Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

[surayu]

Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

True, but they won't be laughing when one of our closest allies does it for us.

Thailand ?

[neverdie]

Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

True, but they won't be laughing when one of our closest allies does it for us.

Thailand ?

Well, that will put the fear of god into them

[pampal]

...But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

There is little chance that America will destroy the nuclear reactor in Iran despite the way that the Islamic dictatorship ignore the UN, threaten other countries and subjugate their own people.

Good effort but having an as yet non-functioning nuclear power plant (thanks in part to the yanks, who were remarkably keen on a nuclear Iran until the Iranians had the good sense to kick out their imperial overlords) doesn't make them a nuclear state. But having several hundred nuclear warheads does - and that's exactly what the zionist entity has.

Ok, so the you consider the UN inspectors to be  imperial overlords. That's nice.

The Iranians had made several agreements and promises. They broke all of them. The fact of the matter is that no one would object if the Iranians were not threatening to launch nukes against multiple countries.  If you were a Gulf oil state and the welfare of your citizens was constantly threatened and the major route to sell your oil could be cut off any day by a despot, you might be worried too. If you are a resident of the UK or a country along the missile trajectory from Iran, you might be concerned. After all, Iran has said it would launch its nukes. Has Israel threatened have the heavens rain down the "fire of death" on any country in the EU?

Iran doesn't have nukes and denies trying to make them,

So how could they say they will launch their nukes when they deny having or wanting to have that capability.

Interesting how people make up stuff

[pampal]

Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

True, but they won't be laughing when one of our closest allies does it for us.

And how long have they been saying that they will strike Iran?

A few years at least. Nothing yet.

I wonder why?

[elcent]

A major concern with nuclear weapons is who actually has the authority to launch them and the controls that are in place to prevent an accidental launch. Does anyone know what protocol the Iranians would use?

There is almost no strategic value for a country possessing a limited nuclear arsenal compared to their enemy unless the country uses their arsenal first, so not a very sophisticated protocol needed, just the belief of an imminent threat.

The whole purpose of the proposed missile defense shield intended to be deployed in eastern Europe is to reduce the strategic value of nuclear weapons (specifically Iran's or N. Korea's) as a threat to western nations from almost nothing to absolutely nothing.

Achmedinjad and the Mullahs are the protocol, A. is an extremely religious guy and the Mullahs insane. According to the Sunni doctrine. In order for the 5th Mahdi(fifth and last pillar in Islam) to come everything must be destroyed first and this is exactly what will happen when we let these insanity develop.

[surayu]

Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

True, but they won't be laughing when one of our closest allies does it for us.

Thailand ?

Well, that will put the fear of god into them

Better not to underestimate the devastation some chilly/fish paste can cause if dropped from altitudes, lets say by using a balloon or even a Gripen

[pampal]

A major concern with nuclear weapons is who actually has the authority to launch them and the controls that are in place to prevent an accidental launch. Does anyone know what protocol the Iranians would use?

There is almost no strategic value for a country possessing a limited nuclear arsenal compared to their enemy unless the country uses their arsenal first, so not a very sophisticated protocol needed, just the belief of an imminent threat.

The whole purpose of the proposed missile defense shield intended to be deployed in eastern Europe is to reduce the strategic value of nuclear weapons (specifically Iran's or N. Korea's) as a threat to western nations from almost nothing to absolutely nothing.

Achmedinjad and the Mullahs are the protocol, A. is an extremely religious guy and the Mullahs insane. According to the Sunni doctrine. In order for the 5th Mahdi(fifth and last pillar in Islam) to come everything must be destroyed first and this is exactly what will happen when we let these insanity develop.

Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are not Sunni, they are Shia and follow Shia doctrine and not Sunni Doctrine.

There is no 5th Mahdi. In fact the majority of Muslims who are Sunni don't believe in the Mahdi or Shia doctrine.

The fifth pillar of Islam according to Shia Doctrine is: Last Judgment, God's final assessment of humanity.

The fifth pillar of Islam according to Sunni doctrine is: Performing the Hajj.

Where do you get this stuff from?

Edited November 29, 2010 by pampal

[elcent]

A major concern with nuclear weapons is who actually has the authority to launch them and the controls that are in place to prevent an accidental launch. Does anyone know what protocol the Iranians would use?

There is almost no strategic value for a country possessing a limited nuclear arsenal compared to their enemy unless the country uses their arsenal first, so not a very sophisticated protocol needed, just the belief of an imminent threat.

The whole purpose of the proposed missile defense shield intended to be deployed in eastern Europe is to reduce the strategic value of nuclear weapons (specifically Iran's or N. Korea's) as a threat to western nations from almost nothing to absolutely nothing.

Achmedinjad and the Mullahs are the protocol, A. is an extremely religious guy and the Mullahs insane. According to the Sunni doctrine. In order for the 5th Mahdi(fifth and last pillar in Islam) to come everything must be destroyed first and this is exactly what will happen when we let these insanity develop.

Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are not Sunni, they are Shia and follow Shia doctrine and not Sunni Doctrine.

There is no 5th Mahdi. In fact the majority of Muslims who are Sunni don't believe in the Mahdi or Shia doctrine.

The fifth pillar of Islam according to Shia Doctrine is: Last Judgment, God's final assessment of humanity.

The fifth pillar of Islam according to Sunni doctrine is: Performing the Hajj.

Where do you get this stuff from?

oops, yes my bad I got it mixed up, about 90% are Shia's.

Whereas Sunnis believe the Mahdi will appear sometime in the future, Shias believe the Mahdi was already on earth, is currently the "hidden imam" who works through mujtahids to intepret Qur'an; and will return at the end of time.

So Achmedinjad wants to speed up the end of time so that he could see his hidden imam or even believes it's himself, lol . I remember he mentioned about the destruction and to support destruction years ago.

[endure]

There's more than one way to skin a cat:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Iranian+nuclear+scientist+killed+bomb+attack/3900637/story.html

[Ulysses G.]

The question then is, who to cheer for when one wildly unpleasant theocracy takes on another?

The dictatorship or the democracy? Not a difficult decision.

The last time Iran tried for Democracy and elected a democratic leader was 1953(Dr. Mossadegh).

You mean when he was caught fixing the election? That is not democracy.

[craigt3365]

Iran doesn't have nukes and denies trying to make them,

So how could they say they will launch their nukes when they deny having or wanting to have that capability.

Interesting how people make up stuff

You honestly believe what they say? If so, you must also believe all the rhetoric from the leaders of other countries around the world?

[geriatrickid]

Iran doesn't have nukes and denies trying to make them,

So how could they say they will launch their nukes when they deny having or wanting to have that capability.

Interesting how people make up stuff

Really? Iran does indeed deny its nuclear intent, but then Iran just wants to spread peace, love and hugs too, right?.

So was this "stuff" made up? Here's just a few of the statements coming from Iran that show a consistent intent to attack.

1, May 2004, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told al-Jazeera television some Iranian generals favor pre-emptive strikes against U.S. and Israeli forces

2. By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent 12:01AM BST 18 Sep 2007 The Telegraph

Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.

A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.

3, May 3, 2009 German NTV reported on the latest developments in the Iran-Israel tensions: "Destruction in 11 days". According to NTV, "Iran has made its first ever announcement of a concrete objective of the destruction of Israel". The German report was based upon an interview aired on Israeli television with the Iranian leader general chief of staff Attalah Salihi.

4. ran threatens to attack U.S. interests around the world if provoked - By Bridget Johnson; The Hill - 08/22/10 11:26 AM ET

Iran unveiled an unmanned "ambassador of death" drone Sunday as a senior official warned that any "illogical move" by the U.S. against the Islamic Republic's nuclear program would bring attacks against U.S. interests worldwide.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the unmanned bomber that carries four cruise missiles and can fly up to 620 miles, saying, "The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship."

5. Akbar Dareini, AP, Sept. 3. 2010:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president Sunday called for U.S. leaders to be "buried" in response to what he says are American threats of military attack against Tehran's nuclear program. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is known for brash rhetoric in addressing the West, but in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult;. "May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.

My statement was in respect to Iran's consistent statements that it would attack. Ipso facto, that as soon as Iran gains a nuclear weapon arsenal, it will attack.

Edited November 30, 2010 by geriatrickid

[Ulysses G.]

Iran doesn't have nukes and denies trying to make them,

So how could they say they will launch their nukes when they deny having or wanting to have that capability.

The government of Iran is not strong on logic and not adverse to lying. You are giving them WAY too much credit.

[Ulysses G.]

How about sticking to FACTS.

Was there ever a state called Palestine?

Did it ever existed as an autonomous entity ??

• Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States. In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.

http://answers.yahoo...11181033AAIktxm[/

Sorry, the post I was replying to has been removed.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

That might have something to do with the fact that there has never been a country called Palestine - other than the ancient Jewish one - or a Palestinian people or a Palestinian language.The Arabs immigrants started calling themselves that in about 1967.

...like to pretend that there was nobody there and they simply moved into an empty land

More facts.

Mark Twain's visit to Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land in 1867 was published in "The Innocents Abroad", where he described "Palestine" as follows:

"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

[craigt3365]

I just watched a news report about those confidential leaks on wikileaks. Amazing at what is said privately, vs what is said in public. Seems the Arab nations are not very happy with Iran and have asked the US to do something about it. I forget the exact quote, but the president of Egypt calls them a bunch of liars. Every gulf nation has expressed concerns about Iran's nuclear program. So I would say it is a fact as to what they are trying to do...not good...

Another interesting piece of info is that Yemen is talking with the US about having the US bomb the terrorist camps...but they would say it was their planes publically. Unreal....

[junkofdavid2]

As much as Hamas, Hizbollah and other wackos talk of martyrdom, the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

Yet the majority of Mr. & Mrs. Abdullahs in Palestine voted for Hamas in parliamentary elections...

Edited November 30, 2010 by junkofdavid2

[kuffki]

As much as Hamas, Hizbollah and other wackos talk of martyrdom, the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

Yet the majority of Mr. & Mrs. Abdullahs in Palestine voted for Hamas in parliamentary elections...

sorry little incorrect. Hamas only won in Gazza not across all of Palestine, and their win was very questionable

[craigt3365]

As much as Hamas, Hizbollah and other wackos talk of martyrdom, the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

Yet the majority of Mr. & Mrs. Abdullahs in Palestine voted for Hamas in parliamentary elections...

sorry little incorrect. Hamas only won in Gazza not across all of Palestine, and their win was very questionable

Wasn't it true they voted for Hamas because they were tired of the corruption and lack of action with the contender? But in the end, I think they got pretty much the same!

[pampal]

The question then is, who to cheer for when one wildly unpleasant theocracy takes on another?

The dictatorship or the democracy? Not a difficult decision.

The last time Iran tried for Democracy and elected a democratic leader was 1953(Dr. Mossadegh).

You mean when he was caught fixing the election? That is not democracy.

Who was caught fixing the election?

The US who staged the coup to remove the democraticaly elected leader. And put the puppet Shah on back on the throne.

Edited November 30, 2010 by pampal

[kuffki]

As much as Hamas, Hizbollah and other wackos talk of martyrdom, the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

Yet the majority of Mr. & Mrs. Abdullahs in Palestine voted for Hamas in parliamentary elections...

sorry little incorrect. Hamas only won in Gazza not across all of Palestine, and their win was very questionable

Wasn't it true they voted for Hamas because they were tired of the corruption and lack of action with the contender? But in the end, I think they got pretty much the same!

Hamas got 44.45%, while Fatah got 41.43, so you would hardly call it a majority.

[Samuian]

...................edited to shorten....

........the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

The benfit of these leaks is that it just might force alot of people who have been in denial to accept that there is a problem with a nation like Iran possessing nuclear arms and threatening to use them on anyone it doesn't like.

I wonder what these "wikileaks" all of a sudden are really all about... strange stuff!

Are "the walls" really all of a sudden all that "porous" or is it right to remain a "little suspicious" about the real intention behind those "leaks"?

my 2 Cents...those "leaks" seem to have way too clear politically and strategically aims.... as the "leaks" about german politicians, there should be a daily flood of "leaks" about the Pope, some stray Bishops, Celebrieties....why not? That makes me even more suspicious!

[pampal]

Iran doesn't have nukes and denies trying to make them,

So how could they say they will launch their nukes when they deny having or wanting to have that capability.

Interesting how people make up stuff  

Really? Iran does indeed deny its nuclear intent, but then  Iran just wants to spread peace, love and hugs too, right?.

So was this "stuff" made up? Here's just a few of the statements coming from Iran that show a consistent intent to attack.

1, May 2004, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told al-Jazeera television some Iranian generals favor pre-emptive strikes against U.S. and Israeli forces

2. By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent 12:01AM BST 18 Sep 2007  The Telegraph

Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.

A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.

3, May 3, 2009 German NTV reported on the latest developments in the Iran-Israel tensions: "Destruction in 11 days". According to NTV, "Iran has made its first ever announcement of a concrete objective of the destruction of Israel". The German report was based upon an interview aired on Israeli television with the Iranian leader general chief of staff  Attalah Salihi.

4. ran threatens to attack U.S. interests around the world if provoked - By Bridget Johnson; The Hill - 08/22/10 11:26 AM ET

Iran unveiled an unmanned "ambassador of death" drone Sunday as a senior official warned that any "illogical move" by the U.S. against the Islamic Republic's nuclear program would bring attacks against U.S. interests worldwide.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the unmanned bomber that carries four cruise missiles and can fly up to 620 miles, saying, "The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship."

5. Akbar Dareini, AP, Sept. 3. 2010:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president Sunday called for U.S. leaders to be "buried" in response to what he says are American threats of military attack against Tehran's nuclear program.    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is known for brash rhetoric in addressing the West, but in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult;.  "May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.

My statement was in respect to Iran's consistent statements that it would attack. Ipso facto, that as soon as Iran gains a nuclear weapon arsenal, it will attack.

In your post you claim Iran intends to launch their NUKES. Please include any link you have that says as much. They said they will launch missiles, never have they said they will launch NUKES.

So if you have any links that support you statement. I would love to see it.

But until then, you are making it up.

[kuffki]

Iran doesn't have nukes and denies trying to make them,

So how could they say they will launch their nukes when they deny having or wanting to have that capability.

Interesting how people make up stuff

Really? Iran does indeed deny its nuclear intent, but then Iran just wants to spread peace, love and hugs too, right?.

So was this "stuff" made up? Here's just a few of the statements coming from Iran that show a consistent intent to attack.

1, May 2004, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told al-Jazeera television some Iranian generals favor pre-emptive strikes against U.S. and Israeli forces

2. By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent 12:01AM BST 18 Sep 2007 The Telegraph

Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.

A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.

3, May 3, 2009 German NTV reported on the latest developments in the Iran-Israel tensions: "Destruction in 11 days". According to NTV, "Iran has made its first ever announcement of a concrete objective of the destruction of Israel". The German report was based upon an interview aired on Israeli television with the Iranian leader general chief of staff Attalah Salihi.

4. ran threatens to attack U.S. interests around the world if provoked - By Bridget Johnson; The Hill - 08/22/10 11:26 AM ET

Iran unveiled an unmanned "ambassador of death" drone Sunday as a senior official warned that any "illogical move" by the U.S. against the Islamic Republic's nuclear program would bring attacks against U.S. interests worldwide.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the unmanned bomber that carries four cruise missiles and can fly up to 620 miles, saying, "The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship."

5. Akbar Dareini, AP, Sept. 3. 2010:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president Sunday called for U.S. leaders to be "buried" in response to what he says are American threats of military attack against Tehran's nuclear program. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is known for brash rhetoric in addressing the West, but in a speech Sunday he went a step further using a deeply offensive insult;. "May the undertaker bury you, your table and your body, which has soiled the world," he said using language in Iran reserved for hated enemies.

My statement was in respect to Iran's consistent statements that it would attack. Ipso facto, that as soon as Iran gains a nuclear weapon arsenal, it will attack.

In your post you claim Iran intends to launch their NUKES. Please include any link you have that says as much. They said they will launch missiles, never have they said they will launch NUKES.

So if you have any links that support you statement. I would love to see it.

But until then, you are making it up.

Sorry to interfere, but i believe consistant statements by Iran to wipe out Israel from the face of the earth is enough evidence for their intentions and willingness to use nukes

Iran can not make an open statement regarding using the nukes, because Iran keeps claiming they do not have any and are not developing any, so would be little stupid to make a statement that they will use it.

[craigt3365]

...................edited to shorten....

........the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

The benfit of these leaks is that it just might force alot of people who have been in denial to accept that there is a problem with a nation like Iran possessing nuclear arms and threatening to use them on anyone it doesn't like.

I wonder what these "wikileaks" all of a sudden are really all about... strange stuff!

Are "the walls" really all of a sudden all that "porous" or is it right to remain a "little suspicious" about the real intention behind those "leaks"?

my 2 Cents...those "leaks" seem to have way too clear politically and strategically aims.... as the "leaks" about german politicians, there should be a daily flood of "leaks" about the Pope, some stray Bishops, Celebrieties....why not? That makes me even more suspicious!

I watched a full hour on this stuff today. Really interesting. From what I've heard, it was a young soldier in Iraq with a clearance about "Top Secret" who downloaded this stuff. He was pretending to be listening to music when in reality he was downloading docs. The head of the army indicated soldiers in the field has easier access to sensitive data as their job might require that info quickly...so they don't have to deal with the bureaucracy back in DC. He got so much stuff, that wikileaks has not been able to release all of it at one time. So it is coming out in pieces.

He is in trouble for sure, and this seems like real stuff. All sorts of lawsuits are being lined up and Julian Assange is right in the cross hairs of this, with many countries readying their own lawsuits against him. But the media has said this is kind of a good thing. It brings out into the open a lot of stuff people blame the US for, when in reality, other countries are pushing the US to do some of these things. Like the Saudi Arabia king really not liking the president of Pakistan and saying he is the #1 problem for Pakistan right now and should be removed. Interesting cloak and dagger stuff!

[geriatrickid]

As much as Hamas, Hizbollah and other wackos talk of martyrdom, the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

Yet the majority of Mr. & Mrs. Abdullahs in Palestine voted for Hamas in parliamentary elections...

sorry little incorrect. Hamas only won in Gazza not across all of Palestine, and their win was very questionable

Wasn't it true they voted for Hamas because they were tired of the corruption and lack of action with the contender? But in the end, I think they got pretty much the same!

Of the Electoral Lists, Hamas received 44.45% and Fatah 41.43% and of the Electoral Districts, Hamas party candidates received 41.73% and Fatah party candidates received 36.96%.

Not much of a majority. Necessitates a coalition and co-operative spirit, sort of like minority governments in Canada, Israel, Italy, UK etc. I am sure Hamas & Fatah will work together as they are brothers and sisters united.

[koheesti]

Yeah, I'm going with the Iranians, too. But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

Are you talking about Chapter VI or Chapter VII resolutions?

[Ulysses G.]

pampal, on 2010-11-29 23:07, said:

Who was caught fixing the election?

Mossadegh fixed the Iranian election and pissed off enough people to make a coup against him successful.

[johna]

There is only one problem in the Middle East and that’s Israel.

Iran is only doing what it has to in order to survive Israeli and American aggression.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed How and Why America was Attacked

In May 1993 Sharon had proposed at the Likud

Convention that: “Israel should adopt the ‘Biblical borders’ concept as its

official policy. There were rather few objections to this proposal, either in the Likud or outside it, and all were based on pragmatic grounds. The most far-reaching interpretation of these borders include the following areas: “in the south, all of Sinai and a part of northern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus.

As if to corroborate, the Washington Times reported in April 2002, during the Israeli invasion of the Occupied Territories, that Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres confirmed Sharon’s “plan calling for Israel to annex 50 percent of land in the West Bank.” The existence of the plan was originally “disclosed by Ephraim Sneh, the Israeli transport minister,” who observed that the annexation plan is “incompatible with a two-state solution,” and thus designed to block the emergence of a viable independent Palestinian state.

As we go to press, Sharon is indulging in open warfare in the West Bank

with plans to annex half of it, evidently intending to eventually “transfer”

ethnically cleanse – a large fraction of the population. Yet Israeli media

present this as a “humane” action, because their foot soldiers risked their

lives in action, rather than dropping daisy-cutters. Thus, America’s wanton use of overwhelming firepower is an encouragement and an alibi to the world’s war criminals, of every stripe.

[kuffki]

There is only one problem in the Middle East and that's Israel.

Iran is only doing what it has to in order to survive Israeli and American aggression.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed How and Why America was Attacked

In May 1993 Sharon had proposed at the Likud

Convention that: "Israel should adopt the 'Biblical borders' concept as its

official policy. There were rather few objections to this proposal, either in the Likud or outside it, and all were based on pragmatic grounds. The most far-reaching interpretation of these borders include the following areas: "in the south, all of Sinai and a part of northern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus.

As if to corroborate, the Washington Times reported in April 2002, during the Israeli invasion of the Occupied Territories, that Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres confirmed Sharon's "plan calling for Israel to annex 50 percent of land in the West Bank." The existence of the plan was originally "disclosed by Ephraim Sneh, the Israeli transport minister," who observed that the annexation plan is "incompatible with a two-state solution," and thus designed to block the emergence of a viable independent Palestinian state.

As we go to press, Sharon is indulging in open warfare in the West Bank

with plans to annex half of it, evidently intending to eventually "transfer"

ethnically cleanse – a large fraction of the population. Yet Israeli media

present this as a "humane" action, because their foot soldiers risked their

lives in action, rather than dropping daisy-cutters. Thus, America's wanton use of overwhelming firepower is an encouragement and an alibi to the world's war criminals, of every stripe.

Would you care to explain or perhaps show some examples of Israeli threat to Iran or Israeli aggression towards Iran.

While you at it, could you kindly explain what are the reasons for Iran wanting to wipe out Israel completely?

Considering that all the rubbish you had written does not even mention Iran at all.

Edited November 30, 2010 by kuffki