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."
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
>
> ________________________________________
> 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 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.
> > > Israel exacerbated speculation of a strike against Iran after last week'stesting of a ballistic missilecapable of traveling the 6,437 kilometres to Iran.
> > > Israel's first test-fire of a missile in three years came after Israeli media speculation alleging Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, defence minister, of planning a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
>
> > > Iran has warned that it will respond to any attacks
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
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