Call on Iran to sue Israel and US in World Court over threats of military force
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Call on Iran to sue Israel and US in World Court over threats of military force
09-Aug-2008
CASMII Press Release
Call on Iran to sue Israel and US in World Court over threats of military force
The US and Israeli leaders have systematically violated Article 2 of the UN Charter in the past few years threatening Iran with military attacks over its disputed nuclear programme. CASMII calls on the Government of Iran to respond positively to the compelling case made by Professor Francis Boyle to sue these countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague so as to avert an Israel/US war and further sanctions on Iran.
Iran 's nuclear plants including its enrichment facilities are all under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Every single report of the Agency on Iran since 2003 when the inspections started – including over a period of two years when Iran voluntarily enforced the Additional Protocol's regime of intrusive inspections – has stressed that there has been no diversion of declared nuclear material into weaponization. Speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East in May this year, Dr Mohammad ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, asserted : “We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years”, and added that the problem is one of trust.
Conditions for reporting the nuclear file of a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is spelled out in Article 12(c) of the IAEA Statute. As Michael Spies of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms has explained : “Verification and enforcement of the non-proliferation objectives contained in the NPT are limited, in part to maintain the balance of rights and obligations of states parties. NPT Safeguards, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are limited to verifying that no nuclear material in each non-weapon state has been diverted to weapons or unknown use. These safeguards allow for the IAEA to report a case of non-compliance to the Security Council only if nuclear material is found to have been diverted.”
Despite the absence of any evidence of a nuclear weaponization programme and contrary to Article 12(c) of the IAEA Statute, the US pressured the member states of the Governor's Board of the IAEA to report Iran 's file to the UN Security Council in February 2006.
Even a powerful country like India was threatened by the US Ambassador, David Mulford, who publicly declared in January 2006 that there would be no US–India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran in the Board. Stephen Rademaker, the then Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation and Global Security, boasted a year later in a public meeting that India 's vote was coerced by the US.
The decision of IAEA's Governors Board in February 2006 to report Iran 's file to the UN Security Council, which has resulted in four UN Security Council resolutions and three rounds of sanctions against Iran , has therefore no real legal basis. In the words of Michael Spies: “Under a traditional view, the authority of the Security Council is limited to cases which have been found to constitute a threat to international peace and security. But as we have seen in the case of Iran , which takes place what was formerly a legal vacuum, the Council's “innovative” approach has resulted in a(nother) de facto expansion of its role beyond the relatively narrow precepts of the UN Charter and has poised it to become the ultimate enforcer of global treaty regimes.”
Moreover, the four Security Council resolutions adopted against Iran, themselves violate the UN Charter as they are all based on Articles of Chapter 7 (Resolution 1696, 31-07-2006, under Article 40, Resolution 1373 on 23-12-2006, under Article 41, Resolution 1747 on 24-03-2007, under Article 41 and Resolution 1803 on 03-03- 2008, under Article 41) without invoking Article 39 that was required to establish that Iran's nuclear programme is a “threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression”.
Michael Spies concludes from this that “it calls into question the legitimacy of [the Security] Council in intruding on matters of enforcing treaty law on matters that do not rise to the level of threat to the peace.”
The Government of Iran, representing the country in international relations, has the duty to confront coercion, unjustified pressures and sanctions against Iran 's national interests on all fronts including in the legal domain. Iran should have sued the US through the International Court of Justice at an early date and in any case certainly after the US Ambassador's well-documented public threat to coerce India against Iran in January 2006.
In the absence of any legal challenge taken up by Iran in the international sphere, Israel , the US and their European allies – the UK and France – became emboldened to threaten Iran with military intervention since 2004.
The Israeli and US leaders have made a mockery of international law and routinely declare that “all options are on the table”, which has become a euphemism for threatening “pre-emptive military strike”. Terrifyingly, in his response to a reporter, President Bush has not even ruled out a nuclear attack on Iran , a non-nuclear armed state.
More recently, Shaul Mofaz, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, stated publicly in early June, when Israel reportedly conducted a dress rehearsal of a military strike on Iran's nuclear plants, that “Israel will attack Iran if it doesn't abandon its nuclear program”, a statement that was strongly condemned by the IAEA. Mofaz repeated the threat later in July and said “if there won't be a choice other than a nuclear Iran or a military option, it's clear what our decision has to be”, a threat he reiterated again on 1 August.
The consistent Israeli and American bellicose statements and activities in recent weeks have prompted a large group of prominent Israeli academics to set up an “Ad Hoc Group Against Israeli Attack on Iran ” which has issued a press release declaring that “There is no military, political or moral justification to initiate war with Iran ”.
The military threats contravene Article 2(4) of the UN Charter that clearly states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Israeli and American threats of using military aggression against Iran should remind us of the fundamental charge against the Nazi leaders in their trials after the Second World War. The Nuremberg Tribunal, which brought Hitler's henchmen to justice for their wars of aggression, asserted : “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The case against the US and Israel has been well formulated by Professor Francis Boyle who has recommended that Iran should sue these countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
By insisting on the pre-condition that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment which is Iran 's right under the NPT, the US is in effect refusing to negotiate with Iran in good faith while threatening it with further sanctions, a de facto naval blockade and military intervention. But Iran voluntarily suspended its enrichment programme and enforced the Additional Protocol under President Khatami for some two years without gaining any thing in return.
In contrast, Iran has proposed that its enrichment programme be carried out under the auspices of an international consortium with Western participation and has also offered to enforce the IAEA's Additional Protocol if its nuclear file is returned to the Agency. These two proposals, which would provide full transparency of Iran 's nuclear programme and guarantee that it would remain for peaceful purposes only, form a very reasonable ground for negotiations with the US and its European allies to remove any suspicions about Iran 's nuclear activities. It is reasonable to expect that an international court of law would issue a restraining order against the US and Israeli threats and force the US to drop its precondition and ultimatums and enter into comprehensive and unconditional negotiations for a peaceful resolution of its standoff with Iran .
CASMII calls on Iran to challenge the reckless and illegal threats against the country and wage a legal battle to sue the US and Israel in the World Court, which in the very least would bring to world public attention the facts of the nuclear issue and debunk the lies and distortions propagated against it. A lawsuit against Israel and the US is now an essential component of averting a catastrophic war in the Middle East which would have devastating repercussions for the whole world.
For more information or to contact CASMII visit //www.campaigniran.org
[END]
| Recently by CASMII | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| First crack | 50 | Feb 21, 2012 |
| UK Resolution against War and Sanctions | 10 | Nov 02, 2010 |
| Hidden motives | - | Jun 01, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Irooni, yes you ARE confused, I'll try my best
by Q on Tue Aug 12, 2008 03:47 PM PDTWe are talking about comparing religions and making judgements on their followers, not comparing the followers. This might bethe source of your confusion. Also, it appears you have gotten lost in your own hypotheticals.
As I explained, it is like Aryan supremacy
because it generalizes the populations as if their faith explains their intelligence or abilities. From the wide net of diversity we observe in all different religions and religious followers throughout history, we know its false. In addition, specifically when compared to the Jewish religion, it is just like aryan supremacy because there is not anything a muslim person can do to be as good as a "Jew" (since you can't convert into Judaism hence a ratial compoenent).
Khomeini has never been disrespectful to Jews. So please do not make up implausible quotes just to make a hypothetical point. It makes you appear to be making one point as a side-effect while pretending to have a discussion on something else.
The first two statements have some component of bigotry in them. Although they are strange and illogical assertions.
#3 is definitly biggoted, but also stupid and reductionist because it pretends like "pray time" is the explanation for human achievement.
Yes, Aryan ideology is about blond hair and blue eyes. Jewish supremacist ideology is about having been born into the right tribe.
You actually misquote both Zion and American wife. But yes, if ultimately the only difference is "religion" and you attribute all achievements to it, it is certainly bigoted, and racist as well for the reasons I described above.
Isn't it true that according to most Mullah's, one is Muslim if they are born to a Muslim Father?
Where do you get your information about Islam from? Fox News? Actually, I think it is Fox News because that is their (stupid) argument about why Obama is Muslim.
This is patently absurd. Anyone can become Muslim. There is no genetic requirement of any kind.
If Zion stated "The Taliban Muslims in Afgahnistan follow a very backward version of Islam which does not believe in freedom of though, freedom of religion and enforces Shria ia a very darconian method..... And as a consequence, Jews will alway be more advanced than Taliban type Muslims because Judaism is a little more tolerant and less darconian than Taliban style Islamic philosophy"
Yes, it is bigoted, but not as much as saying 'Islam in general' (What Zion actually claims) versus one particular version. But it is mostly ignorant with its generalizations.
We've had long conversations over this which you can google for if you are interested. But the link between "Islam", "Sharia" and "advanced" is very circumstantial. Armenia, a poor Christian democratic country, for example is absolutely less "advanced" however you want to define it than Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait, with some of the former following essentially exactly what Taliban.
These things are largely irrelevent of religion. The simple-minded equation that says Islam=backward, and free=advanced does not hold in the real world. There are a lot more factors especially wealth and economic systems that come in to play.
It is useless to attribute them to religion unless you have some kind of inharent self-indulgant desire to prove that yours is "better". I think that's what Mehdi Mazloom did in the past when he made the rediculous argument that Judaism is better because Jews have roduced more Nobel Prize winners. Yet, he wouldn't accept that Christianity must be even better than that! I had a good laugh in that thread.
I hope this has cleared your confusion.
Q, one more example
by AnonymousIrooni (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 02:12 PM PDTIf Zion stated:
"The Taliban Muslims in Afgahnistan follow a very backward version of Islam which does not believe in freedom of though, freedom of religion and enforces Shria ia a very darconian method..... And as a consequence, Jews will alway be more advanced than Taliban type Muslims because Judaism is a little more tolerant and less darconian than Taliban style Islamic philosophy"
Would this statement be bigoted and racist?
Q, I am confused here
by AnonymousIrooni (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 01:32 PM PDTPlease Explain the following:
"But I don't think you are bigoted because you don't go around making active comparisons like Zion does, and relating those comparisons to try to explain real world issues like why Jews are more "advanced." That's something akin to what Aryan supremacy was all about."
How is comparing religions and than saying one religion is better than another or that because of the values of one religion over another religion the members of one religion are more successful is racist or bigoted or akin to "Aryan supremacy"?
1) For example, if Khamenei says that "Muslim values are better than Jewish values and that is why we have a billion Muslims in the world". Is this statement bigoted?
2) If Khamenei says, "because we Muslims pray to Allah five times a day and because Christians and Jews pray less, god bless's us more and has given us all the oil in the world." Is this statement bigoted or racist?
3) If Zion says "because Jews pray only 3 times a day instead of the Muslim five, and because of that, they have more time to make money and better education and that is why they are more successful than Muslims". Is that racist or bigoted?
Aryan ideology was about blond hair and blue eyes. Zion & American wife are telling you (I may or may not agree with them) that their individual religious value system is better than the Muslim value system and produces a more successful society than the Islamic society. That's bigoted? All these views/opinions by them may not be "correct" as you correctly state. However, how do you exactly elevate it to being bigoted?
you also state "Since according to most rabbis one can only be Jewish if he/she was born to a Jewish mother, it makes it racial statement as well".
Isn't it true that according to most Mullah's, one is Muslim if they are born to a Muslim Father? The same principle as Judaism but opposite sexes. Is this a racial statement by Muslims?
Please explain. Thanks,
Irooni.
Q
by American Wife (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:59 PM PDTI concede that you have clarified the difference between racism, bigotry and/or pride much better than I did.
It's ridiculous for me to enter this discussion between you and Zion and believe, this was NO attempt to do so. My knowledge of this issue is ZILCH compared to yours. If I have a sympathy towards one or the other, it's merely a result of my culture and environment.
"Most rational people have this tacit understanding that different belief systems can be right for different people." Your words....:-)
peace out
American wife, so what about your "race" ?
by Q on Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:26 PM PDTor rather, why not your race and your color of skin too? How different is that from your "son" ?
I appreciate that at least you do agree it is bigoted to say this. But I don't think you are bigoted because you don't go around making active comparisons like Zion does, and relating those comparisons to try to explain real world issues like why Jews are more "advanced." That's something akin to what Aryan supremacy was all about.
But there really is a difference between pride and bigotry. The latter is all about a hierarchy, the former is not comparative and internal.
I would have to say that I think my religion is better than anyone else's. That's why I believe in it...:-).
American Wife, unless you did a lifetime of comparative studies of all the world's religions, this statement couldn't possibly be true. The real explanation is that you grew up in a culture and environment that valued your religion and that's why you believe in it. Exactly the same as 99% of Muslims, Jews and Christians.
If you take an Irish-Catholic infant and give it to a household of Muslims, Jews or Satanists that's what that kid ends up thinking is "better". Even converts have specific sociological reasons to switch to anther religion and it never involves any kind of objective assessment of all possible religious choices. It's a fascinating subject.
Therefore, it's perfectly legitimate to have pride and cultural awareness, but it can't possibly be "correct" (not just PC, but actually true) to say that your religion is better than anyone else's. And, luckily outside of a few fundementalists, no one truly believes that anyway. Most rational people have this tacit understanding that different belief systems can be right for different people.
Only people who make a deliberate issue out superiority of one religion over another are stuck in fundy-land.
this is a hot topic!
by kidw in holland (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:58 AM PDTI saw it on Huffington Post few days ago. It was all over google news.
I believe there is a prior case that was filed exactly the same way. It is therefore possible. This is the excerpt from this discussion.
"we filed papers with the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on behalf of Libya against the US and the UK, we demanded an emergency hearing of the world court, and a temporary restraining order against the US and the UK, prohibiting the threat and use of force...after we filed the papers, and the court made it clear we were going to get our hearing, President Bush Senior ordered the 6th Fleet to stand down. "
It worked exactly as intended before.
Look at this page for some more information.
//www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/law-pr...
oops
by American Wife (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:50 AM PDTsorry for double posting.
Q
by American Wife (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:46 AM PDTI'm not defending Zion. I'm defending the statement.. or the concept perhaps. Hmm... going out on a limb here but yes, Q, I would have to say that I think my religion is better than anyone else's. That's why I believe in it...:-).
Ok.. I also think my son is better than anyone else. Oops... I'm a bigot. (I did see that you changed it to bigot in lieu of racist. I do appreciate the difference.)
Oh, and I think the East coast beaches are much better than the West coast beaches... oh shit, there I go again.
You don't agree with Zion on political or religious issues... cool. (and what an understatement THAT was...LOL). But keep it real.
There are very few people... participants of IC included... that don't believe their country... their religion... their people... are better. You can mouth platitudes all day long about it being racist or bigotry from someone else but you, my friends, are no different. It's basically just human nature or patriotism, whatever floats your boat.
Q- You are Wrong (Again)!!
by Anonymous Observer (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:39 AM PDTWell, we all knew that Q was a jack of all trades. Today, he is an international lawyer. Well, again, you are wrong. First, the UN Charter does NOT confer jurisdiction to the Court over international disputes. In fact, the UN Charter itself calls for jurisdiction based on mutual consent. Here is an excerpt from a book called "World Court" by Rosenne and Gill which explains this cocept rather clearly.
//books.google.com/books?id=7oZxoKVc3d8C&pg=P...
This excerpt addresses the specific points that you raised in your comment. Second, your statement that jurisdiction is irrelevant is funny, as any lawyer will tell you that jurisdiction is the pre-requisite to the filing of any lawsuit.
Q - I know that you try to be as obnoxious as possible on this site, but please, inform yourself before you slander people.
Zion did you really say Iran
by Anonymouse2 (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:37 AM PDTZion did you really say Iran should be bombed? If you did it explains why you are against this blog.
PS. I don't care for Q, Kaveh or any other loud mouth on any side. If this legal process can help stop bush from bombing my nation I will support it.
:-)
by Zion on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:22 AM PDTAmerican Wife, Thanks for your comment but there is really no need. No one really takes Q seriously. Please let him be. It is actually a lot of fun reading his stuff. :-)
Kaveh. Thanks. Good that my meaning is clarified.
Anonymous Observer, you make a lot of sense, so be prepared for the assaults.
American wife, I don't think you saw the statement
by Q on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:21 AM PDTdo you believe your own religion is superior to someone else's religion?
That's not stating belief. That's not defending your own religion. that's saying "my belief are better than yours." It is the basis on which Zion has explained many times, why Jews in the middle east do better in science etc. I usually stop listening after such blatent bigotry.
That's exactly what Zion said.
Since according to most rabbis one can only be Jewish if he/she was born to a Jewish mother, it makes it racial statement as well. But if you don't like that term, perhaps you would feel better if I called it "bigotry" or "prejudice" instead?
Excuse me but...
by American Wife (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:05 AM PDT"Zion has enthusiastically supported bombing Iran on several occasions. As well as making the racist claim that Judaism is a superior religion."
Stating your belief or support in your religion is HARDLY a racist comment. Unless you accept that YOU are a racist yourself for defending ANY of your own beliefs. Please don't say it's the same thing as saying the color of your skin makes you superior to another race. It simply is NOT the same thing.
Observer: your observations are not correct
by Q on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:03 AM PDTThis is an excellent idea and I congratulate those who worked hard to bring this to the attention of the concerned parties.
Observer: Your own page says court has jouridiction over treaties. UN Charter is a treaty signed by US, Israel and Iran.
Second, 36(1) also gives the Court jurisdiction over "matters specifically provided for ... in treaties and conventions in force".
Second, jourisdiction is irrelevant. It's not like US will be "forced" to comply even if there was clear jourisdiction. The point is to make public these threats and the fact that they are violations of the UN Charter.
People who actually understand this far beyond you, have already endorsed it. Just watch this.
Lastly, I don't know why people are so surprized by Zion's insulting of Iran.
Zion has enthusiastically supported bombing Iran on several occasions. As well as making the bigotted claim that Judaism is a superior religion.
Anonymous8: Thank you for pointing out yet another hypocrisy. "dung hole" Zion calling someone else "childish" is beyond absurd. It betrays not only immaturity but deep hatred.
Hatred begets hatred. You would think Zionists of all people would understand this simple principle by now.
Z....
by Kaveh Nouraee on Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:52 AM PDTWe both know that NAZI Germany specifically refers to the entity led by Schicklgruber and his gang of bozos. The government.
The reason we know that is because in the 60+ years after the war the differences between Nazi Germany and modern Germany have been clearly defined and taught in schools.
The same cannot be said for Iran. A clear history has yet to be taught. For Christ's sake, Zion, there are idiots out there who still think we're Arab!
You know how you always hear "Vee love Amerika, Vee have no problem veet Amerikan people, vee have problem veet George Boosh and veet Amerikan government"? When it comes to Iran, that delineation simply doesn't exist.
You cleared up the context, which is all that matters. I'm just pointing out how it appeared at first. It's not like these threads have context detectors.
Kaveh
by Zion on Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:17 AM PDTThe Islamic Republic of Iran denotes one thing only, namely the state. I don`t know, do you think any decent German should feel offended if I called Nazi Germany a dung hole? Exactly the same thing here.
Soraya90
by Kaveh Nouraee on Tue Aug 12, 2008 09:54 AM PDTThere are a variety of phrases and words that do not translate directly between the two languages.
But, you're right.....Iran never said it. Meimoun Antarinejad did. Wiped off the map, Wiped from the pages of time, Wiped from the end of his nose. The fact is, he wants them gone.
You are entitled to your beliefs that include the preposterous notion that all of the ills of this world will be cured if there were no Israel.
By the way, it was IRNA that translated it into "wiped off the map".
And we all know how the Israeli media has control of IRNA.
Well Said Adnan!!
by Anonymous Observer (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 08:59 AM PDTI totally agree. Iran's destiny is in the hands of its people. External interference by those with other agendas (CASMII and other leftists who want war with Israel so that their thirty year long self fullfilled prophecy of war with Israel can materialize. Neocons and other war mongers who want to pick a fight with Iran to advance their vision of the Middle East) will only aggravate the situation and harm the Iranian people who live in Iran (obviously that excludes Merlot drinking, out of tocuh, elitist, leftists who call the "evil" United States home!).
Let the people of Iran decide their own fate...whatever that may be.
IMPOSSIBILITY!!!!
by Anonymous Observer (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 06:19 AM PDTI do not understand the logic or methodology (if there is one) that is used by this site in its “filtering” process. I attempted to post two rather polite comments to this article addressing what I am about to address now. However, neither one of them were posted. I admit that my comments were a bit sarcastic (out of my frustration with the fundamental lack of understating on the part of CASMII about the subject matter that they were writing about), but they did not come even near some of the other comments on this and other threads (i.e., Zion’s repeated “dung hole” remarks or Q’s Sh***t hole comment or his comments calling other idiots, etc). I have to say that I am surprised, but not THAT surprised. While I consider myself a liberal, this is an ultra liberal site that immediately publishes every Israel bashing, neo-con scaring, “Iran is about to be attacked today” article that every Tom, Dick and Harry writes on extremist websites. To that end, I guess it is difficult for Iranian.com to post factually oriented, objective dissections of those posts that tend to discredit them. My comments went to the non-plausibility of the argument that is suggested in this piece; and not surprisingly, it was deleted. I hope that they surprise me and post this re-submission (I doubt it).
Anywaaaaaaaaaay, here we go again. Before you congratulate yourselves on this brilliant and earth shattering suggestion by CASMII (one of the main operatives of which is our good friend Ms. Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich), you must know that for the World Court to be able to hear a dispute (a lawsuit), both parties (nations) to that dispute MUST FIRST CONSENT to the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, for Iran to be able to “sue” the United States and Israel in the World Court, those two nations must first consent to being sued there by Iran, which they obviously will not. Here’s a very simple discussion of this principle from Wikipedia:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_o...
Therefore, what you suggest here in an impossibility, and you would have known that if you had approached this subject with objectivity instead of emotion.
So, CASMII, before you write a “press release”, please make sure to have a good understanding of the subject matter that you try to discuss. How can you suggest such a provocative idea without doing some basic research (like reading Wikipedia –can’t get any more basic than that) about the subject?
I am so frustrated with this mindless obsession among Iranian leftists with Israel. I wish you would concentrate your efforts on helping your people instead of finding ways to attack Israel. Maybe then we can move forward.
Kaveh Nouraee Iran never said ‘Israel should be wiped off the ma
by Soraya90 (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 04:01 AM PDTKaveh Nouraee Iran never said ‘Israel should be wiped off the map’ aren’t you Iranian? Don’t you know this idiom does not exist in the Persian language. Go on google and type in that phrase - you will find that this was yet another fabrication cooked up by the American and Israeli media.
As much as I dislike the regime in Iran it often seems that the wrongs of the American and Israeli governments go unnoticed on this website.
Let the people of Iran take care of their country
by Adnan (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 03:36 AM PDTIf you seriously want to support the Iranian civil society, then stop external interference, threats and sanctions and let the people of Iran take care of their country themselves. Iranians in Iran and all over the world are full of critique towards their government. But they want change and reform based on THEIR interests.
Zion, YOU are the most childish and racist person here
by Anonymous8 (not verified) on Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:18 AM PDT"dung hole" ???
Yes, very very mature! You have shown your true class and mannerism. I don't think you have any credibility anymore.
If everyone thinks you have created a negative perception about Iran, maybe you should open your ears and listen. For once, perhaps you are wrong.
YOU are the only one who wants to divert attention. Why even use such hateful and racist language otherwise? This blog is about a law suit, not foul mouthed Zionists.
Zion
by Kaveh Nouraee on Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:24 AM PDTI'm calling it as I see it, as I always do, You know that about me already.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a dung hole. Those are the words, as you typed them. They indicate you are of the opinion that the country is a dung hole.
The context you say you were trying to convey honestly wasn't clear at all.
If you said that the IRI government is the dung hole, then you definitely wouldn't have seen the reactions that you did.
Z....people here already think you and I dance the hora and do shots of Mogen David after shabbos. When you're right, I'll back you 100%. But also expect that I'll call you out on something that doesn't look quite right. IRANdokht wasn't the only one who read your original post and thought as she did.
If you think my calling this to your attention is childish, that's a shame. I'd hate to think I overestimated you.
SHALOM (I mean it)
KN
Kaveh
by Zion on Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:54 PM PDTI don`t see how I am supposed to have created an entirely different perception from what you yourself spoke of. Irandokht is the one who has claimed I necessarily must have been referring to `...a space(!)...`.
You should know these games by now. A `space` can`t possibly be the subject of suing and being sued in international arena. Isn`t this obvious? Wasn`t the context clear?
This whole circus was yet another pathetic attempt to divert attention and supposedly win some maneuvering points for this risible little lobby pack. She got what she deserved for an answer. Let`s leave it at that.
Read what I have written again without paying attention to such deliberately infused noise. I will repeat it as many times as anyone wishes: The Islamic republic of Iran is a dung hole. In what way does it imply a different perception?
It is perhaps better to leave such childish games to those who deserve no better.
Fred: What is your point?
by Shalom (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 06:12 PM PDTAre you suggesting that it is a crime to support more than one organization that are working hard on behalf of the interest of Iranian people? You need to stop this character assassinations, it is becoming outright ridiculous.
Iran should sue U.S and Israel
by Esfandiar Bakhtiar (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 05:52 PM PDT“The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is Illusion of Knowledge”.
The absurdity of some of the comments on this blog speaks volumes about the exasperating level of ignorance on the part of its author.
Those who are so terrified of Israel and U.S power can, and should, continue hiding in their fox holes and succumb to their masters. There is not, and has never been, any shortage of Iranian patriots who not only support suing Israel and U.S. but will fight against any aggression by any nation against Iran.
MR Zion: I will gladly die for that place you call dung hole
by Arghavan (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 05:49 PM PDTWhen you insult Iran, you insult all Iranians. Do not forget this lesson. We will not forget who was our true friend at a crucial time. It was not you.
I'm Trying Not to Laugh
by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Aug 11, 2008 03:43 PM PDTThe idea of the IRI filing a lawsuit would be sufficient material to write a sitcom that could air for 10 years with all original episodes every week, no reruns.
The IRI, calling for the destruction of Israel, wiping Israel off the map, and on and on, and you want the IRI to sue Israel for harrassment?
I would understand this completely if this press release were published in, say, The Onion, the satirical news site.
This is like a burglar who gets shot by a homeowner suing the homeowner and winning. (It has happened).
Zion....what gives? I might be able to give you a conditional benefit of the doubt on the dung hole remark, because I think it is agreed that it is not the Iranian people who are the problem it is the IRI government. But this is an overly aggressive posture you are taking here that I'm trying to understand. Yes, I think the IRI government is dung hole, too. Actually, I think they're worse. At least dung serves a useful purpose as a fertilizer. But at first glance, you created the perception of something else entirely.
Overall, here's my take:
Stop the rhetoric. It leads you nowhere. And stop the mental masturbation. It will make you go virtually blind. Let puppies chase their tails. It's cuter when they do it.
Iran is not going to attack Israel. Israel is not going to attack Iran. And the U.S. is not going to attack Iran either. Even if they wanted to, the U.S. cannot do it physically. They lack the personnel and the equipment and any other resources you can think of. For what it's worth, the IRI has a a somewhat organized military. But if the U.S. cannot decisively and quickly defeat clearly unorganized guerillas and insurgents scattered throughout Iraq or Afghanistan, how in the hell do you think they would fare against the Iranian military? Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as a suggestion of an IRI victory. all sides involved here will only "talk the talk", and none of them will ever actually "walk the walk".
Besides, if those mental midgets in the IRI were to sue, knowing how stupid they are, they'd probably seek to retain counsel from the law firm of Goldberg, Steinberg, Cohen, Katz and Rabinowitz, with offices in New York, Miami, Beverly Hills, and Tel Aviv.
zion Iran is our country not a dung-hole
by sheema89 (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 02:54 PM PDTwe love iran no matter what problems we have. i think this is hard for you to understand. please look at this video.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9oIZpFFyIY
Lawsuit in the World Court
by Mike (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 02:25 PM PDTEventually, ths issue of right of a country and filing Suit in the World Court, and in case the regime is not willing to pursue it, is it possible and is there any other organization could do it?