An Invasion of Iran is Eminent

[Mike Renzulli]

The following is the text of a letter sent to President Barack Obama. Similar letters were sent to Senators John McCain, Jon Kyl and my representative in the U.S. House of Representatives:

Dear Mr. President,

What I am about to articulate in this letter is a decision I do not come to lightly and a Google search will confirm the previous activities I participated in prior to writing you.

Free countries have a right, though not a duty, to invade and attack dictatorships since they enslave, strike fear into and intimidate the people who live under them and support subversive activities abroad that further their philosophical or religious ideology on which they are based.

Neither the Afghan Taliban nor Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States. However, if the events occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan are any indication our invasions and occupations of both countries are/were a mistake.

Not because they were illegitimate or immoral (they were not) but because it's clear that Iraq and Afghanistan were the wrong countries to invade.

Our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have placed our military in a precarious situation where they are vulnerable to attack from Iraqi insurgents supported by a vastly funded radical Islamic network.

This is the result of a lack of resolve on the part of Congress and the Executive Branch to allow our armed forces to complete their missions with the resources they need.

This practice needs to end and, with all due respect, you need to ensure they do. By not adequately funding missions of the U.S. military is a prescription for failure and I am sure you would agree our missions in both countries should be conducted with the resources the U.S. military needs to do it's job or our armed forces need to be brought home.

I originally campaigned against both incursions mainly due to my concerns about the growth of government power as a result of war, my initial concern for the lives of the innocent Iraqi civilians and the lives of U.S. military personnel. At the time I also thought the U.S. lacked a legitimate reason to invade either Iraq or Afghanistan due to the U.S. government’s covert and military involvements in the middle east.

As you may know, the Iran is the 4th largest exporter of oil. As a result, the regime is able sustain itself via massive amounts of revenue generated from oil export sales. Not only can the Iranian theocracy sustain itself but it can also fund other endeavors such as terrorism.

Iran committed an act of war in 1979 when Iranian Revolutionary forces took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held its personnel hostage.

As you may also be aware, since that time Iran has funded terrorist groups that have mainly attacked Israel, U.S. installations overseas, our allies and their citizens.

Though they will not openly say it, it’s abundantly clear that Iran has been and is still at war with the United States, its people and its allies. Therefore, we should bring the fight directly to them and take the regime down.

In light of recent circumstances with the near bombing of Times Square on the part of a sympathizer of the Pakistani Taliban (who is supported by Iran) and extensive, further research on my part I have concluded the only way to halt terrorism in the West and put the brakes on radical strains of Islam would be to invade Iran.

Taking out the Iranian regime would drastically defund terrorist groups and send a message to radical Islamists that the United States will not sit by and allow states that support terrorism to exist or continue supporting seditious activities.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology should make a military attack and invasion of the country even more of an immediate priority since with nuclear technology in their possession, Iran can and will be able to assist or educate terrorist groups in the construction and usage of dirty bombs.

With all due respect, diplomatic efforts in this regard are futile. The Iranian President and his government’s representatives are only putting up fronts in their dealings with you and U.S. diplomats. The Iranians are lying if they make promises or deny their activities. Unfortunately, diplomacy cannot and will not stop Iran from continuing its support of terrorist groups and from obtaining nuclear technology.

I respectfully urge you to discontinue diplomatic negotiations or dialogue and support a full-scale military action against Iran. Air strikes, imposing sanctions, or supporting dissident groups in the country (while legitimate and moral to do so) are only a band aid on the overall problem.

The Iranian regime is an outlaw nation and an enabler of terrorism. The Iranian government must be directly taken out with the full force of our military. Military action is the only way to ensure justice for the past and present victims of terrorism and to ensure the long-term safety of the United States, its citizens and our allies.

Thank you.

[BaalChatzaf]

The following is the text of a letter sent to President Barack Obama. Similar letters were sent to Senators John McCain, Jon Kyl and my representative in the U.S. House of Representatives:

Dear Mr. President,

What I am about to articulate in this letter is a decision I do not come to lightly and a Google search will confirm the previous activities I participated in prior to writing you.

Free countries have a right, though not a duty, to invade and attack dictatorships since they enslave, strike fear into and intimidate the people who live under them and support subversive activities abroad that further their philosophical or religious ideology on which they are based.

Neither the Afghan Taliban nor Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States. However, if the events occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan are any indication our invasions and occupations of both countries are/were a mistake.

Not because they were illegitimate or immoral (they were not) but because it's clear that Iraq and Afghanistan were the wrong countries to invade.

Our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have placed our military in a precarious situation where they are vulnerable to attack from Iraqi insurgents supported by a vastly funded radical Islamic network.

This is the result of a lack of resolve on the part of Congress and the Executive Branch to allow our armed forces to complete their missions with the resources they need.

This practice needs to end and, with all due respect, you need to ensure they do. By not adequately funding missions of the U.S. military is a prescription for failure and I am sure you would agree our missions in both countries should be conducted with the resources the U.S. military needs to do it's job or our armed forces need to be brought home.

I originally campaigned against both incursions mainly due to my concerns about the growth of government power as a result of war, my initial concern for the lives of the innocent Iraqi civilians and the lives of U.S. military personnel. At the time I also thought the U.S. lacked a legitimate reason to invade either Iraq or Afghanistan due to the U.S. government's covert and military involvements in the middle east.

As you may know, the Iran is the 4th largest exporter of oil. As a result, the regime is able sustain itself via massive amounts of revenue generated from oil export sales. Not only can the Iranian theocracy sustain itself but it can also fund other endeavors such as terrorism.

Iran committed an act of war in 1979 when Iranian Revolutionary forces took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held its personnel hostage.

As you may also be aware, since that time Iran has funded terrorist groups that have mainly attacked Israel, U.S. installations overseas, our allies and their citizens.

Though they will not openly say it, it's abundantly clear that Iran has been and is still at war with the United States, its people and its allies. Therefore, we should bring the fight directly to them and take the regime down.

In light of recent circumstances with the near bombing of Times Square on the part of a sympathizer of the Pakistani Taliban (who is supported by Iran) and extensive, further research on my part I have concluded the only way to halt terrorism in the West and put the brakes on radical strains of Islam would be to invade Iran.

Taking out the Iranian regime would drastically defund terrorist groups and send a message to radical Islamists that the United States will not sit by and allow states that support terrorism to exist or continue supporting seditious activities.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology should make a military attack and invasion of the country even more of an immediate priority since with nuclear technology in their possession, Iran can and will be able to assist or educate terrorist groups in the construction and usage of dirty bombs.

With all due respect, diplomatic efforts in this regard are futile. The Iranian President and his government's representatives are only putting up fronts in their dealings with you and U.S. diplomats. The Iranians are lying if they make promises or deny their activities. Unfortunately, diplomacy cannot and will not stop Iran from continuing its support of terrorist groups and from obtaining nuclear technology.

I respectfully urge you to discontinue diplomatic negotiations or dialogue and support a full-scale military action against Iran. Air strikes, imposing sanctions, or supporting dissident groups in the country (while legitimate and moral to do so) are only a band aid on the overall problem.

The Iranian regime is an outlaw nation and an enabler of terrorism. The Iranian government must be directly taken out with the full force of our military. Military action is the only way to ensure justice for the past and present victims of terrorism and to ensure the long-term safety of the United States, its citizens and our allies.

Thank you.

What a stupid impractical suggestion. The population of Iran is 75 million, about one quarter the population of the U.S.. In addition our army is currently a ghost of what it was at the height of WW2. We have not got enough people to invade and occupy Iran. The only way we can make war on Iran is to nuke Iran. Do you really want that to happen? Has the U.S. government the intestinal fortitude and the testicles to do such a deed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

Like I said in my letter, I said a full-scale military attack should be pursued. This could mean either an invasion, missile/bomb strikes or both.

If the U.S. decided to invade the country, it's clear the way to go about it is with troops stationed in the U.S. mainland or shift troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as bases in Europe and have them go in.

it might make sense to conduct a bombing of the country prior to any U.S. troops setting foot in Iran.

Now that I have elaborated, I would like to know your thoughts on how you would deal with Iran or to halt terrorism being conducted against the U.S.

As far as if the U.S. government having the testicle to pull such an effort off, I don't think it can afford not to.

The threat Iran is to the U.S. and it's allies is serious enough to where they will have to invade or attack.

What a stupid impractical suggestion. The population of Iran is 75 million, about one quarter the population of the U.S.. In addition our army is currently a ghost of what it was at the height of WW2. We have not got enough people to invade and occupy Iran. The only way we can make war on Iran is to nuke Iran. Do you really want that to happen? Has the U.S. government the intestinal fortitude and the testicles to do such a deed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 15, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe start with a formal declaration of war, if that is to be the case?

It's so curious that the USA wants to fight wars these days without ever declaring war anymore.

What is that, a nicety to our politicians, instead of a legal condition for deploying our military in large scale?

I, personally, am sick of this policy.

I don't think full-scale war between the USA and Iran will unfold. Ugly things will yet happen, but not that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

And what is the United States going to invade Iran with? The Salvation Army?

Due to the geography and terrain, Iran is too difficult to invade. Iran is not Iraq.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

I originally campaigned against both incursions mainly due to my concerns about the growth of government power as a result of war, my initial concern for the lives of the innocent Iraqi civilians and the lives of U.S. military personnel. At the time I also thought the U.S. lacked a legitimate reason to invade either Iraq or Afghanistan due to the U.S. government’s covert and military involvements in the middle east.

Which also means that attacking Iran would be in the same category.. The US has intervened in Iran covertly and overtly many times in the last 40 years.

As you may know, the Iran is the 4th largest exporter of oil. As a result, the regime is able sustain itself via massive amounts of revenue generated from oil export sales. Not only can the Iranian theocracy sustain itself but it can also fund other endeavors such as terrorism.

Yet they have to ration their own oil? Iran has immense oil supplies but lacks the ability to properly pump and sell it.

Iran committed an act of war in 1979 when Iranian Revolutionary forces took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held its personnel hostage.

The US committed an act of war in 1953 when the CIA launched a terrorist campaign of bombings to overthrow Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president and installed the Shah.

The US also trained his SAVAK secret police that were brutal.. The US also tried to destabalize Iran after the Iranian revolution..

The US committed the acts of war against Iran and haven't stopped..

As you may also be aware, since that time Iran has funded terrorist groups that have mainly attacked Israel, U.S. installations overseas, our allies and their citizens.

Though they will not openly say it, it’s abundantly clear that Iran has been and is still at war with the United States, its people and its allies. Therefore, we should bring the fight directly to them and take the regime down.

Oh please.. When did the US stop being at war with Iran?

In light of recent circumstances with the near bombing of Times Square on the part of a sympathizer of the Pakistani Taliban (who is supported by Iran) and extensive, further research on my part I have concluded the only way to halt terrorism in the West and put the brakes on radical strains of Islam would be to invade Iran.

You think the Taliban is supported by Iran? Are you serious? I don't think you've thought this one out properly..

Iran is a 'Shia' country and the Taliban are backed by Wahhabi type ideology.. Iran would never help the Taliban, it's not in their interest.. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could explain why Iran supported the Northern Alliance during their war against the Taliban?

The Taliban make life for Iran difficult due to the huge sums of drugs slipping through the borders now, trafficked by the Taliban.. It's not in Iran's interest to help the Taliban at all..

You should go and study something about the region before you make such ridiculous statements.

Taking out the Iranian regime would drastically defund terrorist groups and send a message to radical Islamists that the United States will not sit by and allow states that support terrorism to exist or continue supporting seditious activities.

The US supports terrorists all over the world.. It

Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology should make a military attack and invasion of the country even more of an immediate priority since with nuclear technology in their possession, Iran can and will be able to assist or educate terrorist groups in the construction and usage of dirty bombs.

Again, dirty bombs.. Fallacy..

With all due respect, diplomatic efforts in this regard are futile. The Iranian President and his government’s representatives are only putting up fronts in their dealings with you and U.S. diplomats. The Iranians are lying if they make promises or deny their activities. Unfortunately, diplomacy cannot and will not stop Iran from continuing its support of terrorist groups and from obtaining nuclear technology.

Why would you want to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear technology? Iran isn't stupid.. They'd never use nuclear weapons..

I respectfully urge you to discontinue diplomatic negotiations or dialogue and support a full-scale military action against Iran. Air strikes, imposing sanctions, or supporting dissident groups in the country (while legitimate and moral to do so) are only a band aid on the overall problem.

How silly again.. There's only two options in a full scale war there..

1. Boots on the ground and airstrikes to take over the country, this will fail because the US doesn't have the manpower to do it, in addition to that, Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, their military capability is much greater and they are self sufficient.. They can take a war with the US and no matter how much the Iranians hate their government, they are too proud to allow their country to be taken over.. They'll fight against the US and several million Iranians will join the fight against the US straight away.. It's not a war that can be won conventionally..

2. Nuclear weapons.. If the US attacks Iran's nuclear facilities with nuclear weapons, you'll have the whole world on fire.. You would have destroyed Qom, which is an important place for 'Shia' Muslims and most Muslims in the world, not just Shia will take it VERY personally.. You would have created a war that you can not win.. There will not be a place in the USA untouched by the fire that would consume it after such a stupid action..

The Iranian regime is an outlaw nation and an enabler of terrorism. The Iranian government must be directly taken out with the full force of our military. Military action is the only way to ensure justice for the past and present victims of terrorism and to ensure the long-term safety of the United States, its citizens and our allies.

You're perhaps, the most unintelligent person I've come across on here.. It would be a war that you could not win no matter how many people you killed..

[Libertarian Muslim]

I also still don't get how it's eminent?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I pulled this off of Drudge today.

Iranian cleric wants creation of 'Greater Iran'

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

My Way News

May 15, 2010

From the article:

A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a "Greater Iran" that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would herald the coming of Islam's expected messiah.

Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Kharrazi said the creation of what he calls an Islamic United States is a central aim of the political party he leads called Hezbollah, or Party of God, and that he hoped to make it a reality if they win the next presidential election.

Kharrazi's comments reveal the thinking of a growing number of hard-liners in Iran, many of whom have become more radical during the postelection political crisis and the international standoff over the country's nuclear program. Kharrazi, however, is not highly influential in Iran's clerical hierarchy and his views do not represent those of the current government.

. . .

Besides Israel, he said the union would also destroy Shiite Iran's other regional adversaries, whom he called "cancerous tumors." He singled out secular Arab nationalists such as members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in Iraq, as well as followers of the austere version of Sunni Islam practiced primarily in Saudi Arabia that is known as Wahabism.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations have watched Iran's growing regional clout with deep concern.

Although this is an extreme wing in Iran, the general reaction to it shows how complicated matters with Iran really are.

Even if a full-scale invasion of Iran by one country were within the realm of likelihood, I see a whole gamut of unintended consequences, many of which are impossible to predict with precision other than to say they all would be nasty for all concerned.

News like this, and similar news on the contrary views, comes out every day now. The situation over there is anything but stable and predictable.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Mike,

Perhaps you mean an invasion is imminent? In any case, there is clearly something wrong with a leader who views genocidal threats as acceptable statesmanship. It's even more disturbing when such a leader is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

Jim

[Libertarian Muslim]

I pulled this off of Drudge today.

Iranian cleric wants creation of 'Greater Iran'

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

My Way News

May 15, 2010

From the article:

A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a "Greater Iran" that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would herald the coming of Islam's expected messiah.

Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Kharrazi said the creation of what he calls an Islamic United States is a central aim of the political party he leads called Hezbollah, or Party of God, and that he hoped to make it a reality if they win the next presidential election.

Kharrazi's comments reveal the thinking of a growing number of hard-liners in Iran, many of whom have become more radical during the postelection political crisis and the international standoff over the country's nuclear program. Kharrazi, however, is not highly influential in Iran's clerical hierarchy and his views do not represent those of the current government.

. . .

Besides Israel, he said the union would also destroy Shiite Iran's other regional adversaries, whom he called "cancerous tumors." He singled out secular Arab nationalists such as members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in Iraq, as well as followers of the austere version of Sunni Islam practiced primarily in Saudi Arabia that is known as Wahabism.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations have watched Iran's growing regional clout with deep concern.

Although this is an extreme wing in Iran, the general reaction to it shows how complicated matters with Iran really are.

Even if a full-scale invasion of Iran by one country were within the realm of likelihood, I see a whole gamut of unintended consequences, many of which are impossible to predict with precision other than to say they all would be nasty for all concerned.

News like this, and similar news on the contrary views, comes out every day now. The situation over there is anything but stable and predictable.

Michael

Yeah, he won't get into power that can be assured.. The Iranian people wouldn't vote for him and his followers are very small in numbers. Iranians have no interest in a 'Greater Iran' and still remember the Iran-Iraq war.. They'll fight to stop an invading or attacking army, but never to invade another country..

His ideas are ridiculous..

Mike,

Perhaps you mean an invasion is imminent? In any case, there is clearly something wrong with a leader who views genocidal threats as acceptable statesmanship. It's even more disturbing when such a leader is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

Jim

James, what genocidal threats are they? Also, there's no proof that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons..

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I pulled this off of Drudge today.

Iranian cleric wants creation of 'Greater Iran'

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

My Way News

May 15, 2010

From the article:

A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a "Greater Iran" that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would herald the coming of Islam's expected messiah.

Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Kharrazi said the creation of what he calls an Islamic United States is a central aim of the political party he leads called Hezbollah, or Party of God, and that he hoped to make it a reality if they win the next presidential election.

Kharrazi's comments reveal the thinking of a growing number of hard-liners in Iran, many of whom have become more radical during the postelection political crisis and the international standoff over the country's nuclear program. Kharrazi, however, is not highly influential in Iran's clerical hierarchy and his views do not represent those of the current government.

. . .

Besides Israel, he said the union would also destroy Shiite Iran's other regional adversaries, whom he called "cancerous tumors." He singled out secular Arab nationalists such as members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in Iraq, as well as followers of the austere version of Sunni Islam practiced primarily in Saudi Arabia that is known as Wahabism.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations have watched Iran's growing regional clout with deep concern.

Although this is an extreme wing in Iran, the general reaction to it shows how complicated matters with Iran really are.

Even if a full-scale invasion of Iran by one country were within the realm of likelihood, I see a whole gamut of unintended consequences, many of which are impossible to predict with precision other than to say they all would be nasty for all concerned.

News like this, and similar news on the contrary views, comes out every day now. The situation over there is anything but stable and predictable.

Michael

Yeah, he won't get into power that can be assured.. The Iranian people wouldn't vote for him and his followers are very small in numbers. Iranians have no interest in a 'Greater Iran' and still remember the Iran-Iraq war.. They'll fight to stop an invading or attacking army, but never to invade another country..

His ideas are ridiculous..

Mike,

Perhaps you mean an invasion is imminent? In any case, there is clearly something wrong with a leader who views genocidal threats as acceptable statesmanship. It's even more disturbing when such a leader is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

Jim

James, what genocidal threats are they? Also, there's no proof that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons..

Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Jim

[Libertarian Muslim]

Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Jim

No he didn't, there's no such phrase in Farsi.. This has been looked into before, he said that like the Soviet Union, Israel would disappear from the pages of time..

It was referring to the internal policies of Israel and how they're self destructive and would eventually result in it's own demise, meaning that there would be no need to attack Israel at all..

The Soviet Union was never wiped off of the map..

Edited May 16, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Jim

No he didn't, there's no such phrase in Farsi.. This has been looked into before, he said that like the Soviet Union, Israel would disappear from the pages of time..

It was referring to the internal policies of Israel and how they're self destructive and would eventually result in it's own demise, meaning that there would be no need to attack Israel at all..

The Soviet Union was never wiped off of the map..

Adonis, why play word games? If Ahmadinejad wanted to demonstrate his sincerity he could retract his holocaust denial statements and open his nuclear sites to international inspection. I'm sure in Ahmadinejad's world the Jews at Auschwitz simply "vanished from the pages of time".

Jim

Edited May 16, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis, why play word games? If Ahmadinejad wanted to demonstrate his sincerity he could retract his holocaust denial statements and open his nuclear sites to international inspection. I'm sure in Ahmadinejad's world the Jews at Auschwitz simply "vanished from the pages of time".

Jim

Word games? Are you serious? There's a huge difference between saying that he'd Wipe Israel off of the map and that due to Israels own policies they'd disappear from the pages of time.. One is a threat, the other is a prediction..

Also, as far as I'm aware, he's never denied the holocaust, only requested that the science could be looked into more as any science should be.. It's a huge claim that has had a huge impact on the last 50-60 years of international politics including in his region, should he just accept it happened just because a majority of people said it did? Is that being very objective? What is the big problem with allowing it to be looked into further scientifically.. Surely, as it occurred, there would be no harm and nothing to hide to stop people from being able to research into it more.. So what's the problem with it?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Adonis, why play word games? If Ahmadinejad wanted to demonstrate his sincerity he could retract his holocaust denial statements and open his nuclear sites to international inspection. I'm sure in Ahmadinejad's world the Jews at Auschwitz simply "vanished from the pages of time".

Jim

Word games? Are you serious? There's a huge difference between saying that he'd Wipe Israel off of the map and that due to Israels own policies they'd disappear from the pages of time.. One is a threat, the other is a prediction..

Also, as far as I'm aware, he's never denied the holocaust, only requested that the science could be looked into more as any science should be.. It's a huge claim that has had a huge impact on the last 50-60 years of international politics including in his region, should he just accept it happened just because a majority of people said it did? Is that being very objective? What is the big problem with allowing it to be looked into further scientifically.. Surely, as it occurred, there would be no harm and nothing to hide to stop people from being able to research into it more.. So what's the problem with it?

Adonis, are you serious? You are in doubt of the Holocaust? How many gravesites do you need? Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Babi Yar, Bergen-Belsen, Maidenek, Treblinka etc.

Jim

Edited May 16, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis, are you serious? You are in doubt of the Holocaust? How many gravesites do you need? Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Babi Yar, Bergen-Belsen, Maidenek, Treblinka etc.

Jim

I'm not in doubt about it.. I'm sure it happened..

However, I believe that someone wants to be able to research it and ask questions, then they most certainly should be able to do so unhindered. It's science and to close the doors on this one subject, while no other subject is closed sounds fishy to me.. People trying to stop me from asking questions make me suspicious whether they are telling the truth or not..

Isn't that what being objective is about? It's a part of science and research that one has to stick to.. Why do you have a problem with it?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Adonis, are you serious? You are in doubt of the Holocaust? How many gravesites do you need? Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Babi Yar, Bergen-Belsen, Maidenek, Treblinka etc.

Jim

I'm not in doubt about it.. I'm sure it happened..

However, I believe that someone wants to be able to research it and ask questions, then they most certainly should be able to do so unhindered. It's science and to close the doors on this one subject, while no other subject is closed sounds fishy to me.. People trying to stop me from asking questions make me suspicious whether they are telling the truth or not..

Isn't that what being objective is about? It's a part of science and research that one has to stick to.. Why do you have a problem with it?

Adonis,

The Holocaust is about as open and as studied a subject as has ever existed. Why the peculiar , ghoulish fixation of Ahmadinejad on this subject? Why not the less well documented, but no less real vivesection of Japanese prisoners or casualties of Japanese biowar in China?

Jim

Edited May 16, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

The Holocaust is about as open and as studied a subject as has ever existed. Why the peculiar , ghoulish fixation of Ahmadinejad on this subject? Why not the less well documented, but no less real vivesection of Japanese prisoners or casualties of Japanese biowar in China?

Jim

No, if you're a scientist that wants to go study it now by looking through all the evidence including visiting sites and viewing documentation they are selective regarding who they'll let look..

And why does he want to know? Who cares why? It's science.. If no one has anything to hide, let him research.

Nevertheless, the Holocaust has a direct impact on the Middle East and also the rest of the world, however unfortunate the Japanese biowar in China, it's effects were not as global reaching as the Holocaust...

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Adonis,

The Holocaust is about as open and as studied a subject as has ever existed. Why the peculiar , ghoulish fixation of Ahmadinejad on this subject? Why not the less well documented, but no less real vivesection of Japanese prisoners or casualties of Japanese biowar in China?

Jim

No, if you're a scientist that wants to go study it now by looking through all the evidence including visiting sites and viewing documentation they are selective regarding who they'll let look..

And why does he want to know? Who cares why? It's science.. If no one has anything to hide, let him research.

Nevertheless, the Holocaust has a direct impact on the Middle East and also the rest of the world, however unfortunate the Japanese biowar in China, it's effects were not as global reaching as the Holocaust...

No, Adonis. Ahmadinejad intends to offend the victims, to cast doubt on their legitimacy and generally reassure extremist segments of the Islamic world that the Jews have inflated the magnitude of the horror.

Jim

Edited May 16, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Libertarian Muslim]

No, Adonis. Ahmadinejad intends to offend the victims, to cast doubt on their legitimacy and generally reassure the Islamic world that the Jews have inflated the magnitude of the horror.

Jim

Is that so? And what evidence do you have of that? Or can you read his mind and tell what his intentions are?

The only doubt that comes about their legitimacy comes when people are told they can't do research or ask questions.. That brings a whole lot of doubt about credibility.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

No, Adonis. Ahmadinejad intends to offend the victims, to cast doubt on their legitimacy and generally reassure the Islamic world that the Jews have inflated the magnitude of the horror.

Jim

Is that so? And what evidence do you have of that? Or can you read his mind and tell what his intentions are?

The only doubt that comes about their legitimacy comes when people are told they can't do research or ask questions.. That brings a whole lot of doubt about credibility.

Adonis, the Iranian regime is a state that has sponsored terror groups responsible for attacks killing Jews in countries as far flung as Argentina. This background should require outside observers to view Holocaust skepticism statements by a leader of Iran with a jaundiced eye.

Jim

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis, the Iranian regime is a state that has sponsored terror groups responsible for attacks killing Jews in countries as far flung as Argentina. This background should require outside observers to view Holocaust skepticism statements by a leader of Iran with a jaundiced eye.

Jim

There's been no real evidence put forth that Hezbollah or Iran was responsible for that horrible attack in Argentina.. Therefore your comments are just speculation..

Edited May 16, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Adonis, the Iranian regime is a state that has sponsored terror groups responsible for attacks killing Jews in countries as far flung as Argentina. This background should require outside observers to view Holocaust skepticism statements by a leader of Iran with a jaundiced eye.

Jim

There's been no real evidence put forth that Hezbollah or Iran was responsible for that horrible attack in Argentina.. Therefore your comments are just speculation..

Let's see. I'm totalling the tally. The Holocaust hasn't been properly chronicled. Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood and Mugniyeh is not responsible for the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA Cultural Center in Buenos Aires. The next thing we'll learn is that they're really baking cupcakes at Natanz...

Jim

[Libertarian Muslim]

Let's see. I'm totalling the tally. The Holocaust hasn't been properly chronicled. Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood and Mugniyeh is not responsible for the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA Cultural Center in Buenos Aires. The next thing we'll learn is that they're really baking cupcakes at Natanz...

Jim

Yellow cake to be precise..

But seriously.. Yes, Ahmedinejad is to an extent misunderstood, Mugniyeh has not been proven responsible for the attacks on the AMIA Cultural center and Natanz is for peaceful nuclear use only.. There is no proof of otherwise.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Let's see. I'm totalling the tally. The Holocaust hasn't been properly chronicled. Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood and Mugniyeh is not responsible for the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA Cultural Center in Buenos Aires. The next thing we'll learn is that they're really baking cupcakes at Natanz...

Jim

Yellow cake to be precise..

But seriously.. Yes, Ahmedinejad is to an extent misunderstood, Mugniyeh has not been proven responsible for the attacks on the AMIA Cultural center and Natanz is for peaceful nuclear use only.. There is no proof of otherwise.

If what you say is true, Ahmadinejad should have nothing to hide from IAEA inspectors. This is all a house of cards. Sure, there is always the choice to go to war or not, but you also have the choice not to be fooled by the nature of rogue regimes. Invariably when you open the concentration camps, the gulags and Evin prison what you find is systematic torture and murder of large numbers of people who did nothing but belong to the wrong ethnic group or say the wrong things. Regimes like that bear a heavier burden of proof when it comes to nuclear technology.

Jim

Edited May 16, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson