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?
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/
On 14 Nov, 05:40, "Anunoby, Ogugua" <Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> One may believe as one please. Beliefs are chioces. They neither determine nor disprove facts.
> 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: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow [har...@msu.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 5:01 PM
> To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
>
> dear oa
> 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
>
> On 11/12/11 4:27 PM, Anunoby, Ogugua 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
>
> > ________________________________________
> > From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@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
>
> > The future in that area is uncertain - and nuclear weapons in the
> > 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
>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
> >> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
> >> To: usaafricadialogue@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
> >> emeagw...@ccsu.edu
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@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
>
> >> 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.
>
> >> 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
> >>> Panetta says a strike on Iran will only delay its nuclear programme [EPA]
> >>> 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
>
> ...
>
> läs mer »
--
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 USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment