Iraq's main Shiite parties, who yesterday called on Iran to ``start a dialogue'' with the U.S.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is already authorized to talk with Iran on this one issue, White House spokesman Fred Jones said in Washington. As for starting broader discussions on Iran's nuclear program, Jones said this is not an issue to be discussed between Iran and the U.S. ``It is a matter to be discussed with the international community,'' he said.

U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have talked publicly this week about the potential for a civil war breaking out between Iraq's Shiite majority and the Sunni minority that ruled the country under Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld and other U.S. policy makers have said they are still optimistic that Iraq's feuding political factions will settle their differences and create a durable national government.

Iran accepted al-Hakim's offer to ``help establish an independent government and real freedom in that country,'' IRNA quoted Larijani as saying. Khalilzad last week also called for ``limited'' discussions with Iran over its relationship with Iraq. Iranian officials initially rejected the idea.

President George W. Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today that talks have been held with Iran in the past on issues such as Afghanistan. Khalilzad's role in discussing Iraq with Iran is ``a very narrow mandate,'' he said.

The U.S. cut diplomatic ties with Iran after Islamic militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days. Since 1995, the U.S. has also banned most trade and investment by U.S. companies in Iran.

Interfering in Affairs

U.S. officials have repeatedly accused Iran, run by Shiite clerics, of interfering in Iraq's domestic affairs. Rumsfeld on March 7 accused Iran of sending Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to foment violence.

Today's announcement may be an attempt by Iran to lessen tensions over its nuclear program. On March 8, the UN's nuclear watchdog confirmed the referral of Iran to the Security Council after three years of UN inspections that failed to declare Iran's atomic work peaceful. The U.S., which says Iran is planning to build an atomic bomb, had pushed for Iran's referral for years.

Iran, the world's second-largest holder of oil and gas reserves, maintains its nuclear plans are intended to produce energy for civilian purposes.

The Bush administration, in an updated national security strategy, identified Iran's nuclear threat as the biggest future challenge to the U.S.

`No Greater Challenge'

``We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,'' the 49-page foreign policy doctrine scheduled for release today says. ``We will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse consequences of their bad conduct.''

IRNA didn't report any comment from Larijani on Iran's nuclear program.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei urged the U.S. and Iran to ``tone down'' their rhetoric and consider direct talks, following the March 8 meeting in Vienna. The two countries may need direct negotiations to resolve their dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which adds to instability in the Middle East, he said.

``Once we get to security issues, the U.S. should be engaged in the dialogue,'' ElBaradei said.

At the Security Council, Iran could face censure or economic sanctions, depending on the support of the Council's five permanent members, which include Russia and China.

Bloomberg