Agreement with Chomsky's view on Hizbollah?

[JudeObscure84]

It seems as though that Chomsky has openly endorsed Hizbollah's decision to not disarm and has even gone so far as to suggest that Irans attempt to supply the group with arms is just, considering it as a deterent against US and Israeli arms.

I am not trying to take a side on this (even though you and I know, I believe this is lunacy) but I was just wondering what Che Lives take on this is?

[KC]

Irans attempt to enrich uranium for a nuclear arsenal

Is there any evidence of this? Just asking, because I haven't seen any or heard of any.

[JudeObscure84]

Is there any evidence of this? Just asking, because I haven't seen any or heard of any.

I cut this piece out because I was misquoting chomsky on exactly what weapons Iran was pursuing. I appologize for this. But at any rate, the IAEA is upset at Iran for breaking international regulations on its ambitions to enrich uranium. The US and Israel are callings its bluff on its civilian purposes but Iran say otherwise. Its a difficult situation.

[JudeObscure84]

"The regional superpower Israel is threatening to attack it [Iran], the U.S. is threatening to attack it. These threats alone are outright violations international law and of the U.N. charter. Iran is in difficulty. Iran has been trying for some years to negotiate settlement but the U.S. just refuses."



"I think that Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and a persuasive argument that they (the weapons) should be in the hands of Hizbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression and there is plenty of background and reasons for that. So, I think his position, if I am reporting it correctly, and it seems to be a reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region and the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent. The Lebanese army cannot be a deterrent."



"There is a meaning to the word terrorist, in fact you can read a definition of term terrorist is the U.S. code of laws. It gives a very clear, precise, adequate definition of the word terrorist. have been writing about terrorism for 25 years always using the official U.S. definition [of the word "terrorist"], but that definition is un-usable, and the reason is that when you use that definition it turns out, not surprisingly, that the U.S is one of the leading terrorist states, and the other states become terrorist or non-terrorist depending on how they are relating to U.S. goals."


This is what Chomsky said. So that there will be no confusion.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=649568

[KC]

on its ambitions to enrich uranium

Yes, I know about this. But what I was wondering was have you seen any evidence that they are using that enriched uranium for anything other than nuclear power? As far as I knew they were doing it for nuclear power. I have seen no evidence of nuclear weapons.

[JudeObscure84]

Yes, I know about this. But what I was wondering was have you seen any evidence that they are using that enriched uranium for anything other than nuclear power? As far as I knew they were doing it for nuclear power. I have seen no evidence of nuclear weapons.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even if they are developing nuclear weapons, why should they be stopped? Because they might nuke Isreal? As soon as Iran does that, it becomes a collection of radioactive glass craters. And there's no reason to believe that the leadership of Iran are even willing to risk their cosseted positions in such a suicidal act. The prospect of actual death does wonders for one's theological standpoint.

[JudeObscure84]

Even if they are developing nuclear weapons, why should they be stopped? Because they might nuke Isreal? As soon as Iran does that, it becomes a collection of radioactive glass craters. And there's no reason to believe that the leadership of Iran are even willing to risk their cosseted positions in such a suicidal act. The prospect of actual death does wonders for one's theological standpoint

The point is that there is a race for nuclear technology by islamic extremists and even states who sponsor them. The UN does not trust Iran and doesnt want them to give it to a faction that will use it and then claim they never gave it. Also, who is to say what the Iranian government would do. They are an irrational state that would proly sacrifice themselves for the elmination of Israel or a US city.

I love it when people try to rationalize the acts of pathalogical extremists bent on violence. Apparently, ramming planes into the World Trade Centers made sense and did wonders for the Palestinian cause. :rolleyes:

[KC]

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

Where does it say anything about nuclear weapons?

[JudeObscure84]

Where does it say anything about nuclear weapons?

Where did I say it was going to say something about a nuclear weapon? I changed my stance before because I misquoted Chomsky and appologized for it. The point is that the UN does not trust that Irans nuclear enrichment is for civilian purposes. Neither do Israel nor the US.

[KC]

Where did I say it was going to say something about a nuclear weapon? I changed my stance before because I misquoted Chomsky and appologized for it. The point is that the UN does not trust that Irans nuclear enrichment is for civilian purposes. Neither do Israel nor the US.

I didn't realize that. Thanks.

So all this worry is baseless?

[JudeObscure84]

So all this worry is baseless?

In one sense it is. In another its not. Thats all if you believe the regime can be trusted.

[Enragé]

Both the regime and hizbullah are actually quite trustworthy; they have ideals. Fucked as they may be, they do have them. This means that you can predict what they'll do, and one thing they wont do is nuke the world.

All they want is the US out of the middle east, and Israel to fuck off as well (and they're right), so they can wait for the Imam Mahdi and the apocalypse.
Well i say let them.

What is necessary ofcourse is a revolution over there, but the way towards it is ofcourse not US intervention anywhere..since this will only unite the people behind their leaders...cuz... havent you heard? everyone hates the US ;)