# Nuclear Proliferation/Disarmament



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

Should the West (choose one from each pair):

1a. Continue to disarm
1b. Stop disarming

2a. Continue to prevent developing countries from manufacturing nuclear weapons
2b. Stop preventing developing countries from manufacturing nuclear weapons

And regarding your answers, why?


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

The West should stop trying to curb down the advancement of non-Western, the monopoly of technology will inevitably fall for the US.
The West should stop gifting Israel nuclear toys, they are the true terrorist state here.
Europe needs to grow some balls and think of it's own interests.

Fun fact:
Iraq was accused of having mass-destruction weaponry.
Trying to accuse Iran for the same reason as well? Short term memory much?


----------



## thunder999 (Oct 15, 2010)

1: We should keep nuclear weapons as they could be useful.
2: We should prevent others from getting them as the more people with them the more chance of something going wrong and if others have them it diminishes the advantage they provide.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

I think the worry that many have with Iran is that they'd use their nuclear development to fund terrorists. Whether true or not, I don't know, but it is a cause for concern as a nuclear weapon going off in a western city would basically mean a couple of million dead and the end of freedom for the rest


----------



## Einsteinette (Jan 19, 2011)

1a and 2a. I don't think anyone sane will use or agree to use nuclear weapons .


thunder999 said:


> 1: We should keep nuclear weapons as they could be useful.
> 2: We should prevent others from getting them as the more people with them the more chance of something going wrong and if others have them it diminishes the advantage they provide.


When and how can they be useful?
So It's OK if "you" have them but "others" don't?
isn't it better if all parties get rid of them?
don't you think it is morally wrong to use them ?


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

sly said:


> The West should stop trying to curb down the advancement of non-Western, the monopoly of technology will inevitably fall for the US.
> The West should stop gifting Israel nuclear toys, they are the true terrorist state here.
> Europe needs to grow some balls and think of it's own interests.
> 
> ...


Do you think Israel is the terrorist state or the US?

You're describing Operation Iranian Freedom...a cooperative military effort between Israel and the US to install a pro-western government in Iran and secure the flow of oil to the West. The US is obsessed with stabilizing the middle east to stabilize oil flow...it has been for decades. Although I think there are competing and confounding motives beneath the surface.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Popinjay said:


> Do you think Israel is the terrorist state or the US?


The US, they are the ones providing massive aid for the Israeli's, they are the ones VETO'ing Palestine for the bazillionth time, losing ground and possible isolation by the global community. 

On Israel's side, there is a growing number of Jewish civilians that condemn the actions of their government, Netanyahu realizes the potential grave he is digging for himself and had no choice but to give in to Palestine's demands(1000 for 1), *he even encourages* the Palestinians to keep up fighting for justice. This is an excellent example of the huge humanitarian pressure of the global community on Israel's Zion-policies. Although it is a shame that instead of releasing the (illegally) imprisoned children, they released greasy old men.



> You're describing Operation Iranian Freedom...a cooperative military effort between Israel and the US to install a pro-western government in Iran and secure the flow of oil to the West. The US is obsessed with stabilizing the middle east to stabilize oil flow...it has been for decades. Although I think there are competing and confounding motives beneath the surface.


_This will never happen_, energy resources of Iran are managed by strong collaboration with the Russians. +The fact that some nuclear facilities in Iran are built by Russia as gesture of courtesy (but you won't hear the pro-western media talk about that as it will raise awareness for the bigger picture and factors we people wouldn't have considered) and even managed on a shallow scale by Russian scientists.

as for the black gold;
READ:
Iran-China trade relations
People's Republic of China

With these massive numbers, China won't let go of a valuable ally. I have excluded the smaller factors here, but you must realize that Iran's geographical position makes it an excellent trade-country. 

+Iran discards the dollar and other countries are following the example, America is desperately trying to stop a possible domino-effect.

+The leaked documents of the hightech bunker-buster trade between US and Israel has sharpened the defenses of Iran and hostility of Non-Western countries towards the US and Israel. China has in response traded valuable air-defense technology to Iran, for a dirt-cheap price possibly(as their economy has a big pillar resting on Iran).


My predictions is that America will soon realize her true position in the board of chess, along with her true value as piece, it seems like her minions are turning against her, both externally and intern.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

sly said:


> +Iran discards the dollar and other countries are following the example, America is desperately trying to stop a possible domino-effect.


This is why I think military action is inevitable. Saddam started taking Euros for oil and not long after the US had "evidence" of WMD. Iraq takes dollars now. Dollar hegemony is at risk. The rhetoric (that will lead to war) has already started to increase.



sly said:


> +The leaked documents of the hightech bunker-buster trade between US and Israel has sharpened the defenses of Iran and hostility of Non-Western countries towards the US and Israel. China has in response traded valuable air-defense technology to Iran, for a dirt-cheap price possibly(as their economy has a big pillar resting on Iran).


Yeah, but Israel has nukes and will use them. Granted, China and Russia have nukes, but Israel can severely cripple Iran's military all on her own...without help from the US.



sly said:


> My predictions is that America will soon realize her true position in the board of chess, along with her true value as piece, it seems like her minions are turning against her, both externally and intern.


Yeah, but the EU is not going to go against the US. It's more likely a West vs. East eventuality.


----------



## thunder999 (Oct 15, 2010)

Einsteinette said:


> 1a and 2a. I don't think anyone sane will use or agree to use nuclear weapons .
> 
> 
> When and how can they be useful?
> ...


First use: you can threaten people with them.
Second use: if it seems likely that a war would be lost you can obliterate your enemies, so you are never defeated.

They are no more immoral than any other way of killing people.


----------



## Einsteinette (Jan 19, 2011)

thunder999 said:


> They are no more immoral than any other way of killing people.


Nuclear weapons are More immoral than any other weapon. There are lots of long time lasting consequences and effects on human, babies and nature.they should never be used or even mentioned as a threat.


----------



## Strat19 (May 15, 2011)

sly said:


> Although it is a shame that instead of releasing the (illegally) imprisoned children, they released greasy old men.


Illegally imprisoned children? What's your source?
Also, it's worth mentioning that these greasy old men (some of whom charged with mass murder) were chosen by the pal. leadership, not Israel. Wouldn't you expect them to demand the release of innocent children first, if there were any?

Regarding the nukes, no western country will ever use them, and they help keep the third world/islamic dictatorships at bay. Disarming the west would be suicide.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Strat19 said:


> Illegally imprisoned children? What's your source?
> Also, it's worth mentioning that these greasy old men (some of whom charged with mass murder) were chosen by the pal. leadership, not Israel. Wouldn't you expect them to demand the release of innocent children first, if there were any?






> ''DCI has estimated that there have been 2,650 Palestinian child prisoners since the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000.''[15]


 Children in the Israeli
The PDF-file: www.dci-pal.org/english/doc/reports/2004/sep28.pdf title: ''Defence for Children International/Palestine Section''

This is a violation against CRC of the UN convention article 37 and 40. As for the charges, Israel operates a dual legal system for Israelis and Palestinians, with different ages of responsibility and different levels of protection for children” – This is blatantly a discriminatory system, based on the ethnicity of the child, this determines the level of protection that they deserve. 

As for the demand to release the children, various human rights organizations requested their freedom, but apparently, there is a lack of response(or denial).



> Regarding the nukes, no western country will ever use them, and they help keep the third world/islamic dictatorships at bay. Disarming the west would be suicide.


You have made a statement that is impossible to defend, ''no Western country will ever use them'', therefore I disagree.



> ''and they help keep the third world/islamic dictatorships at bay''


I recognize this as the core-stance of the US and Israel.


Let us take a look at the Islamic? dictatorships.
---
-The US has a history of setting up dictator-puppets, (Ngo Dinh Diem)

-The Arab population has sought to free itself from the chains of dictatorship, dictatorships set up and funded by the US.
_''The protesters in Egypt are "upset with us for propping up that dictator for all those years," Paul said, noting that the U.S. has given Egypt close to $70 billion over the course of Mubarak's 30 years in office.'' _
Ron Paul Blasts U.S. for "Propping Up Puppet Dictator" in Egypt - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

-I don't see how these dictatorships have a connection to Islam, there hasn't been a genuine Islamic state for approx 1500years. You could say that the Sharia-law is Islamic, but as long as the Sharia is disconnected from all other Islamic entities or only used in a particular way, it is nothing but a tool of power.
---

As for the third world countries, I had wished that as a 'first-world country', we offered them help and help them becoming self-sufficient, the West does not have any godgiven power to keep ''them'' at check and should mind her own business, we all have the right to exist after all. Second/first-world countries such as Russia and China, they have no problems at all aiding their Islamic neighbors though.

As for the _Islamic Republic of Pakistan_, they posses nuclear warheads and the US is behaving slightly nervous according to this piece of article:


> *Security concerns of the United States*
> 
> *Since 2004 the United States government has reportedly been concerned about the safety of Pakistani nuclear facilities and weapons. Press reports have suggested that the United States has contingency plans to send in special forces to help "secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal".[72][73] Lisa Curtis of The Heritage Foundation giving testimony before the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade concluded that "preventing Pakistan's nuclear weapons and technology from falling into the hands of terrorists should be a top priority for the U.S."[74] However Pakistan's government has ridiculed claims that the weapons are not secure.[72] *
> 
> A report published by _The Times_ in early 2010 states that the U.S. is training an elite unit to recover Pakistani nuclear weapons or materials should they be seized by militants, possibly from within the Pakistani nuclear security organization. This was done in the context of growing Anti-Americanism in the Pakistani Armed Forces, multiple attacks on sensitive installations over the previous 2 years and rising tensions. According to former U.S. intelligence official Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, U.S. concerns are justified because militants have struck at several Pakistani military facilities and bases since 2007. According to this report, the United States does not know the locations of all Pakistani nuclear sites and has been denied access to most of them.[75] However, during a visit to Pakistan in January 2010, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates denied that the United States had plans to take over Pakistan's nuclear weapons.[76]


That's enough info for now.


----------



## Strat19 (May 15, 2011)

sly said:


> Israel operates a dual legal system for Israelis and Palestinians, with different ages of responsibility and different levels of protection for children


Care to elaborate? This is the first time I hear of a dual legal system, so I can't give you an educated reply. Regarding the legality issue, "children" is a broad category. The age of criminal responsibilty in Israel is 12, which makes the imprisonment of child criminals (Pali or Israeli) above that age perfectly legal.



sly said:


> As for the demand to release the children, various human rights organizations requested their freedom


I referred to the palestinian officials responsible for this trade off, who clearly favored convicted murderes, rapists and kidnappers on the children that you claim are illegally imprisoned (illegally, as in below the age of criminal responsibility and/or wrongly convicted). I'm just pointing it out.



sly said:


> You have made a statement that is impossible to defend, ''no Western country will ever use them'', therefore I disagree.


Fair enough.



sly said:


> -The Arab population has sought to free itself from the chains of dictatorship, dictatorships set up and funded by the US.
> _''The protesters in Egypt are "upset with us for propping up that dictator for all those years," Paul said, noting that the U.S. has given Egypt close to $70 billion over the course of Mubarak's 30 years in office.''_


imho, 70 billion in aid and a peace treaty with the most economically developed country in the area should've been worth it for a backwards country like Egypt. Their economy is only going to get worse now, democracy or no. Quite ironic as the economy was why they started protesting to begin with.



sly said:


> -I don't see how these dictatorships have a connection to Islam, there hasn't been a genuine Islamic state for approx 1500years. You could say that the Sharia-law is Islamic, but as long as the Sharia is disconnected from all other Islamic entities or only used in a particular way, it is nothing but a tool of power.


Every other country in the middle east (i.e. Iran) names itself "The Islamic Republic of xxxx", practices sharia law and is ruled by a dictator. Make of that what you will.



sly said:


> As for the third world countries, I had wished that as a 'first-world country', we offered them help and help them becoming self-sufficient, the West does not have any godgiven power to keep ''them'' at check and should mind her own business, we all have the right to exist after all. Second/first-world countries such as Russia and China, they have no problems at all aiding their Islamic neighbors though.


Keeping them at check and helping them become self sufficient are two completely different matters. You can't let unstable theocracies handle nuclear weapons.
It's a very complicated issue, which I don't have the energy to even begin to discuss. Maybe later.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Strat19 said:


> Care to elaborate? This is the first time I hear of a dual legal system, so I can't give you an educated reply. Regarding the legality issue, "children" is a broad category. The age of criminal responsibilty in Israel is 12, which makes the imprisonment of child criminals (Pali or Israeli) above that age perfectly legal.


 The differences between the imprisonment of Palestinians and Israeli is as different as the sun and the moon. Before we continue, please add a source to every statement you make, to keep things practical. Israel's actions in relation to the treatment of minors – cuffing, shackling, physical abuse, denial of access to legal representation and the widespread use of custodial sentences - represent serious breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN Convention against Torture and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As for not being aware of this juridical system, The military courts may not be as visible as the wall, the destroyed homes or the check points, but those that have experienced them will testify that they are just as depraved a tool as any in this brutal occupation. There are rumors of cases of kids as old as 5 getting handcuffed and carried away, but the youngest I have ever witnessed would be a 7 year old getting beaten up by soldiers and sent away. The interesting part however, is the ''moderate torture'' allowed on the ''criminally responsible suspects''. Very disturbing.


> *Accusations of human rights abuses*
> 
> The IDF has been accused by several organisations of abusing Palestinian prisoners.[23][24][25]
> In a July 2003 report by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) that was presented to the UN Human Rights Committee, it was noted that "Israel does not recognize Palestinian prisoners as having the status of prisoners of war."[5] In practice, it is the Israeli military that controls the conditions of detention and the administrative detention system allows for the imprisonment of an individual for up to 6 months, and this detention can be extended without the approval of a judge.[5] The FIDH report also notes that, "In the case of administrative detention, the necessary conditions for the execution of a fair trial are far from being achieved given that the lawyers do not even have access to the evidence."[5]
> ...


Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*Palestinian*_prisoners_in_Israel



> I referred to the palestinian officials responsible for this trade off, who clearly favored convicted murderes, rapists and kidnappers on the children that you claim are illegally imprisoned (illegally, as in below the age of criminal responsibility and/or wrongly convicted). I'm just pointing it out.


If you don't mind, I would like to see a report of this from an organization that is nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and independent of any government. This comment does leak a personal resentment on Palestinians however(- or a heavily distorted view on reality?).



> Fair enough.


:kitteh:


> imho, 70 billion in aid and a peace treaty with the most economically developed country in the area should've been worth it for a backwards country like Egypt. Their economy is only going to get worse now, democracy or no. Quite ironic as the economy was why they started protesting to begin with.


I beg to differ, but giving you argument won't do much, time will be our teacher. I hope that things will turn out less disastrous as I think they will turn out.

Time will be our teacher.


> Every other country in the middle east (i.e. Iran) names itself "The Islamic Republic of xxxx", practices sharia law and is ruled by a dictator. Make of that what you will.


the Middle-East is full with power-hungry rats that take every opportunity to seize people by implementing sharia for a bad cause. The sharia itself however, is not so bad, even though it has some(or many) key-differences with a Western democracy, but we should not judge other systems in an egocentric way but accept differences.


> Keeping them at check and helping them become self sufficient are two completely different matters. You can't let unstable theocracies handle nuclear weapons.
> It's a very complicated issue, which I don't have the energy to even begin to discuss. Maybe later.


 It is hypocritical to call other systems unstable while there is a growing protest going on in our backyard. :wink:

What is your stance on this @Shahada? Your view of point is always valued.


----------



## Valiums (Aug 29, 2010)

Einsteinette said:


> Nuclear weapons are More immoral than any other weapon. There are lots of long time lasting consequences and effects on human, babies and nature.they should never be used or even mentioned as a threat.


Watch out for that slippery slope you're building; if something is "more immoral", than surely something is "less immoral" and "more acceptable".


----------



## Einsteinette (Jan 19, 2011)

Valiums said:


> Watch out for that slippery slope you're building; if something is "more immoral", than surely something is "less immoral" and "more acceptable".


I guess you're right, a nuclear bomb is as immoral as a gun ...


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

sly said:


> What is your stance on this @Shahada? Your view of point is always valued.


Well since you asked  I'm not totally sure what aspect of the discussion here you're asking me about, but I tend to agree with you for the most part. Your analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I think is pretty on the mark. 

As for the general nuclear proliferation discussion which seems to have as usual centered around Iran, I think it is certainly true that this is mostly a puffed up scare tactic. However, I am not really very sure that the scaremongering is meant to prepare the US populace for an attack on the country. I think there may be some elements in the US government that would like such a thing to happen and are pushing it to the best of their ability, but there's also a lot of people opposed to it. Not because they love Iran so much but for realistic reasons: The US military is horribly overstretched and even without nuclear weapons, Iran has a nuclear economic bomb in the form of the Strait of Hormuz. If the US attacks Iran or gives Israel a green light to, closing this strait would put a stranglehold on the world economy, and with it already in very precarious shape this would be very bad for a lot of very powerful people. Not to mention the Iranians could seriously complicate US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan should they decide it is a good use of their time and money. So I think the US wants to use this rhetoric to isolate Iran, bully Iran, and try to bend Iran to its will as best it can. "Nuclear proliferation" is a good centerpiece because it is such an effective boogeyman, gives a "reasonable" veneer to US bullying, and also allows the US to covertly attack Iran's burgeoning non-fossil fuel based energy sector. But on the other hand the Iranians are aware of their limitations, which is why Iran often comes off as so bold and defiant I think: They know they're holding at least a couple of aces and don't think the US will call their bluff. I suspect they're right. 

Of course, I'm not saying an attack could never happen, dumber things have happened in history. But I really doubt it. I think an Iraq style invasion and occupation is pretty much completely out of the question for practical concerns if nothing else.


----------



## Strat19 (May 15, 2011)

sly said:


> The differences between the imprisonment of Palestinians and Israeli is as different as the sun and the moon...


That's very disturbing, and I won't even attempt to defend these interrogation methods, but keep in mind that *all* countries use such methods (and worse) when dealing with individuals who threaten homeland security (and unfortunately, minors can sometimes pose such a threat, particularly in the complicated reality that is the Israel-Pal conflict).

On a side note, since you mentioned it, the wall: it's a necessity. If there had been no suicide bombings coming out of the west bank to begin with, Israel wouldn't have needed it.
Israeli West Bank barrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



sly said:


> If you don't mind, I would like to see a report of this from an organization that is nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and independent of any government. This comment does leak a personal resentment on Palestinians however(- or a heavily distorted view on reality?).


My comment doesn't leak of anything but objectivity  
I'm too lazy to look up a report for you, but if you're implying that the accusations are false, I encourage you to look up some of the names of the freed prisoners. Most of them don't deny, and are actually proud of having murdered (or assisted the murder of) Israeli *civilians*.



sly said:


> The Middle-East is full with power-hungry rats that take every opportunity to seize people by implementing sharia for a bad cause. The sharia itself however, is not so bad, even though it has some(or many) key-differences with a Western democracy, but we should not judge other systems in an egocentric way but accept differences.


Not so bad in your eyes, but I think you'll find quite a few flogged Saudi girls who will beg to differ 

Check out this article. It lists 10 sharia laws, some of which involve hand cutting, mutilation, wife beating, stoning people to death and the execution of homosexuals.
It's no mere cultural difference, it's probably the most inhuman and illogical moral and legal system in existence nowadays. imho, it shouldn't even be allowed to exist (pardon my INFP moment).



sly said:


> It is hypocritical to call other systems unstable while there is a growing protest going on in our backyard. :wink:


Not so much, considering that our protests aren't against a form of government; the arab ones are. They're literally dying to replace their existing forms of government with democracy. I agree that no form of government can be completely stable, but democracy is (by far) the least unstable one.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Strat19 said:


> That's very disturbing, and I won't even attempt to defend these interrogation methods, but keep in mind that *all* countries use such methods (and worse) when dealing with individuals who threaten homeland security (and unfortunately, minors can sometimes pose such a threat, particularly in the complicated reality that is the Israel-Pal conflict).



I will introduce a basic article from the International Law of Torture.



> *
> International law of torture:*
> *“[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” [115] An essential feature of Article 3 is that it is non-derogable: in no circumstance can torture or cruel and inhuman treatment be excused or tolerated for any reason.*


Israel:


> Israel was among the first countries to legalize torture against political prisoners that it labeled terrorists. In Israel, these prisoners are Palestinians who have been detained for some level of resistance activity against Israel. They may or may not have been plotting or engaged in terrorist groups, plans or activities.
> In 1987, the Israeli courts legalized "moderate physical pressure" against detainees. In September 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court outlawed six interrogation practices including violent shaking and sleep deprivation.
> According to Human Rights Watch, Israel also sanctions "exceptional interrogation means in "ticking time bomb," scenarios, cases where it is believed that a suspect has information that will forestall an attack.


Followed by:


> The *United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict*, known as the *Goldstone Report*, was a team established in April 2009 by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) during the Gaza War (January 2009) as an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in the Palestinian territories, particularly the Gaza Strip, in connection with Gaza War.[1] South African jurist Richard Goldstone was appointed to head the mission.[1][2]
> Israel refused to cooperate with the report, which was released on September 15, 2009. The report accused both Israel Defense Forces and Palestinian militants of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. It recommended that the sides openly investigate their own conduct and if they failed to do so, to bring the allegations to the International Criminal Court.[3][4] The government of Israel rejected the report as prejudiced and full of errors, and also sharply rejected the charge that it had a policy of deliberately targeting civilians.[5] The militant Islamic group Hamas initially rejected some of the report's findings,[6] but then urged world powers to embrace it.[7]


United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> On a side note, since you mentioned it, the wall: it's a necessity. If there had been no suicide bombings coming out of the west bank to begin with, Israel wouldn't have needed it.
> Israeli West Bank barrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There are a few things wrong with your source and statement:

1): source number 35 does not exist, possible hoax, but invalid nevertheless.
2): Invalid argument (_non sequitur)
_3): The irony_ is that the wiki page is full with legal opposition against the Barrier:
_


> *Human rights organizations*
> 
> Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other Human rights groups have protested both the routing of the wall and the means by which the land to build the wall was obtained.[83] In a 2004 report Amnesty International wrote that "The fence/wall, in its present configuration, violates Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law."[84]





> *World council of churches *
> 
> On February 20, 2004 the World Council of Churches demanded that Israel halt and reverse construction on the barrier and strongly condemned "violations of human rights and humanitarian consequences" that resulted from the construction of the barrier.





> *The Red Cross*
> 
> *The Red Cross has declared the barrier in violation of the Geneva Convention. On February 18, 2004, The International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the Israeli barrier "causes serious humanitarian and legal problems" and goes "far beyond what is permissible for an occupying power".[82]*





> My comment doesn't leak of anything but objectivity
> I'm too lazy to look up a report for you, but if you're implying that the accusations are false, I encourage you to look up some of the names of the freed prisoners. Most of them don't deny, and are actually proud of having murdered (or assisted the murder of) Israeli *civilians*.


I wouldn't be too surprised of all the confessions these prisoners make. Torture me and I will confess mass-murder and alien invasions.




> Not so bad in your eyes, but I think you'll find quite a few flogged Saudi girls who will beg to differ


_Though the Torah prescribes the death penalty for adultery, the legal procedural requirements were very exacting and required the testimony of two witnesses of good character for conviction. The defendant also must have been warned immediately before performing the act.[37]_
Adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamic Shariah Courts in Nigeria evoked worldwide condemnation and protest and debate recently in sentencing some Muslim women and men to death by stoning _(rajm)_ upon conviction for _zina._ Perhaps only Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia have this law on their books.[42] However, stoning as punishment for sexual sin is not prescribed in the Qur'an, but is prescribed in the hadith—oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Prophet Muhammad. The only punishment with regards to illegal intercourse mentioned in the Quran is for the fornicator and not the adulterer and it is one hundred lashes and restriction of future marriage to another fornicator or the partner in the act.[42]
Adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Check out this article. It lists 10 sharia laws, some of which involve hand cutting, mutilation, wife beating, stoning people to death and the execution of homosexuals.
> It's no mere cultural difference, it's probably the most inhuman and illogical moral and legal system in existence nowadays. imho, it shouldn't even be allowed to exist (pardon my INFP moment).


I prefer non-biased material. 

''american thinker''

spare me.


> Not so much, considering that our protests aren't against a form of government; the arab ones are.


There are plenty of protest videos on the net, contra-zion vs ultra-zion. humanitarian movements vs soldiers. Etc. Although I do not recommend any Jewish civilian to protest against the government, you will pay a high price for doing so, considering the torture law.



> They're literally dying to replace their existing forms of government with democracy. I agree that no form of government can be completely stable, but democracy is (by far) the least unstable one.


That is true, although a mild dictatorship is what works best for a poor country with a high illiteracy quotient. Democracy is something that works best for refined civilians with a higher median in education.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Double post, my bad.

@_Strat19

_Feel free to reply any time_.
_


----------



## Strat19 (May 15, 2011)

sly said:


> I will introduce a basic article from the International Law of Torture.
> 
> Israel:
> Followed by:
> United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sure, but here's the catch: it seems like only western countries are judged by the standards of international law. Israel's overrepresentation in UN violations is a farce... it's only possible because it *allows* international scrutiny, contrary to many arab and third world countries that are somehow never in violation of international law, even though they commit crimes way more horrendous.



sly said:


> 1): source number 35 does not exist, possible hoax, but invalid nevertheless.
> 2): Invalid argument (_non sequitur)_
> 3): The irony_ is that the wiki page is full with legal opposition against the Barrier:_


Your first argument is completely irrelevant, my point is clearly illustrated in sources 33 and 34 ("_Israeli statistics indicate that the barrier has substantially reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians in Israel and in Israeli settlements, and Israeli officials assert that completion of the barrier will make it even more effective in stopping these attacks[33] since "An absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed_[34]").

I wasn't claiming that the wall was legal according to international law, only stated a fact (or an opinion, if you will, though I fail to see why Israel would need the wall for reasons other than reducing the number of suicide bombings and infiltrations).



sly said:


> I wouldn't be too surprised of all the confessions these prisoners make. Torture me and I will confess mass-murder and alien invasions.


They're out of prison now though, if they were framed I'd expect them to deny the accusations once they're safe and snug in gaza. AFAIK, none of them has thus far.
But that aside, there have been many confirmed cases of pali hate crimes (I hate the phrase "terror attacks", it's overused) against Israeli civilans. Have a look here.



sly said:


> _Though the Torah prescribes the death penalty for adultery, the legal procedural requirements were very exacting and required the testimony of two witnesses of good character for conviction. The defendant also must have been warned immediately before performing the act.[37]_
> Adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What does the Torah have to do with anything?



sly said:


> Islamic Shariah Courts in Nigeria evoked worldwide condemnation and protest and debate recently in sentencing some Muslim women and men to death by stoning _(rajm)_ upon conviction for _zina._ Perhaps only Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia have this law on their books.[42] However, stoning as punishment for sexual sin is not prescribed in the Qur'an, but is prescribed in the hadith—oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Prophet Muhammad. The only punishment with regards to illegal intercourse mentioned in the Quran is for the fornicator and not the adulterer and it is one hundred lashes and restriction of future marriage to another fornicator or the partner in the act.[42]
> Adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It seems like you're in a minority... other sharia supporters (including the 4 countries you've mentioned) seem to follow their own interpretations of the quran, and tend to include stoning, maiming and the other goodies in their state law.



sly said:


> I prefer non-biased material.


Sharia law | World news | guardian.co.uk
_"Within sharia law, there is a specific set of offences known as the Hadd offences. These are crimes punished by specific penalties, such as stoning, lashes or the severing of a hand. The penalties for Hadd offences are not universally adopted as law in Islamic countries. _
_Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws._
_Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand."_



sly said:


> Although I do not recommend any Jewish civilian to protest against the government, you will pay a high price for doing so, considering the torture law.


lol



sly said:


> That is true, although a mild dictatorship is what works best for a poor country with a high illiteracy quotient. Democracy is something that works best for refined civilians with a higher median in education.


Aye, that's why I think the Egyptians would've been better off with Mubarak. They want democracy though, I hope it won't come back to bite them in the ass when (if?) the muslim brotherhood takes over.

P.S.
we totally derailed this thread.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

Strat19 said:


> P.S. we totally derailed this thread.


It's all good...your debate has proved far more interesting. Please continue.


----------



## Dov (Oct 23, 2011)

I almost forgot how much I like debating.
I prefer not to get into this one, though, because I fear it will never end if I do (I'm Israeli).

Back to the original issue then:
Israel maintains a policy of "vagueness" (that's how we call it here) since the 60's. There is a reason to do so if you posses nuclear weapons, but in Israel's case there's also a reason to do so if you don't - because you want your enemies to think you do, without proving it to them.
I think that in the 60's or 70's Israel didn't really posses nuclear weapons. But with this policy of vagueness, and with the entire world believing we do, we had the time to quietly and easily manufacture it.

Anyway, in the end it is just a question of interests. It's Israel's interest to prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons, so obviously there's a conflict. As an Israeli, I can say why I believe Iran shouldn't posses nuclear weapons, but I don't know if I can justify my own country's possession of nuclear weapons... Perhaps there _is_ no moral justification, but right now it's for our interest.


----------

