Call on Iran to sue Israel and US in World Court over threats of military force

Sue the US and Israel

Are you kidding here??!!! The only reason this nuclear issue has arose with Iran is beacuse of the moron president they have. He talks this garbage of wiping Isreal off the map. Do you think they will allow Iran to have a nuke after those stupid statements? Trust me... there WILL be a war! I feel for the Iranian people. They will have to suffer because of a very few stupid, radical leaders. Iran will be militarily humiliaded as was Iraq.

AnonymousIrooni - your post is a MUST read for others.

You pretty much pointed out, and summed up the real fault line between Israelis & those Iranians who believe in the Mullahs.

Freedom of expression and thought, are the roots of social development, not mere religious ideologies. Ability to adapt to new environment of social, economical and political paradigm which make or break any organized society or group.

On all my post, I have always upheld the Iranian (and Muslim) PEOPLE as capble of achievement as anyone else. There are no bad, stupid, or backward followers, there are only bad leaders, who mislead their people .

I truly believe that all those Iranians who care about the future of their country. They would serve their beloved country far better by pointing out those factors which prevent Iran from becoming an advanced society, instead of pinning the blame on others. Engage in healthy and genuine self criticism, much like other countries throughout the West have been doing for generation - as result of which we all witness here and now. 

I would highly recommend for Q and alike to read your last post VERY VERY carefully, which sheds light on the fundamental differences between us.

Right on Q!!!!!!!

Peace;

I agree with Q!

I think the jurisdiction is possible. Lawsuit should be pursued by Iran ASAP!

The international law says threats of war or initiating violence. There are no damages to show! But it is still illegal to make the threats. Countries have binding legal obligation to pursue negotiations.

Q

Dear Q,

1) I agree with you 100% on your following statement:

"My opinion is that we are all equal regardless of race that no one is superior."

I also think that if you asked Zion or Mazloom, they would agree with you 100% as well. The hate and political views between you guys is so great that neither of you would accept each others declarations with respect to this (I am sorry to say).

2) As to the following statement:

"For example the Mazloom argument of "Jews" and Nobel prize neglects to mention that nearly all those Jews were European too. In essence Mazloom could say that European Jews are superior to Middle Eastern Jews. So why not talk about the Sephardim, and let's find out what their "belief systems" taught them to make this tragedy happen? "

I think we can both agree that probably 95% of these European Jews that won the noble prizes were not even religious. My view is that once Jews were generally accepted in European society, after the French revolution, they were able to take advantage of their freedoms and excel. This has nothing to do with race, ethnicity and religious denomination. It has to do with cultural values. The values I talk about are education, the desire to build wealth, appreciation for arts and sciences and supporting one's community... All ethnic & racial groups who have these values and WHO ARE FREE are successful regardless of religious backgrounds. Look at the Asian population in the US for example. In general they value the above and are very successful only after 1st or 2nd generation. Same goes for the Arab or Iranian population in the US. They have also become very successful. Compare this to the Arab population in France. The French society is less free (especially economically) and more racist than the US. The second & third generation of Arabs in France are generally worse off than their parents; and they have not excelled at all as compared to the Arab population in US. The idiotic French have band the Hijab for example. This only shows how backwards they are when it comes to religious freedom and ethnic diversity.

As to your Sephardim example. The Sephardim lived in the Middle East. If the Middle East does not have free societies and does not value freedom and wealth building, how do you expect the Sephardim or Muslims
to win noble peace prizes? I am generalizing about these societies but just look at Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia. Look at Iran. We Iranians value education but we are not free. All the great minds of Sharif University, for example, leave and go to free societies to do their work? Why? Just like the French who ban Hijab, we Iranians force it on people which is just as stupid.

However, look at people like Mofaz, Katsav & Shomron who were all from poor Iranian families who emigrated to Israel. In one generation, they reached the highest echelons of Israeli society. Would Mofaz be the defense Minister of Iran under the Shah? I won't even ask about the IRI. We both know that Israel had and still has racist elements as well when it comes to Middle Eastern Jews. But because the society was free, they were generally able to overcome these racist elements- Just Like Barack Obama has done so here in the US.

Mazloom is showing off about Jewish accomplishments but I think that he is also saying that if the Muslim nations had these common values, there would not be so much hatred going around.

3) As to "Zion is unwilling ot make a distinction between different kinds of Islam and it's implementation or different ethnic or cultural influences or anything. Just pure: "Judaism is superior values, leads to better science, etc."

What do you mean by different kinds of Islam? Is Shia Islam more tolerant than Sunni Islam? Judaism has many intolerant and racist sects (Satmar, Neturei Karta...). But these intolerant sects have no power and are small minorities and they are all locked in 18th century mentality. How many Satmar Jews have you seen with a Noble Prize? Zion is generalizing and is failing to make distinctions but how this is bigotry?

If you asked Khamenei which religion is better, Islam or Judaism? What would his answer be? He would tell you that Mohammad was the last messenger of God and his message is superior to that of the Jew. That is not bigotry. Zion wants to say that because Jews don't believe in Mohammad, they are superior. This makes him a bigot or racist?

you highlight the following:

"According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination."

Who did Zion "discriminate against" by making a declaration that Judaism is superior to Islam? If, for example, Zion is some government official and does not give jobs to Muslims, he is discriminating. Personal religious views that do not effect individuals are not considered discrimination. Look at equal protection laws in the US. They have gotten it 95% right. Are you talking about government discrimination or personal discrimination?

4) As to "On the Rabbi issue, I understand there are conversions. These conversions require approvals that can be complex and at times impossible. It's my strong belief from first hand accounts that most rabbis discourage and disapprove of conversions unless it's a "serious" case (however they define it.) Compared to Islam where no one's "approval" is required, this make it so that there is very little genetic diversity in Judaism, since conversions are hard and rare, most people are Jews by ancestry by having been a decendent of the Israelites."

Q, I apologize in advance but when you say "These conversions require approvals that can be complex and at times impossible" you truly have no idea what you are talking about. If its the current Israeli conversion issue, its pure politics and has no relation to traditional Jewish conversion laws. I suggest that you go and do some more reading about this.

Also, the statement to the effect that "there is very little genetic diversity in Judaism" is patently false. There are Persian Jews, Arab Jews, German Jews, Chinees Jews (who were from Iran actually), Indian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Filipino Jews.... Because of intermarriage with local populations for 2000 years (conversions are easy for marriage), there is actually a lot of genetic diversity.

If you want me to say that there are Jews who are racist. Well, there are Jews who are racist. You are 100% correct. I just can't agree that Zion or Mazloom have been racist yet. They may have said very foolish things but don't we all.

Anonymous5

But what about the "professor"? He filed for an injuntion!!!!!

Actually, thank you for the post. It is refreshing to hear from someone wo actually knows what he / she is talking about. As I mentioned before, I don't even think that it'll get to the damages part. The case will be dimissed for lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction in the World Court is by consent (or consent through a specific treaty) only. But try telling that (as I have been for the past two days) to Q and the like. It won't get through. It's like dealing with a pro se party in court. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Lawsuit in the World Court!

The question was: Can NIAC or similar organizations file the complaint in the Court?

Q et alii . . .

Okay here’s the CliffsNotes version since I am a bit pressed for time. . .can’t do it, don’t waste your energy typing about something that cannot be done.

Right off the bat damages for actions filed with the world court need to be actual, the court is not a forum for granting preemptory injunctive relief (for non-legalese speaking folk, the court can’t stop something that hasn’t been done, only stop what is occurring or redress what has already taken place….and even that is in theory not practice with this particular forum).

Next there are all sorts of legal standards that cannot be met in order to bring forth such a claim of action. You can waste more energy replying to my wasted effort here, but it will not change the legal reality.

This thread is like a discussion of performing a brain transplant, and I’m the neurosurgeon chiming in to say it cannot be done under the current medically available procedures (I kinda do this for a living).

Now you can go on bringing forth your great reasons as to why Iran should be able to do it, I am just telling you why they can’t. . .if you want to change that then head on down to the Hague with a petition under your arm. . .and don’t forget to hum “Imagine” by John Lennon on the way there, because short of imagination this idea is not going anywhere.

I’m not sure who makes up the membership of the organization making this call, but for the love of God talk to a lawyer (even a pro-bono one if you don’t have money to pay), before you start calling for actions that display your ignorance of the law.

I don’t call for faster processors in laptops because I have no idea what’s entailed. . .I leave that to my brother who is the CompE.

Just my 2 cents give or take a cent!

Anonymous Observer

This sounds like a dispute a court should resolve!

Q-

The UN Charter is not a treaty that is used to confer jurisdiction to the World Court over international disputes. Agian, these are complicated legal issues that cannot be explained or simplified in a one paragraph quote. Even with a treay, there is no guaranty that the World Court will have jurisdiction over the dispute.(I must have said this a million times already, but here we go again) for there to be jurisdiction, the specific treaty itself must have a SPECIFIC BINDING jurisdiactional clauses to which parties consent. . "All members shall refrain" is NOT binding jurisdictional language!!!!!

A binding jurisdictional clause goes something like this:

"The World Court shall have jurisdiction over all claims arising under this treaty or all matters that this treaty addresses. The parties to this treaty give their consent to the jurisdiction of the World Court."

The Gill book specifically states that all attempts at giving jurisdiction to the World Court under the UN Charter were rejected at the San Francisco convention (and here you are still arguing jurisdiction under the UN Charter)!!!

Take the U.S. suing Iran again. In that case, there was a specific treaty (to which Iran was a signatory) which addressed the status of diplomats and diplomatic missions. That treaty gave specific jurisdiction to the World Court over disputes arising under that treaty, and that's how the US was able to sue Iran in the World Court.

I think at this point, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing (true to form). So, I am done with this fruitless discussion that seems to be going in circles. Call the "professor" immediately and tell him to file his "lawsuit", and wish him good luck. This will be my last post on this issue.
That is a jurisdictional clause.

Q..........

I knew you wouldn't respond to A2...you've been very busy I see.

Just my 2 cents (not that anyone cares)....

Not only is conversion possible, it's controversy free, too. Rabbis who don't recognize converts are few and far between. They are the clear exception to the rule. But the rationale behind questioning the sincerity of converts makes sense: Why would someone choose to adopt a religious faith that has so many sworn enemies of its practitioners?

I have to clear this up for you: It is Talmudic law that states that a child born of a Jewish mother shall be considered Jewish.

Rabbis just show up for the bris because a nice brisket will be served after the mohel does the circumcision (snip snip)

I also don't get how you correlate maternal bloodlines and race, when there are Jews of every race on earth. And the majority of them aren't converts.

Maybe I'm missing something. I'll re-read. I'm too f***ing tired.

I also have a simple answer to the question of which religion is superior.

It's whatever religion God practices.

Q

Thanks for your answer. I will try to respond tomorrow as I have been up for 21 hours now and need some sleep.

Observer: UN Charter IS a treaty

The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations.[1] It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California, United States, on June 26, 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries (Poland, the other original member, which was not represented at the conference, signed it later). It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council—the Republic of China (later replaced by the People's Republic of China), France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (later replaced by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.

As a Charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.[1] Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter. One notable exception is the Holy See, which has chosen to remain a permanent observer state and therefore is not a full signatory to the Charter. [1]

source

Chapter XIV establishes the ICJ. Chapter IV requires all nations to seek resolutions through peaceful means including arbitration for disputes.

Article 2 part 4 says this:

"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."

I believe this negates your argument that "there is no treaty applicable". In any case, I'm glad you are studying this further.

Have a nice day.

Shalom: Toda!

Irooni,

Why not show the definitions of racism too?

This part of the definition from Wikipedia:

Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, even though anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.

In my view, as I have argued other places, religion is part of culture and highly correlates with ethnicity. You can replace 'black' with 'muslim' in a racist law and I don't consider it having now lost it's racism.

As I have also explained there is a racial component to the issue of Judaism as well because we are also talking about different races (may be just by coincidence but still). For example the Mazloom argument of "Jews" and Nobel prize neglects to mention that nearly all those Jews were European too. In essence Mazloom could say that European Jews are superior to Middle Eastern Jews. So why not talk about the Sephardim, and let's find out what their "belief systems" taught them to make this tragedy happen? And why use the (very arbitrary) definition of "per capita" accomplishment, if that's what he was saying? Maybe Christians would be better because they have more people so they collectively contribute more to humanity.

These statements are not "uncomfortable" for me, but as I said at the time, these are simply stupid comparisons. There is no way for anyone, even Jews to "win" such artificial contests without making massive biased assumptions, so it's not worth discussing.

But I admit, as I admitted to American Wife, that perhaps the word bigotry would be better. Your own definitions of bigory include being intolerant of "opinions", "partial to one's group". I don't understand how you are saying these don't meet an assertion that "Jews are better than Muslims" (even with some qualifications) How is this not bigotry?
My opinion is that we are all equal regardless of race that no one is superior. You would consider someone who says 'no, A is superior to B' to be intolerant of that world view, don't you?

They are talking about backwardness of Islamic governments and not Islam per se.

NO, that's exactly what Zion is saying: Islam itself. Zion is unwilling ot make a distinction between different kinds of Islam and it's implementation or different ethnic or cultural influences or anything. Just pure: "Judaism is superior values, leads to better science, etc."

I call it bigotry. We can get ceative: cultural chauvunism, religious supremacy, superiority complex, whatever...

What do you call it? It certainly just can't be "pride" because that would involve praise for one system, not a value judgement on two.

I don't dispute that Khomeini has said bigoted things. I just didn't appreciate made-up quotes attributed to him. Why not just say "if someone says", instead of using a name?

On the Rabbi issue, I understand there are conversions. These conversions require approvals that can be complex and at times impossible. It's my strong belief from first hand accounts that most rabbis discourage and disapprove of conversions unless it's a "serious" case (however they define it.) Compared to Islam where no one's "approval" is required, this make it so that there is very little genetic diversity in Judaism, since conversions are hard and rare, most people are Jews by ancestry by having been a decendent of the Israelites. Islam on the other hand had huge populations of converts in SouthEast Asia, India and Africa that were obviously not "born" into it. Judaism lacks this aspect (with some exceptions like the Khazars, supposedly) so one can say it is much more mono-racial than Islam. Indeed 70% of all Jews are Ashkenazi (White European).

Nothing wrong with any of this, but there is a huge racial and religious overlap here.

During the first part of the 20th century there were many "jim crowe" laws in the United States designed to keep black people from voting, for example. None of them actually used race in the literature. They used things like wealth, literacy, family, etc. These other factors highly correlated to the African American race. These laws were all universally acknowledged to be racist nevertheless. We can't just look at the surface meanings here.

When I say there is a racial component, that's what I mean.

Q - I'm Glad That You At Least Acknowledge the Legal Obstacles

And that is my entire point. While you just begun to research this issue today (and there is nothing wrong with that) I have researched and read about this issue for a number of years. A few other points. First, the UN Charter is not a treaty, and is not recognized as such. Second, even with a treaty, there is no automatic jurisdiction. The treaty itself must contain a clear jurisdictional clause. For instance, in the Iran case, the US sued under the deplomatic convention treaty (and NOT the UN Charter) which had conferred clear jurisdiction upon the World Court (and Iran still ignored it). What Gill menas by saying that "consent" (in some circumstances) is misleading is that a nation cannot claim lack of consent whan it is a signatory to a treaty that specifically confers jurisdiction.

In this particular case, there is absolutely no legal basis for jurisdiction with the World Court. There is no treaty and no applicable jurisdictional vehicles by which the case can be brought before the Court. As far as your statement that:

"In any case, I'm of the opinion that there is enough here to go to court just like US did against Iran."

you are unfortunately wrong again. As mentioned before, the US sued Iran under the diplomatic convention treay (read my post and the Wikipedia quote again) that is a separate and distinct treay, which had a clear jurisdictional clause. That is not the case here.

The professor in this video is obviously bragging and is trying to repeat his "sucess" (whatever that may have been) with the Lybia issue. However, times have changed, and I doubt that his tactics will scare anyone away this time. In the Lybia case, the world attention was the target of the so-called lawsuit. In today's world there is so much attention on the Iran issue that a court case will hardly have any affect in increasing the level of attention.

I will leave at that.

Dear Q

It is amazing how much abuse you can tolerate while continuing to keep your sound and logical outlook. Keep up the good work. I'm sure there are many others like me who appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

Observer,

I understand it just fine. First, I asked you to show me where I slandered you when you accused me of that.

I'm still wating, this is a serious charge in my opinion and I don't appreciate you throwing it around so trivially.

Second, I think I see the issue here. Please read this statement of mine with the new emphasis. When I say 'succeed' I don't mean legally. I already acknowledged that part is moot since no one will enforce anything on the United States, right or wrong. But please pay close attention to what I wrote:

This maneuver explained by University of Chicago International Lawyer is not only possible, but as KidW showed, it has already succeeded in the past.

The video says that this is a maneuver in order to disrupt the war process, once again, it's legal success is irrelevant.

Your own source (Gil..) says that there is a way to force jouristiction based on a treaty.

Read page 82 second paragraph. "To say that jourisdiction is based on the consent of the states may be misleading".

The system favors strong governments who do not have anything to gain by submitting their "consent" to it. There is no disputing this. However, there is a clause by which a previous treaty can be interpreted to be "in effect" and based on that a case can be made essentially saying that the party has previously agreed to this kind of arbitration. I believe that would be the argument here.

If we consider the UN Charter to be a treaty which it is, this can be argued here. Look at the second and third paragraphs on page 86. This also reminds me that your book is from 1989 and while laws don't change, the attitudes in interpreting them does.

Please, don't be cute. I didn't "cleverly ommit" anything. The Iran case in fact proves my point. Iran did not participate or comply, (I fully get it!), but it happened anyway and there was a judgement issued. This time, there may not be a judgement, but it could still succeed in its goals.

In any case, I'm of the opinion that there is enough here to go to court just like US did against Iran.

but now its surrogates are screaming that it should use the Court to sue the U.S.

What surrogates? The professor from UI? The guy from Huffington post? Me? What? (hint: this is what is known as "slander")

I fully understand it's a complicated issue. I only began researching it today myself. But it is very promising as a tactic. Nothing you have provided dissuades me of that. But that's just me. You're entitled to your own opinion.

Zion: Sad, maybe, but is it "dung hole" sad? I wouldn't bet on it.

sad

[shaking head with a sigh]

oh brother!!!

Yes, I said most rabbis don't approve of it. I said it was difficult. I also wrote that "you can't convert" meaning "you can't convert to Judaism" and remain muslim.

Let's pretend you didn't understand that the first time. But the context (which you deiberately did not show) is clear.

A Muslim can never be as good as a Jew in your opinion. That's the whole dispute genius. This is why I'm calling you a bigot.

You haven't shown where I said conversion is impossible. (Thank goodness people can read for themselves and see your bullshit "charges" of lies).

Looks like my prediction came true after all. I will only be so lucky if YOU can leave me, my religionand my country alone, don't try to speak for others.

One more time: People Can Read

`...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... (since you can`t convert into Judaism hence a ratial compoenent)...Where did I claim conversion was impossible?... Zion, I gather you conveniently did not show where I lied on the impossiblity of conversions...`

That`s why I keep imploring everyone to live Q alone. It is not good to invoke him to cling to more and more lies all the time, to make a fool of himself every once in a while in public. It is sad to have to watch him sink ever deeper.

I'm not sure one can sink any deeper than "dung hole"

you know what I'm saying Zion?

Blatently racist and bigoted assertions about islam and Iran. Supporting bombing of my country. Excusing everything ever done by Israel. Having the gall to split hairs on why Iran is violating UN resolutions and Israel isn't... Finally your deeply hateful attacks against anything and everything that does not agree with you and displaying your overinflated ego as to who is "better" than whom.

yet I can't help but feel your physical pain, everytime I say that we are all equal and respectable regardless of religion, words that you have proven you can't stand.

Yes, people can read. And they do read. It's real sad for you that this happens.

People can read, you know

That`s why I keep asking everyone to live Q alone. It is not good to invoke him to cling to more and more lies all the time, to make a fool of himself every once in a while in public. It is sad to have to watch him sink ever deeper.

Translation

so dear "dung hole" Zion, I gather you conveniently did not show where I lied on the impossiblity of conversions.

Do I have this correct?

You can maybe argue that it's not that uncommon, and we would have common ground, but to say there is "no controversy" is just pure bullshit. The fact that an authority has to approve it and it can be revoked any time in the future also mitigates the conversion point, IF you can do it.

That's one difference between Judaism and Islam, however, both are equally respectible in my opinion. (Words that may be very hurtful to you, but I'm sorry)

It's really funny that those who consider themselves "superior," somehow never think it's a big deal. Also, I believe you were proven incorrect as your badly-researched assertion of what an "inferiority complex" is turned out to be (surprise!) bullshit. I'm not going to embarrass you once more by printing out the definition but those interested can check for themselves.

Dear Q

Please take it easy. You don't need to bring fox news into this. Some how you have the ability to escalate things into places no one wants to go. I was serious with my questions because you were bringing race into it and I simply can't agree with you that Zion or American Wife were talking about race (I have read Mehdi Mazloom also- They are not talking about race). I will agree with you that they may be generalizing but its not about race. The words "Racism" and "Bigotry" have specific definitions. Religions are ideologies that have nothing to do with race. Yes, there are racist Christians, Jews, Muslims......but the racism does not come from religion.

Wiki defines Bigotry as:

A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class......

Marriam-Webster defines it as:

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

American Heritage Defines it as:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ".

I don't thin any of the hypothtical statements I gave you (whether made by Muslims or Jews) are bigoted. Since race, ethnicity and Intolerance was not a factor. To believe that one's ideology is superior to another persons Ideology is not bigotry. "Intolerance" is the operative word.

I don't think Zion, American Wife or Mazloom meet the above definition or any definitions of Bigotry out there. Zion, for example, has repeatedly stated that he/she is not religious. They are talking about backwardness of Islamic governments and not Islam per se. You can agree or disagree with their views. Its not bigotry. I think they are generalizing buy leaving out some historical facts to come to their conclusions

As to: "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"

That is not whay he said. He was saying something to the effect that Jews are .01% of the population but have 10% of the Nobel Prize winners (I am exaggerating the numbers to make his point). He did not have to accept your Christianity is better argument because Christianity is 20% of the population as opposed to .01% of the population (again exaggerating the numbers for you to get his point) and since Nobel is a European originated thing, with Europe being 90+% Christian, it only makes his argument stronger.

These statements, as uncomfortable for you and others, are not bigoted. To me the main idea in bigotry is intolerance of other religions, groups & races. intolerance.

Additionally,

1) I did not say what if "Khomeini" I said what if "Khamenei". I would agree with you that Khamenei has not said anything disrespectful against Jews and Christians. However, I recommend that you go look into what Khomeini has said about non-muslims in general. For example, Khomeini in his own words considered the following 11 items as najes:
urine; second, stool; third, semen; fourth, dead bodies; fifth, blood; sixth and seventh, dogs and pigs; eighth, non-Muslims; ninth, wine; tenth, beer; eleventh, the sweat of a camel that eats unclean things.

See: //www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft... (Abrahamian, Ervand. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic.)

Here is more on Khomeini from a speech in 1962:

"I have repeatedly pointed out that the government has evil intentions and is opposed to the ordinances of Islam. ... The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, Jews, Christians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims." [Islam and Revolution p.175]

." It is our duty to prevent this treacherous interference with the text of the Qur'an. We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that - God forbid! - they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day. Islam and Revolution, p.127"

"is particularly important under the present circumstances, for the imperialists, the oppressive and treacherous rulers, the Jews, Christians, and materialists are all attempting to distort the truths of Islam and lead the Muslims astray. ... We see today that the Jews (may God curse them) have meddled with the text of the Qur'an and have made certain changes in the Qur'ans they have had printed in the occupied territories. [Islam and Revolution, p.127]"

It is our duty to prevent this treacherous interference with the text of the Qur'an. We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that - God forbid! - they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day. [italics added] [Islam and Revolution, p.127]"

Yes Q, Khomeini was from old school and he was a bigot. Yes Jews were to him "people of the book". But they, like christians were najes.

2) You had stated that "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"

And I responded that in Islam, a child's religion is determined by the religion of the father not the mother, which is the exact opposite. Q, this is a very simple fact which has nothing to do with Fox news. In Judaism, the Child's religion is determind by the religion of the mother, in Islam its the father. You somehow made it a racial thing. Why?

Now I understand that it is much easier for a person to convert to Islam than Judaism but this has nothing to do with race as you tried to make it. You took orthodox Judaism's ruling on determining the religion of a person and made it a racial thing while Islam does the same thing i.e. look at the religion of one of the parents to determine religion of a child/person. Any person can become a Muslim or a Jew. Its is just much harder to convert to Judaism.

Lies and more lies

There is no controversy about the possibility of conversion in Judaism. There is not a single Rabbi who considers conversion as invalid or impossible. Not one.

The only dispute today is between Orthodox versus non-Orthodox conversions. The Orthodox community does not consider the conversions by Reform and in some cases by Conservative/Masorti rabbis to be Halachic, that is done according to Jewish law. Hence the Orthodox community generally only accepts conversion under Orthodox rabbis as valid. This has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of conversion itself. Anyone can convert to Judaism, including under Orthodox laws if they want to and are ready to undergo the necessary steps and show the necessary dedication in following Jewish practices. Anyone.
The other issue of dispute is whether children with a Jewish father but no a Jewish mother are automatically Jewish or not. Reform movement considers them automatically Jewish where as the Orthodox and Conservative/Masorti movements need an official conversion for the child. The idea being that without a Jewish mother the child is not brought up with complete Jewish values. If anything that is the exact opposite of any racial preference. It is the rights values someone is brought up with or adopts later on willingly trough conversion that determine who is Jewish.

So we have here yet another blatant lie by Q. Blended with an especially pathetic attempt to relate this to racial issues. Results of an acute inferiority complex, most probably. Really sad to watch.

Zion: you talk of "pathetic lies" ? Let's prove it

You really shouldn`t pay much attention to Q`s claims. He unfortunately is very inclined towards lying to prove his insignificant claims. For example his claim that conversion to Judaism is impossible is a clear and pathetic lie.

Where did I claim conversion was impossible?

Another lie from a long line of lies. By the way, last time you "pathetically" tried to call me out, I challenged you to produce the lie and you could not, and later disappeared. I think it will be the same today.

if you can't find where I said it, and you don't take it back, can we assume YOU are the pathetic liar here?

What did I say in actuality?
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.

I know that conversion is possible, but also controversial and most rabbis do not believe in it. In the US, there are people who do it, mostly because of marriage to a Jew, but it is still a controversial practice in Israel. Since you admit you are not practicing, I'm not surprised you are unaware of this very important controversy.

So let me enlighten you:

(from //www.forward.com/articles/13347/ )

More than 40,000 Israelis who were converted to Judaism in the past decade by the state’s official conversion courts may find their conversions annulled — rendering them non-Jewish in the eyes of the law — following a ruling last week by Israel’s Supreme Rabbinical Court.

The ruling, responding to an appeal in a local divorce case, deals a blow to religious moderates seeking to resolve the so-called “Who is a Jew?” dispute. The conversion courts were established ostensibly to ease the work burden generated by immigrants seeking to become Jewish. Most observers believe they were meant to bypass the religious hardliners who control the Chief Rabbinate and its own rabbinic courts. Questioning the courts’ authority, as the current decision does, would reopen the contentious debate over who determines Jewish identity in Israel.

You also shameless lie about your claim that Jewish religion is superior. I put the question to you directly and you said Yes. Why are you trying to sugar coat it now?

In any case, it's clear you have no respect for Iran or else you wouldn't advocate bombing it.

Kaveh: Yes, I was confused by A2's remark as well. But frankly, I'm so used to being attacked using illogical absurdities that I didn't think it was worth responding.

American Wife: Thank You and have a nice day.

Q - You Just Can't Understand the Principles Involved Here

First, the case that the professor from the University of Illinois talks about did NOT succeed legally. They filed something in the Wolrd Court, and the conflict stopped thereafter, although it is unclear if the two events were connected. So, the case nevre proceeded to a full blown trial (or a Judgment) at which time jurisdictional issues would have been litigated. Filing a case and having it succeed are two different things. I can file a lawsuit tomorrow against Angelina Jolie and accuse her of stealing my car. That does not mean, however, that my case was "sucessful". In fact, according to both the porofessor and the Huffington Post article, the only thing that came out of that case was that it got the parties together to negotiate as there was no diplomatic relations between the two countries at the time.

What you are arguing is the exact opposite of what Gill's link that I posted states. Contrary to what you claim it is the finality of the Court's Judgment, and NOT its jurisdiction, that is compulsory. Unfortunately, I can not cut and paste the language from that page (and I do not want to re-type the whole page here). But here are the relevant quotes:

"Neither the Charter of the United Nations, nor any rule of present-day international law imposes an obligation on States to refer their legal disputes to the Court-but once consent has been given, the States concerned are bound to comply with the decision of the Court…..Jurisdiction based on consent, and the binding nature and finality of decisions, are the two basic principles underlying international adjudication in the Charter of the United Nations."

Now what part of this don't you understand? There is no obligation on the part of any member State to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. That is why aside from this ATTEMPT against Lybia in 1992, you do not see any other cases filed in The World Court addressing international conflicts without mutual consent of the parties, and God knows we have had plenty of those. If it was that simple, countries would be suing each other all the time, and that is clearly not the case because jurisdiction must be by consent. In fact, your own country of Iran invoked this principle during the hostage crisis and refused to participate in the case brought against it by the US under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which actually contained a compulsary jurisdictional clause. This was actually the second sentence of the Wikipedia pargraph that you quoted in your first response to me (but you cleverly omitted it). here it is:

"For example, during the Iran hostage crisis, Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, nor did it comply with the judgment. Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration." Actually it's pretty interesting that Iran gave the World Court the finger on that occasion, but now its surrogates are screaming that it should use the Court to sue the U.S.

Again, if what you are saying was correct, countries would be suing each other over all kinds of disputes in the World Court all the time, and that is clearly not the case.

These are pretty complicated legal issues that are not as simple as you (and CASMII) make them appear to be, and therefore, they cannot be covered in comments on this site. In sum, no consent = no jurisdiction.

AnonymousIrooni

I do not even practice Judaism my friend. I am not religious at all. Contrary to what our dear Q claims, I have merely pointed out that the Jewish cultural attitude towards free thought and historical acceptance of dissent can`t be equated with Islamic call for submission that is evident in all its core values and even can be found in the name itself. I have also mentioned that the Jewish value system has made it conducive to a kind of upbringing that has manifested itself, among other things, in the clearly disproportionate contributions of Jews to arts and sciences given their small population. There is of course nothing bigoted or racist about any of this. As I have pointed out some shared elements between Jews and secular Iranians who have closer ties with their ancient value systems can explain similar academic success among the Parsees and present day iranian youth flourishing in the freedom of the West.

You really shouldn`t pay much attention to Q`s claims. He unfortunately is very inclined towards lying to prove his insignificant claims. For example his claim that conversion to Judaism is impossible is a clear and pathetic lie. Conversion has been an integral element of Judaism for millennia.
Besides being a compulsive liar, he sadly does not seem to be all OK in the head, if you know what I mean. That is why my dear friend, I must also ask you to let Q be and please try not to encourage or arouse him. As you can see he is obsessive and starts easily to get over agitated. It is not good for him.
Just enjoy his sporadic blurps, and leave him alone. Please.

Anonymouse2

I didn't know that my keystrokes are hurting your ears.

Q....what do you say we type quietly? We can get some mittens so not to disturb the others.

BTW, Anonymouse2.....CASMII's call for the IRI to sue is just that....their call. It carries as much weight as a New York Yankee fan would have over George Steinbrenner in team decisions.

Observer: I may try, but you succeed at being obnoxoius

Can you please read my last post and point out to me where I was "slandering" you. I can only conclude that you are either being obnoxious or you don't understand "slander." Your reply to me was full of it, by the way.

The UN charter says that disputes should be arbitrated by the world court and that is something signed by all countries. Your own source (for the second time) actually agrees with what I'm saying. Iran is encouraged to seek one of the multiple ways available to resolve the dispute. That means the filing of it, is the right of Iran and will be accepted and considered.

What you are talking about is the binding enforcement of the court's opinion. However, the matter of jourisdiction in that case is irrelevant because this case will not be enforced anyway, as I explained before.

This maneuver explained by University of Chicago International Lawyer is not only possible, but as KidW showed, it has already succeeded in the past. So, at this point, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

If you still don't think it could work and accusing other people as "not knowing what they are talking about", I'm not sure what else we can accomplish on this.

So, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

KidW: thank you for the link. The huffington post thread has much more informative comments.