Iran's foreign minister explains international law to Senate Republicans

If they didn't supported Bin Laden, than they wouldn't send money. But they did. It's the same thing with Saddam, he also was a friend of the US.

 

Wow you are so passionate about eliminating our enemies. care to post yourself to Iran lead our military troops into battle ? War mongers in your mind are obviously STRONG men but in fact when impulsive and rushed decisions take over your sanity guess who looks weak. To defeat all enemies you need brains, think strategic, plan ahead, calculate your every move, every step should be tactical, why spill blood when we can achieve the end goal through smarter means. You think launching missiles make us tough? If it's so easy why do you think the Israelis haven't yet? If you ask any Israeli military commander they will probably say we need to get the Americans to do it never mind the 17 trillion debt .we can afford a war we are tough macho grrrr. In the event North Korea attacks the south we can fight them too , Russia too and China too. I noticed you mentioned General Lemay the same insane man who wanted Kennedy to launch tactical nukes on Cuba, at least those missiles in Cuba posed an imminent threat to the United States. I recall Kennedy asking Lemay what the Russian response will be and he said nothing haha yer give me a break. .in the nuclear world the real enemy is war itself both sides lose. Let me be clear I am not a fun of appeasement . I strongly support strong military actions against ISIS but war with Iran ? Prepared to send your kids to do this battle? Or wait you rather someone else ..

 

I doubt you're the sandman and knows what Iranians dream about.

You said that it was Russia and the UK who installed the Shah. I got a source saying the CIA admits being directly involved. That makes me right, and you not so, gramps.

 

The US destroyed a perfectly normal free democracy, to install a ruthless murdering Shah. That is not doing the correct thing. And the American backfired and it turned Iran what it is today.

It's not. Other countries do not support the separatism of the Kurds.

That "capable" army got their ass whooped by IS. And it is the same thing. This is what happens when you start from scratch. They were not able to deal with the sectarian violence, and than IS simply walked all over them.

 

We supported the Afghan mujahidin. The Arab mujahidin contribution to the defeat of the Soviets is stuff of mythology. There were 150,000 afghan fighters and at the most, 2000 arabs fighting the soviets. What was left of the Afghan Mujahideen, became the Northern alliance who defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

 

It's you morons that are an embarassment to our country.

The president is not a king.

Get a clue.................

 

We have an Iranian to tell us.

Learn some history. The Shah was "installed" in 1941 by UK and Russia. He cant be installed a second time in the 50s, when he never stopped being the shah.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Persian: محمد رضا شاه پهلوی; [mohæmˈmæd reˈzɒː ˈʃɒːhe pæhlæˈviː]‎; 26 October 1919 – 27 July 1980) was the king of Iran (Shah of Iran) from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by the Islamic Revolution on 11 February 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

Your source says no such thing. Your source confirms my assertion and directly contradicts yours.

You've just heard the BS so many times, that the US installed the Shah in 1953, that it has become your reality, when it is historical fact that Russia and the UK installed the shah in 1941.

 

And the Iranian ambassador only demonstrated his ignorance regarding International law. He is aware of the general rule regarding treaties, taught in Jr College

and oblivious to the exception taught at University in International Relations 101

If he didn't know before, the letter has now put even him on notice. Our Constitution is an "internal law of fundamental importance" to all but Obama.

 

Of course that I will continue exposing your ignorance on this forum .Saying that the USA didn't support Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is absolutely dishonest. It's not my problem that you cannot comprehend properly and find the information which irrefutably proves that the USA supported Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda in the Balkans. Not only that the Clinton administration supported Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda but they also supported Iranians. A fact. Mr Shindler is an honest American. A real patriot. You are more than welcome to discuss the topic of the U.S support for the Jihadists in the Balkans with him.

John R. Schindler: Unholy Terror
Published January 20, 2015

Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad

http://janolofbengtsson.com/2015/01/20/john-r-schindler-unholy-terror/

 

It is very telling that rather than commenting on the actual topic you resort to insulting others that do so with your extremely limited wit.

What a waste of human brain function.

 

Then why does your best evidence say "support the U.S. government gave to the Bosnian mujahidin – just as had been done with the Afghan mujahidin" as opposed to Al Qaeda. You simpletons simply equate any Muslim who fights, with Al Qaeda.

 

I do not believe we can be, certainly not for much longer. We've expanded our sphere of influence, without doing what any prudent Empire would do: Seize territory. So while our military power projects dominance, insofar as opposition voices to the U.S are silent, they can grow in numbers(much like the Terrorists have done.)

What rag-tag terrorists could do, other Nations across the world can do even more easily and readily. I've no doubt that other Nations have their scientists looking for an edge in order to topple the U.S . And what are you going to do, should these Nations succeed in gaining a tactical advantage over the US? What do you think the payback is going to be for our 'policing the world'?

How many scores of innocent Americans are going to lose their lives, making 9/11 look like a picnic in comparison? Is your solution then to retaliate in turn? So, how are we so different from those we say are irrational actors? Neo-Con policy has us on a collusion course with regional powers, who perhaps by themselves may not be able to topple us, but together they may very well pose that threat.

So, far from securing the world and its peaceful era, you are putting us on course for some of the worst wars in history. Because you believe, or perhaps hope and pray that it'll always be a regional conflict. But human emotions are volatile, all it takes is one bombing, one tragedy to be blamed on the U.S to escalate tensions to a place where you'll never want them.

At that point, my dear Neo-con, disengagement will be a thing of the past. And so too will the U.S as a world power.

 

Source

 

http://mjrosenberg.net/2015/03/09/how-we-know-aipac-wrote-the-treason-letter-to-iran/

How We Know AIPAC Wrote The GOP’s “Treason” Letter To Iran

March 9, 2015

 

From your link:

“Equally fatuous is the letter’s assertion that “future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time”. Congress can nullify the agreement by passing legislation that contradicts it but can’t renegotiate it. And the claim that the next president could “revoke the agreement with the stroke of a pen”, ignores the fact that the Iran nuclear agreement, if signed, will become binding international law through a United Nations Security Council resolution, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has pointed out.”

But, that is not consistent with what John Kerry said:

“With respect to the talks, we’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding’ plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement. We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now. And the Senators’ letter erroneously asserts that this is a legally binding plan, it’s not” (John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4kz3vyGp_s

“Congress has plenary authority to modify or abrogate preexisting executive agreements or treaties for domestic law purposes, and could thus pass legislation reviving tort claims of American hostages and their families against Iran that might be extinguished by an executive agreement with Iran.” (November 13, 1980)
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1980/11/31/op-olc-v004a-p0289.pdf

 

Be that as it may, the article is specifically about that open letter by the 47 GOP Senators to Iran
- the text of which can be ignored HERE. I say this only because the letter became news in and of itself and the article reflects that.

There is so much smoke and mirrors going on about the Iran nuke affair (and the Ukraine war), it seems to me, that the actualite is the principal casualty.

 

Are you for real Dixie?

From the Back Cover:

 

Didn't say primarily, I said the core consists of many deposed Iraqi Baathists.

I am well aware of the sectarian conflicts that have existed in the muslim world since the death of Mo. I am aware that sunnis consider shia as apostates since the shia believe Mo was not the last prophet.

ISIS are apostates by any Islamic measure. The killing of women and children, the killing of children of the book, rape, theft, the list of criminality these scumbags indulge in and that is rejected by Islam is a long one. Calling them Muslims or Islamic merely gives their charade false validity since they are using religion as a cover for their political and criminal aspirations.

 

Im not impressed with an unsubstantiated claim on the back cover of a book, intended to sell books. Especially when inside cover of the book says

Schindler exposes how Osama bin Laden exploited the Bosnian conflict for his own ends and the disturbing level of support the U.S. government gave to the Bosnian mujahidin—just as had been done with the Afghan mujahidin.

 

Rape of captured women and the taking of war booty is specifically provided for in the Koran and hadiths. The killing of women and children could be problematic. But when the Koran was written, killing of women and children required taking your sword and killing them. Death from collateral damage was unheard of.

 

The Qu'ran spends more time assuring men that they can rape slaves and prisoners than telling them to pray 5 times a day.

 

There is so much smoke it is hard to tell what our officials consider is legal with regard to abrogation of agreements... We need better Journalists who know how to pin people down; the Face the Nation interview of Kerry was a joke.

 

but I don't know what that has to do with your claim that the core of ISIS in Iraq is made up of former Iraqi Baathist.

Soooo they are behaving just like Muslims have in the past, since the death of Mo. And that's your evidence they are not Muslims.

The Koran commands them to "fight", "kill" "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until...religion is only for Allah". This "criminality" has been engaged in by Muslims throughout the history of Islam.

Their political aspirations to expand the Caliphate is a fundamental component of Islam.

[5.44] ...whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers.
[5.45] ...whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.
[5.47] ...whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors

Speaking to the authority of the Caliph, Ibn Khaldoon defined it as: "A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it."

Like Al-Mawirdi before him in the 11th century defined it as: "Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia)"

Hassan al-Banna founder of the Muslim Brotherhood said "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and extend its power to the entire planet."

 

the Iranian ambassador only demonstrated his ignorance regarding International law. He is aware of the general rule regarding treaties, taught in Jr College

Article 46
Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties

1) A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent

and oblivious to the exception taught at University in International Relations 101

unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

2) A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.

 

I think there are some really top class journalists out there who would write accurately if they were allowed to, but generally they are not permitted to do so by the editor and/or sub editor, as their "tone" would not be in keeping with the editorial policy of the main media. Ergo, it's not so much the journalists - although many are really terrible - but the proprietors/corporate owners who drive the 'spin'.