An Accidental War

[Xarog]

That the country is dominated by clerics who impose Islamic law - and if you don't agree with that idea, you never get 'chosen' for election.

Sounds alot like the new clause coming into Israeli law that you have to support Israel as a Jewish state in order to be eligible for election. And yet no one seems to be screaming that Israel isn't a democracy.

As for the implementation of Islamic law : I certainly don't agree with it, but technically it is no different to our constitutional court which enforces the highest law in the land. The government cannot simply ignore the constitution whenever it sees fit.

Abstention from voting is also a vote of no confidence in the election process. It usually sends a very powerful signal. Though it would have to be a democracy to fully react to the signals.

And yet you have no proof that it did not send powerful signals. As a side note : do you have any idea what percentage of south africans vote in the local elections?

 

[neio]

Yes, I do deny that the Shia militia are attacking US and UK troops. The Shia and Coalition forces aren't fighting each other in any meaningful way at the moment.

Erm, you said it. (Rofl, Fackwit)

Bush started this mess when he made his stupid axis of evil speech. Thus the provocation is from the US not the Iranians.

Personally I would keep my arse occupied with other matters if the USA said I was part of the axis of 3v1l, and not try to provoke them, heh, has Iran tried to do that, f@ckin nope.

I wonder what the Yanks would do if the Iranians stormed into Iraq and shot up the American embassy and 'arrested' a few American citizens.

They did it already in the 1980's.

I'm actually astounded by the lack of historical knowledge that you display.

Sad really.

 

[neio]

What I find the most disturbing of all of these arguments is the lack of knowledge that people display re. history, and then they still believe with all their hearts that they are right, frikken astounding actually.

 

[Xarog]

Erm, you said it. (Rofl, Fackwit)

Let me put it to you this way then : If the shiites start fighting the coalition troops in a meaningful way, it will be a massacre of American soldiers. The Sunnis are the ones who are really miffed with the yanks at the moment and the sunnis alone are keeping the US forces occupied. If the Shiites join in the fight *meaningfully* the US troops will be overrun.

Personally I would keep my arse occupied with other matters if the USA said I was part of the axis of 3v1l, and not try to provoke them, heh, has Iran tried to do that, f@ckin nope.

Go do a bit of research as to what happened inside Iran after the axis of evil speech. Ahmadinejad would not be in power now if it was not for that speech.

They did it already in the 1980's.

No they didn't. It was not planned by the Iranian government. There was no movement of troops to another country to which the raid took place. The Americans were not arrested but were held hostage.

Three fundamentally different aspects to the two situations. A comparable situation would be Iran sending troups into Saudi Arabia and 'arresting' US citizens and dragging them back to Iran. How do you think the US would react to that?

I'm actually astounded by the lack of historical knowledge that you display.

Sad really.

What I find the most disturbing of all of these arguments is the lack of knowledge that people display re. history, and then they still believe with all their hearts that they are right, frikken astounding actually.

Et tu, Brute.

 

[Syndyre]

Well the fact of the matter is that before the 1967 invasion the land was under Lebanese jurisdiction.

Maybe so but:

In any event, the UN regards Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory occupied by Israel, not Lebanese territory subject to Resolution 242.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

 

[Syndyre]

Those stockpiles did not include the IEDs otherwise they would have been used since the start of the resistance against the occupation (they only came later which means someone was supplying them). So, where did they come from?

By definition they're Improvised Explosive Devices, maybe they were improvised from existing weapons stockpiles?

 

[Syndyre]

Abstentation simply means that you choose not to vote.


And the constitutional court at preset would ban Mbeki from running for president for a third time.


No different from how our Constitutional court operates.

That level of abstentation suggests an implied vote of no confidence in the electoral system. Mbeki would be banned from running for a third time because of his 2 previous terms, not because of his political views or becasue he disagreed with an arbitary unelected body. Really, so the SA Constitutional Court also takes into account Sharia? I didn't realise we'd become a theocracy, perhaps somebody should make an announcement?

 

[marine1]

Stockpiles containing IED's ?? IED's are made from weapons and/or explosives. Thats why they are called "Improvised Explosive Devices"

 

[Alan]

Those stockpiles did not include the IEDs otherwise they would have been used since the start of the resistance against the occupation (they only came later which means someone was supplying them). So, where did they come from?

Syndyre and Marine1 answered that for me.

Besides which, Israel is also illegally occupying the Golan Heights - they shouldn't be on any of it regardless of whether or not it's lebanese or Syrian territory.

Why do they still occupy the Golan Heights?

Well the existance corruption isn't always immediately apparent to the outside observer. Funny how all the other Lebanese people other than Hezbollah are now agreeing with the position Hezbollah has taken. Why do you think that is?

Proof please?

So you include the zionists in that particular category then? They were only too happy to bomb british hotels when it suited their purposes.

They got what they wanted.The State of Israel.

Not at all. Disagreeing with a fanatic does not make one a fanatic.

Phew, I'm not a fanatic then

 

[marine1]

Jeez maybe some people should go and look at history. The arabs started the trouble now they cry when they get beaten back into their caves ? I don't get some people. They just support the Arabs without knowing anyhthing about the region or have never even gone there in the first place. Israel is here forever and is definitely not going anywhere so....

 

[Xarog]

Why do they still occupy the Golan Heights?

Because they've annexed it illegally. Seems Israel thinks it's allowed to annex territory it wins in a war, despite it being illegal under international law.

Proof please?

Here :
http://www.counterpunch.org/schuh01232007.html

They got what they wanted.The State of Israel.

Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly what the muslims demand, and also then list why they're unreasonable, unless you think the muslims have reasonable demands.

Phew, I'm not a fanatic then

Well then why don't you prove it? Just because disagreeing with a fanatic does not make one a fanatic does not mean that disagreeing with a fanatic means you cannot be a fanatic.

I made the claim because you seem to think that muslims are all insane murderers hellbent on your destruction.

By definition they're Improvised Explosive Devices, maybe they were improvised from existing weapons stockpiles?

Well, if Iran is supplying them then they can hardly be called improvised anymore.

And frankly I find it difficult to believe that the Saddam left enough weapons behind to allow the Sunnis to fight for three years without needing resupplying from external sources.

That level of abstentation suggests an implied vote of no confidence in the electoral system.

Right, but that isn't proof that the system is undemocratic.

Mbeki would be banned from running for a third time because of his 2 previous terms, not because of his political views or becasue he disagreed with an arbitary unelected body. Really, so the SA Constitutional Court also takes into account Sharia? I didn't realise we'd become a theocracy, perhaps somebody should make an announcement?

Firstly, when did the people get to vote on the judges that now sit on the constitutional court? I seem to have missed that one.

Secondly, while I personally disagree with a nation using Sharia as a basis for its legal system this is no reason to claim that Iran is undemocratic. The majority of the people in Iran are Muslims so maybe they actually like the fact that Sharia law with Islamic judges are in place. Why should we demand that they change their government just because we don't like which legal system they use? How would you respond to the UK demanding we adopt the common law legal system instead of the civil law legal system?

Maybe so but:

Read the entire link. The landowners paid taxes to Lebanon and were under effectivel Lebanese government as a result. Syria also regards the whole of Lebanon to be Syrian territory, again according to the wiki link.

Jeez maybe some people should go and look at history. The arabs started the trouble now they cry when they get beaten back into their caves ? I don't get some people. They just support the Arabs without knowing anyhthing about the region or have never even gone there in the first place. Israel is here forever and is definitely not going anywhere so....

Maybe you can start by realising that it is not the mere existence of Israel which is causing so much friction in the Middle East.

 

[marine1]

Hmm so Israel annexed it illegally? Oh really? No actually it was taken during an unprovoked war where Arabs attacked Israel from all sides. They forfeited that land when they took it upon themselves to attack the Jews. Sorry for them now its not theirs anymore.
Muslims demand? They demand the whole damn world be Muslim. They upset when people don't want to be Muslim. Shame.
By the way I have not met a Muslim that is not militant about their religion. I have met Jews are are not militant.
Listen to what was said. Iran is supplying weapons not IED's. Jeez man. I think you need to go and search for what an IED is and see how it is made.
No the mere existence of fanatic Arabs/Muslims are what is destabilising the region. Maybe you should go there and see for yourself.

 

[Xarog]

Hmm so Israel annexed it illegally? Oh really?

Yes, such annexations are clearly illegal under international law.

No actually it was taken during an unprovoked war where Arabs attacked Israel from all sides.

Wrong. And even if you were right it would be Irrelevant.

They forfeited that land when they took it upon themselves to attack the Jews. Sorry for them now its not theirs anymore.

Bullsh!t.

By the way I have not met a Muslim that is not militant about their religion. I have met Jews are are not militant.

And just how many muslims have you spoken to? And how do you satisfy yourself that they are militant?

Listen to what was said. Iran is supplying weapons not IED's. Jeez man. I think you need to go and search for what an IED is and see how it is made.

Alanf85 was the one who started talking about IEDs, not me. And these IEDs are working as shaped charges which in turns mean they can pierce American armour and they are also detonated (often) by radio signals which again indicates sofisticated equipment. If Iran is not supplying IEDs, where are they coming from?

No the mere existence of fanatic Arabs/Muslims are what is destabilising the region. Maybe you should go there and see for yourself.

Rubbish. But feel free to swallow western war-propaganda rhetoric. Next thing you'll be telling me that muslims universally hate our freedoms or some such nonsense.

You're the one who needs to open your eyes about the M.E., not me.

 

[marine1]

Arguing with you is like talking to a child. Go and look at the history books. If you cannot see the truth then I feel for you.

 

[marine1]

IED's can be made easily and anywhere. They are not supplied but the components are. Again if you dont listen the first time then you have to be spoken to like a child.

 

[Alan]

Because they've annexed it illegally. Seems Israel thinks it's allowed to annex territory it wins in a war, despite it being illegal under international law.

I asked why? What's the reason for holding onto it?

Here :
http://www.counterpunch.org/schuh01232007.html

Bwahahahahah

Counterpunch.

Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly what the muslims demand, and also then list why they're unreasonable, unless you think the muslims have reasonable demands.

The extremist element want the destruction of Israel. It's unreasonable to want to erase a country from existence. They say it but you just write it off as rhetoric . Why do they partake in this rhetoric then?

Well then why don't you prove it? Just because disagreeing with a fanatic does not make one a fanatic does not mean that disagreeing with a fanatic means you cannot be a fanatic.

You the one siding with Islamic fundamentalists. What is even more ironic is you are an "infidel". Anyone who would rather live in Iran than America is a fanatic IMO. Anyway you calling me a fanatic is reassuring. Being seen is as reasonable by a moonbat is rather disturbing.

I made the claim because you seem to think that muslims are all insane murderers hellbent on your destruction.

Getting desperate are we. Resorting to fearmongering. I never said all muslims did I?

Well, if Iran is supplying them then they can hardly be called improvised anymore.

I guess they refer to them as IED's becuase they all very similar to IEDs in what there purpose is and tactics used.

And frankly I find it difficult to believe that the Saddam left enough weapons behind to allow the Sunnis to fight for three years without needing resupplying from external sources.

Maybe you should do more research on Saddam ruled Iraq then. There might well be sources from Al Queda to Sunni insurgents.

Secondly, while I personally disagree with a nation using Sharia as a basis for its legal system this is no reason to claim that Iran is undemocratic. The majority of the people in Iran are Muslims so maybe they actually like the fact that Sharia law with Islamic judges are in place. Why should we demand that they change their government just because we don't like which legal system they use? How would you respond to the UK demanding we adopt the common law legal system instead of the civil law legal system?

Yeah I'm sure they like to be oppressed. You yourself said "who on earth thinks Iran is democratic" . Was Saddam democratic? Who says they like it. Why so many dissidents then. What about stoning woman to death. Is that acceptable because most Iranians are muslim and supposidly want to be run by extremists.

 

[marine1]

Alan, it's pointless arguing with him.

 

[Alan]

True.

But someone needs to challenge his views. As you can see it's not hard at all. If anything it's so other people can see both sides and it can help them make their own minds up.

 

[Syndyre]

Well, if Iran is supplying them then they can hardly be called improvised anymore.

Not necessarily, Iran may be supplying components for the construction of IED's so the actual devices can't be directly linked back to them.

And frankly I find it difficult to believe that the Saddam left enough weapons behind to allow the Sunnis to fight for three years without needing resupplying from external sources.

I suspect he probably did have a huge cache of weapons but weapons are easily available on the black market anyway.

Right, but that isn't proof that the system is undemocratic.


Firstly, when did the people get to vote on the judges that now sit on the constitutional court? I seem to have missed that one.

Secondly, while I personally disagree with a nation using Sharia as a basis for its legal system this is no reason to claim that Iran is undemocratic. The majority of the people in Iran are Muslims so maybe they actually like the fact that Sharia law with Islamic judges are in place. Why should we demand that they change their government just because we don't like which legal system they use? How would you respond to the UK demanding we adopt the common law legal system instead of the civil law legal system?

It's not proof but taken in conjunction with all the other evidence it does start to build a fairly convincing case for the lack of democracy. Is there any democratic country where Sharia is in place? Maybe there's a reason it tends to be so unpopular when people are given a choice.

Read the entire link. The landowners paid taxes to Lebanon and were under effectivel Lebanese government as a result. Syria also regards the whole of Lebanon to be Syrian territory, again according to the wiki link.

I read the entire link, I'm just saying that the UN which is generally regarded as the arbiter in these disputes concluded that the territory was Syrian, and the UN does not regard the whole of Lebanon to be Syrian territory.

 

[JK8]

Hmm so Israel annexed it illegally? Oh really? No actually it was taken during an unprovoked war where Arabs attacked Israel from all sides. They forfeited that land when they took it upon themselves to attack the Jews. Sorry for them now its not theirs anymore.
Muslims demand? They demand the whole damn world be Muslim. They upset when people don't want to be Muslim. Shame.
By the way I have not met a Muslim that is not militant about their religion. I have met Jews are are not militant.
Listen to what was said. Iran is supplying weapons not IED's. Jeez man. I think you need to go and search for what an IED is and see how it is made.
No the mere existence of fanatic Arabs/Muslims are what is destabilising the region. Maybe you should go there and see for yourself.

So why would they want to destroy a holy mosque?
Because its on their land??
Aside of whos land it is now, they should try to destroy that mosque, by doing so they causing **** for themselves.