Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
Abdul Karim Bangura
| Panetta warns on Iran strike consequences | |||
|
|
|||
|
US defence chief cautions on regional fallout from any military strike against Iran.
Last Modified: 11 Nov 2011 01:46 |
|||
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region. "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday. He maintained that a strike on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme. "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered." 'Toughest sanctions' Panetta stressed instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran. "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said. "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran." The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday. EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to
ratchet up pressure on Tehran. Western governments would prefer UN
Security Council measures against Tehran, but Russia and China, both
permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed. Iran has warned that it will respond to any attacks by hitting Israel and US interests in the Gulf. "Our enemies, particularly the Zionist regime (Israel), America and its allies, should know that any kind of threat and attack or even thinking about any (military) action will be firmly responded to," Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on state television. |
|||
|
|
|||
Cornelius Hamelberg
facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
The bigger question is what would be the consequence of not doing
anything?
Some of the consequences of inaction are spelled out here in the
alarming updates on the approaching inevitable showdown between Iran
and those united in faith against an Iranian bomb, which all things
considered ought to be feared...
http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2011-11/2011-11-11.html
On Nov 11, 4:29 am, Abdul Karim Bangura <th...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Panetta warns on Iran strike consequencesUS defence chief cautions on regional fallout from any military strike against Iran.
>
>
> Last Modified:11 Nov 2011 01:46
>
>
> US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region.
>
> "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday.
> His comments came only hours after Tehran itself warned that any attack on its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists."
> Panetta, who in July succeeded Robert Gates in the Pentagon's top post, said his assessment is in line with his predecessor's.
>
> He maintained that a strike on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme.
>
> "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered."
>
> 'Toughest sanctions'
>
> Panetta stressed instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran.
>
> "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said.
>
> "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran."
>
> The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday.
>
> EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. Western governments would prefer UN Security Council measures against Tehran, but Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed.
> Tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme were re-ignited on Tuesday when a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Iran had worked on designing a bomb and that research to that end may be on-going.
Emeagwali, Gloria (History)
facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
True. Maybe the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulated MiddleEast will be great for Big Oil.
They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
Prof. of History & African Studies
History Department
Central Connecticut State University
New Britain
CT 06050
www.africahistory.net
www.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
emea...@ccsu.edu
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [cornelius...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:53 AM
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2011-11/2011-11-11.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
Anunoby, Ogugua
What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value. War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.
oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emea...@mail.ccsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
Cornelius Hamelberg
hands of a theocracy which denies the Holocaust and has already talked
about wiping out Israel, is not to be taken lightly.
If you are half as Nigerian as I am, then you too would have the same
shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions.
In the final analysis "prevention is better than cure" and when the
Shia doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman enter the political arena of
public diplomacy there's no telling exactly where the Iranian regime
is heading. It's extra dangerous because we cannot foresee that the
regime is destined to be stable., forever. Most of the Sunni World
backed Saddam Hussein in his 8 year war which he started against Iran
and since around that time there's been a storm brewing with the
custodians of the Holy places in Saudi Arabia and as you know the
whole area is the reservoir of oil supplies to the West, to China and
Japan......so nobody wants to see any nuclear tipped missiles flying
around in this area which would be better off without them and the
mad rush of the other neighbours to achieve nuclear capability. If
Gaddafi, and Saddam had had nuclear weapons we'd now be telling
another tale.
Should Iran be given the opportunity of upgrading from peaceful to
military, in response to the IEAE saying so you were lying, they will
justify themselves with “ But Israel also has” and the doctrine of “
All's fair in love and war.”
No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua" <Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.
> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value. War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.
>
> oa
>
> ________________________________________
> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
>
> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
>
> True. Maybe the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
>
> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulated MiddleEast will be great for Big Oil.
> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
>
> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
> Prof. of History & African Studies
> History Department
> Central Connecticut State University
> New Britain
> CT 06050www.africahistory.netwww.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
> ________________________________________
> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsub...@googlegroups.com
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
Anunoby, Ogugua
shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions."
ch
Iran is a state/country. Boko Haram is not. Boko Haram is amorphous and anomalous. Iran is not. The differences here is significant.
Iran has always made it clear that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited in Islam. Iran is an strictly Islamic state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country. She been attacked by other countries.
It is all well to be concerned about the western interests in the Middle East and oil. Should it not be as well to be concerned about Iran and her people, and their fear of external military attack.
Peace, true peace is usually possible and is more likely to be achieved if the concern of all parties are frontally, earnestly, and fully addressed. Peace in the Middle East or indeed any place else should be predicated on the resolution of the concerns of all parties to a conflict.
Those supporting a military stike against Iran probably know how the strike will begin. What no one knows is how Iran will respond to a military strike and therefore what happens after. What is needed in the Middle East is negotiated peace however difficult, not forced peace however "easy".
oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [cornelius...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:33 AM
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
kenneth harrow
i can't believe that there are more than 3 people on earth who could
take seriously your statement that iran's public statements about their
nuclear program or the use of nuclear weapons under islam mean anything
whatsoever. why are you stating this??
further, i have read the qur'an, and despite searching all day and night
for 348 years still have not found that elusive passage in which
mohammed stated categorically that nuclear weapons are out.
ken
> justify themselves with � But Israel also has� and the doctrine of �
> All's fair in love and war.�
>
> No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
> of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
>
> http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
>
>
> On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
>> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.
>> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value. War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.
>>
>> oa
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
>> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
>>
>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
>>
>> True. Maybe the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
>>
>> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulated MiddleEast will be great for Big Oil.
>> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
>>
>> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
>> Prof. of History& African Studies
--
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
har...@msu.edu
Cornelius Hamelberg
True: Boko Haram is not a country, although it's a clear intention of
theirs to proclaim Sharia Law throughout what they dream will soon be
be the Federal Islamic Republic of Nigeria.
Whereas Iran is already an Islamic State - please take note - Iran
is not an ordinary Muslim State, or some uncle tom kind of Islamic
State and that's why it's called the Revolutionary Islamic Republic
with its own unique national, regional and global agenda. Under the
mantle of Wilayat-e-faqih, the state has its duties and
responsibilities though perhaps it's unlikely that the Mullahs (the
Council of Guardians) call for a referendum - a consultation with the
people about the nuclear issue or about any other priorities on their
agenda.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Boko+Haram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a#q=Boko+Haram&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Ejh&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=kPK-Ttq6O5SK4gTPuMG4BA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBgQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b79e7cf5fdd41d7d&biw=1255&bih=844
Iran and their surrogates Hezbollah are working for the erection of a
New Islamic State between Jordan and the deep blue Sea - to replace
Israel which they would like to wipe off the surface of the map ( God
forbid) and they would like to call their new state the Great Islamic
Republic of Palestine, the 23rd Arab State. I believe that they intend
to create that state through military means.
You seem to think that it's mainly the West that's worried about
Iran's peaceful nuclear programme, but I assure you that all the
neighbouring Sunni Arab Muslim countries, the Saudis, Egypt, the
Turks, in short all the Sunnis great and small are a little worried
about the more dominant role that Iran could play - militarily in
their neighbourhood …
There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the
security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are – in
fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted – as military
targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
cause great sorrow.
You say that “Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
is prohibited in Islam”
How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
possession of nuclear weapons?
Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away
because of your simple assurance that “Iran is an strictly Islamic
state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.”
Looka here:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4489-any-action-against-iran-will-speed-up-israels-collapse-ambassador
On Nov 12, 10:27 pm, "Anunoby, Ogugua" <Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> '...you too would have the same
> shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
> got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
> declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions."
>
> ch
>
> Iran is a state/country. Boko Haram is not. Boko Haram is amorphous and anomalous. Iran is not. The differences here is significant.
> Iran has always made it clear that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited in Islam. Iran is an strictly Islamic state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country. She been attacked by other countries.
> It is all well to be concerned about the western interests in the Middle East and oil. Should it not be as well to be concerned about Iran and her people, and their fear of external military attack.
> Peace, true peace is usually possible and is more likely to be achieved if the concern of all parties are frontally, earnestly, and fully addressed. Peace in the Middle East or indeed any place else should be predicated on the resolution of the concerns of all parties to a conflict.
> Those supporting a military stike against Iran probably know how the strike will begin. What no one knows is how Iran will respond to a military strike and therefore what happens after. What is needed in the Middle East is negotiated peace however difficult, not forced peace however "easy".
>
> oa
>
> ________________________________________
>
> read more »
kenneth harrow
so the 2 million or so who died in the iran-iraq war were imaginary?
ken
> their neighbourhood �
>
> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the
> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are � in
> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
> region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted � as military
> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
> cause great sorrow.
>
> You say that �Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
> is prohibited in Islam�
> How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
> possession of nuclear weapons?
> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
>
> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away
> because of your simple assurance that �Iran is an strictly Islamic
> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.�
>> justify themselves with � But Israel also has� and the doctrine of �
>> All's fair in love and war.�
>>
>> No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
>> of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
>>
>> http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
>>
>> On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.
>>> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value. War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.
>>> oa
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
>>> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
>>> True. Maybe the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
>>> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulated MiddleEast will be great for Big Oil.
>>> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
>>> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
>>> Prof. of History& African Studies
>> read more �
Ayo Obe
And by the way, the support that Saddam Hussein's Iraq received from the United States dwarfs anything that Iran may have offered Hezbollah in its resistance to Israeli occupation.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>> their neighbourhood …
>>
>> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
>> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the
>> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are – in
>> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
>> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
>> region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
>> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted – as military
>> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
>> cause great sorrow.
>>
>> You say that “Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
>> is prohibited in Islam”
>> How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
>> possession of nuclear weapons?
>> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
>>
>> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away
>> because of your simple assurance that “Iran is an strictly Islamic
>> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.”
>>> justify themselves with “ But Israel also has” and the doctrine of “
>>> All's fair in love and war.”
>>> read more »
>
> --
> kenneth w. harrow
> distinguished professor of english
> michigan state university
> department of english
> east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> ph. 517 803 8839
> har...@msu.edu
>
kenneth harrow
self-defense. whatever ills iraq committed doesn't change the fact that
iran is not some ideal muslim entity thanks to its name or the mullahs
this is the same logic used by others re libya. ideology trumps any real
vision of the situation
ken
>>> their neighbourhood �
>>>
>>> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
>>> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the
>>> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are � in
>>> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
>>> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
>>> region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
>>> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted � as military
>>> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
>>> cause great sorrow.
>>>
>>> You say that �Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
>>> is prohibited in Islam�
>>> How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
>>> possession of nuclear weapons?
>>> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
>>>
>>> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away
>>> because of your simple assurance that �Iran is an strictly Islamic
>>> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.�
>>>> justify themselves with � But Israel also has� and the doctrine of �
>>>> All's fair in love and war.�
>>>> read more �
Anunoby, Ogugua
There were no nuclear weapons in Mohammed's time. The Koran could not have a passage on Mohammed stating "categorically that nuclear weapons are out" or in.
Iran has consistently stated that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Some people believe Iran. There are those who do not. It is instructive that the disbelievers have presented no hard verifiable evidence that the Iran claim is untrue.
Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein said that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. There were those who believed that he did and acted on their belief. The rest as they say is history.
If I may ask, does Islam approve of weapons of mass destruction? Does anyone know of a widely respect Islamic leader who is on record as stating that nuclear weapons are allowed in Islam and that Iran' assertion is untrue?
On a matter as serious as the claims that Iran is is developing nuclear weapons and lying about it, my position is that those who love to consume palm wine are usually concerned about the palm wine and not the palmwine tapper. The Iraq experience is too recent and costly to be ignored.
oa
________________________________________
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow [har...@msu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 5:01 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
> justify themselves with “ But Israel also has” and the doctrine of “
> All's fair in love and war.”
Cornelius Hamelberg
weapons or psychotronic weapons or more advanced weapons, is a thorny
one, not just an ethical one but if it comes to a showdown then Iran
is in for a spectacular showcasing of what smart weapons can do, with
Iran as the testing ground.
Who wants to see that?
http://www.google.se/search?q=Islam+and+nuclear+weapons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a
During the last three years of the Iran-Iraq War, I read the Tehran
Times regularly and contributed a few supportive letters too. A hadith
that appeared on the last page of every edition ran: ”Teach your sons
swimming, archery and horsemanship.” as these are considered
legitimate sports and aligned to training for warfare...
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=ppwl&cp=50&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=Teach+your+sons+swimming%2C+archery+and+horsemanship&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Teach+your+sons+swimming,+archery+and+horsemanship&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a9c2f2b04d44c7c3&biw=1255&bih=844
In retrospect, some scholars looking back at what happened with Islam
have concluded that with the passage of time after the initial rapid
spread of Islam which early on took Spain and by 1683 had the
Ottomans already knocking on the gates of Vienna, eventually suffered
a decline as the empire got soft with luxurious living and lost the
art of warfare because they did not advance the science of making
weapons or keep abreast of the latest development in weaponry and were
therefore overcome by their enemies who had superior weapons. Today
the oil kingdoms of Islam spend astronomical sums on defence ( Saddam
owed the US some $87 Billion by the end of the war with Iran and
Saddam also invaded Kuwait who was not pumping enough protection money
to Saddam who had been protecting them from great harm, during the
Gulf War.)
A year before the Iran - Iraq war ended the enemies of Iran were
already dancing because Iran had run out of weapons and was so
isolated despite the genius foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati that
there was nowhere they could buy from not even at the most exorbitant
prices , from Brazil.... and we should note that Saddam used
chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja and on the Island of Faw,
Iran did not respond in kind ...
Iran's weaponry should not be underestimated nor should the US be
underestimated should al-Qaeda want to go nuclear on them....
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=ppwl&cp=26&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=Iran%27s+military+technology&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Iran%27s+military+technology&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a9c2f2b04d44c7c3&biw=1255&bih=844
One of the reasons for Iran wanting greater military capability is
that they do not want to be dependent on foreign suppliers of weapons.
Sounds like enemy propaganda, but paradoxically, as variously
reported, Iran was accused of getting a lot of weaponry from Israel
during their 8-year-war with Saddam's Iraq.....
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=ppwl&cp=51&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=Israeli+support+for+Iran+during+the+Iraq+-+Iran+war&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Israeli+support+for+Iran+during+the+Iraq+-+Iran+war&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a9c2f2b04d44c7c3&biw=1255&bih=844
http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
>
> läs mer »