Target Iran?

[Brian Ellis]

As I said, we've discussed this before. There is a HUGE difference between the IRA - the actions of which were decried loudly by virtually all other Christians - and the government of Iran, which seems to speak for the majority of Islam.

Sorry, Gurm, the Roman Catholic IRA was like a girl's finishing school, compared with the extreme bigotry-related violence of the Protestant militants in N. Ireland, led by the likes of the anti-Christ Ian Paisley, who had the nerve to call himself a minister of God. I strongly suspect that they were responsible for more deaths than the IRA, but we shall never know, because there was much covering up by the predominantly Protestant Ulster Royal Constabulary, who did not hesitate to use torture against the Catholics but not the Protestants. Both sides were to blame, to some extent, but there was much sympathy towards Sinn Fein, while decrying the violence of the IRA, especially in parts of the USA. Much of the IRA funding came from there, as well, while the Unionist terrorists got funded from much nearer home.

Iran may think they would like to speak for the majority of Islam, but they never will, if only for the fact that it is not even an Arabic-speaking country. Only 1% of the population are Arabs. Farsi and Turkic are the major languages. Being also a Shiite majority they are not taken too seriously by the numerically superior Sunni and other sectarian faiths, throughout the world.

[schmosef]

Iran may think they would like to speak for the majority of Iran

Did you mean to say that they don't speak for the majority of Arabs? Muslims?

If so, that wasn't a point being debated. If anything, Iran is simply agreeing with other Muslim governments. And by doing so, attempting to show leadership in their hatred of Israel and the West.



Would you give her a nuke?

[Brian Ellis]

Did you mean to say that they don't speak for the majority of Arabs? Muslims?

Sorry, lapsus keyboardii! Have corrected it to Islam

If anything, Iran is simply agreeing with other Muslim governments. And by doing so, attempting to show leadership in their hatred of Israel and the West.

Iran has, historically, never agreed with Arabic nations, even when it was Persia. It has always been a bit of a loner. They may be vociferous in their feelings, but never a leader. Even in the days of Khomeini at his most vituperous, they never got much support from outside except, clandestinely, from the Shiite population of Iraq which hoped that Iran would help them to overthrow SH.

Would you give her a nuke?

No, nor would the Iranian government. But I wouldn't give nuclear armament to anyone but I would give recyclable nuclear energy to whomsoever was able to pay for it, conditional on signing the NPT and accepting IAEA inspections. And I'm not keen on the way you throw in emotive issues.

[Gurm]

Look, when someone says "KILL ALL THE JEWS!" and all their Muslim neighbors go "Amen, Brother!"...

[schmosef]

Iran has, historically, never agreed with Arabic nations, even when it was Persia. It has always been a bit of a loner. They may be vociferous in their feelings, but never a leader. Even in the days of Khomeini at his most vituperous, they never got much support from outside except, clandestinely, from the Shiite population of Iraq which hoped that Iran would help them to overthrow SH.

There's the rub. Iran is trying to establish itself as a leader in the Islamic world. How better than to "wipe Israel off the map"? Saddam used to say the same. He was quite open about wanting a nuke (whether he was actually trying to develop one is another story) so that he could drop it on Israel. Let's be clear on this, destroying Israel is a means to attaining Arab/Muslim leadership, not an end in and of itself. None of the Arab leaders give a whit about Palestinian independance. Not even Arafat. He prolonged the conflict because he wanted to maintain his grip on the Palestinian Arabs.

No, nor would the Iranian government. But I wouldn't give nuclear armament to anyone but I would give recyclable nuclear energy to whomsoever was able to pay for it, conditional on signing the NPT and accepting IAEA inspections.

They had a secret nuclear program for something like 20 years that the IAEA knew nothing about. They don't want to allow full inspections and although they might enjoy telling the MSM how they only want the tech for peaceful purposes, they're more than clear in their internal media on what their real intent is.

And I'm not keen on the way you throw in emotive issues.

And I'm not keen on the way you casually dismiss the reality of the situation. You may wish that all energy production around the world went to nuclear but that doesn't mean that rogue states should have the means to produce nukes.

[Brian Ellis]

Look, when someone says "KILL ALL THE JEWS!" and all their Muslim neighbors go "Amen, Brother!"...

This is the whole point. The Arab world will say "Amen, Brother" at everything another Arab state says, but they won't lift a little finger to help them implement it. Even less would they help a non-Arab state, like Iran, no matter how strong the rhetoric. NEVER ONCE in the history of Islam have Arab nations helped one another, except for a few ephemeral bilateral agreements. How long did the United Arab Republic (Syria and Egypt) last in the 1950s? A couple of years? The only lasting union has been the UAE, but they aren't even countries, only tribal sheikdoms. Yes, the Arabs have been threatening to throw Israel into the sea, since 1948. But they will never do it because they are never united enough to form a true alliance. They are a paper tiger. And they know damn well that if one of them use extraordinary means to do it, such as nuclear weapons, it will incur the reprobation of the whole world which no country, not even Iran, could hope to cope with (and Khomeini knew this full well).

When I was living in Egypt in the 1950s, we used to say that the Arabs were all wind and piss. It's true! Want proof? Look at the Egyptian boots in the Negev.

[Dr Mordrid]

Things have changed since the 50's Brian. Now you have a radical Islamist culture that spans the old tribal cultures and Iran is smack in the middle of supporting it. Right now there are numerous reports that many of the Taliban and AQ are being harbored in Iran by the Mullahs not to mention their support of Syria and Hisballah.

Dr. Mordrid

[TransformX]

NEVER ONCE in the history of Islam have Arab nations helped one another, except for a few ephemeral bilateral agreements.

Actually they did, when they waged wars against Israel

[Nowhere]

I wouldn't call it "helping"...AFAIK Egypt, for example, didn't even tell Syria that the war must be lost because they've lost their whole airforce, on support of which Syria counted.

[schmosef]

Right now Iran is helping all the terrorist groups attacking Israel. So did Saddam.

The Jihadists point to the loss of the Caliphate as the reason that Arabs and Muslims don't get along these days. They hope to reestablish one. Iran wants one bad.

[schmosef]

[Nowhere]

Right now Iran is helping all the terrorist groups attacking Israel. So did Saddam.

...

Wasn't the second thing proved to be a bit of a stretch?

[schmosef]

Not even slightly. I think that you're confusing issues.

[Dr Mordrid]

No. Schmosef is correct.

He was on the record in international media as paying $25,000 each to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.

Also: how else did arms and logistical support get from Iran to Hizbollah via Syria unless they crossed Iraq or Iraqi airspace? Now they're smuggled and often get intercepted, but in Saddams day they did it overtly and the flow was unimpeded.

How much more "help" on his part would you require to accept schmosef's statement?

Dr. Mordrid

[schmosef]

I don't think that Nowhere was trying to deny it; I think that he was just confusing those facts with the now disproven WMD "facts".

The two are, of course, complete separate issues.