"Sorry, Mahmoud, that really is just 'yellow cake.' Now eat your dessert and wash up for prayers."

Posted by: Shinoliite at May 12, 2006 1:09 PM

BILL WILSON/MONTANA NEWS: To rebuild its once-powerful military, Russia is well into a strategy to raise money by arming and equipping counterbalances to the United States by selling weapons, nuclear capable missiles and nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and, yes, even China, all enemies of either the United States and Israel. Bible prophecy is clear that a powerful nation from the North of Israel will bring the nations of Northern Africa and Persia against the nation of Israel which will launch the Great Tribulation and the rise of the anti-Christ. This battle is characterized in Ezekiel 38. In verse 16, the Lord says, “And you shall come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring you against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in you, O Gog, before their eyes.” “Gog,” by most accounts, is Russia. And God’s hook appears to be already in Russia’s jaw. Putin’s words and actions are proof. But do not fear because redemption is near.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 12, 2006 1:12 PM

I wonder if the traces were found in some sort of a dual use facility that makes pharmacuticals or baby formula...HMMM?

Do you suppose this has anything to do with the constant drum beat we hear about there being no WMD's found in Iraq, so any effort to find WMD in a err...peaceful nuclear technology development progam for electrical generation only would be thwarted? Or am I too suspicious of Iranian intentions?

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at May 12, 2006 1:21 PM

It has been known for some time that Iran has distributed its nuclear program through out the country to avoid detection and destruction. All that has paid off for them if they have achieved weapons grade uranium. And for the West we may have just slipped past the eleventh hour into countdown mode...

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at May 12, 2006 1:35 PM

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/current_time.htm

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 1:46 PM

tgusa

I checked out that link. The date of the article is February 27, 2002. Did someone forget to wind the clock?

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at May 12, 2006 1:51 PM

"adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms"

OF COURSE THEY'RE HIDING THEIR ACTIVITIES -- WATCH WHAT THEY "DO", NOT WHAT THEY "SAY"!!!!!

Posted by: champ at May 12, 2006 1:52 PM

On April 12, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, "Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" said Iran was 4-5 years from producing weapons-grade enriched uranium.

On April 13, 2006, Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation said Iran was 16 days away.

29 days later we're starting to find it. I hope Mr. Cirincione's official Middle East Expert (tm) credentials have been revoked, however temporarily. And where does Carnegie get their funding from?

Posted by: special_guest at May 12, 2006 1:53 PM

The clock is either 6 minutes slow or being run by a dhimmi.

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 1:54 PM

tgusa

Did they send all their Cesium to Iran?

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at May 12, 2006 1:57 PM

ShortBoard Surfer..LOL

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 2:00 PM

tgusa said

The clock is either 6 minutes slow or being run by a dhimmi.

Reading the article, it is talking about the danger of the U.S. and Russian weapons. In one sentence, they mention in passing that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are seeking nuclear weapons (and it then tells us how North Korea is willing to negotiate if we would just stop being so belligerent towards them).

Uhh, I gotta go with (b), "run by a dhimmi".

Posted by: special_guest at May 12, 2006 2:03 PM

In one sentence, they mention in passing that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are seeking nuclear weapons (and it then tells us how North Korea is willing to negotiate if we would just stop being so belligerent towards them).

It really is unbelieveable that these people are supposed to have a working human brain.

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 2:10 PM

yes john kerry you are right,russia will save the world........ Abu Mazen to Meet With Russian President Putin

(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is scheduled to meet next week with Russian President Vladimir Putin, reportedly to raise pressing issues pertaining to the fiscal crisis in the PA.

While visiting in Moscow, Abu Mazen is expected to request financial aid from the Russian leader.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 12, 2006 2:14 PM

Does it ever occur to these people to question what Iran is doing with all that uranium isotope 238 that's left after separating out the isotope 235? The stuff that makes up a little over 97% of the uranium pulled out of the ground? The stuff that is used in a breeder reactor to make PLUTONIUM?

Apparently not.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 12, 2006 2:19 PM

When Pakistan, India, and North Korea produced their first weapons, they did a test detonation to notify the world that it was too late, a fait accompli, a done deal, and they now have the ability to retaliate with WMD's if anyone tried to interfere.

I wonder why Iran has not, yet. Did their provocative statements get ahead of their production capabilities? Or do they have something else in mind for a test detonation?

It's too bad that Bush has said that it is not feasible to search all the cargo containers coming into the U.S. I have a feeling that a certain shipment coming from Iran may contain something other than olives and hummus.

BTW, Hugh has been quiet of late. Is he on a well-deserved vacation (are there many sunny beaches in Undisclosedville)? Or a clandestine assignment, perhaps?

Posted by: special_guest at May 12, 2006 2:28 PM

storeagemanager l often hear about that end of times sceneario, with the good guys winning in the end.. but lots are going to die. scary though, you can see how the countries line up for this big one.

Posted by: Lulu at May 12, 2006 2:35 PM

traces of highly enriched uranium

Hmmm, now let me see.

U238 is naturally occuring but is not capable of sustaining fission and only 0.72% of the isotopes that can sustain fisson are the U235 variety needed for...er...."peaceful" purposes.

Highly enriched Uranium means that about 20% of the mass of the Uranium on hand is made up of the relatively rare U235 stuff -- and that is only possible through isotope separation.

A very expensive and difficult achievement to say the least.

Put another way, 99.28% of Uranium is U238 and won't sustain fission. (Otherwise, naturally occuring mushroom clouds would rise up all over the planet being initiated by thermal energy alone)

But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Therefore, do you suppose that there is a possiblilty that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program?

As is obvious to the most casual observer, the answer to that question is an emphatic -- nahhh, it couldn't be!

Posted by: witness at May 12, 2006 2:36 PM

I have not read any news so frightening in years.

chsw

Posted by: chsw at May 12, 2006 2:45 PM

Special_Guest says

It's too bad that Bush has said that it is not feasible to search all the cargo containers coming into the U.S. I have a feeling that a certain shipment coming from Iran may contain something other than olives and hummus

I just read on Drudge that Pres Bush may use the National Guard on the borders. STOP THAT ILLEGAL HUMMUS !!!!

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at May 12, 2006 2:47 PM

chsw,
Boy do I long for the good old days when all I had to worry about was 1000 or so Soviet warheads targeted in my general direction.

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 2:51 PM

chsw,
Boy do I long for the good old days when all I had to worry about was 1000 or so Soviet warheads targeted in my general direction

Me too. At least the Soviets weren't eager to die in a nuclear war that they initiated.

Those good old days when your enemies were sane -- are over.

Posted by: witness at May 12, 2006 2:57 PM

tgusa said

"Boy do I long for the good old days when all I had to worry about was 1000 or so Soviet warheads targeted in my general direction."

I second that. At least they were predictible. imadinnerjacket is crazier than a shiitehouse rat, what with his glowing, blue auras and the 12 imman crawling out of a hole in the ground. This whole thing sounds like an H.P. Lovecraft story.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at May 12, 2006 3:00 PM

This whole thing sounds like an H.P. Lovecraft story.

I agree. But who could make this stuff up!?

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 3:06 PM

Time for a reality check:

Aheminjhad says: "we are not seeking to build weapons of mass destruction."

What do we find? weapons grade plutonium which is not supposed to be there in Iran.

Facit: He is a liar. A stinking liar.

Fact: The Shihab 4 rockets - range, circa 2,500 KM,are already in production. This is why Aheminidjahd has been stalling for time. He wants the Shihab 4s up and running while the Shihab 5s go through the prototype phase.

FACT: When the Shihab 5s go into production - they will have a range of circa 4,500 KM, which changes the entire ballgame in this part of the world. This means that Berlin, London, Paris, Rome, Prague, Warsaw, Belgrade, Athens, Madrid are all potential targets. Time for Europe to wake up and see the threat right at it's front (or back, if you will) Door.

FACT: He openly declares that Israel should be wiped off the map. People of good conscience are appalled. Most muslims clap for him.

FACIT: Muslims who cheer him on are therefore not of good conscience. Therefore I see no reason to be nice to them. I do, however, have about 3,000 good reasons to make sure that they (jihadists) never get a chance to hit us again.

END FACIT: Just as with Adolph Hitler, if we go to sleep and ignore him or try to appease him, if we waste time trying to "understand" him, he will do exactly what he says he is going to do. Hitler's MEIN KAMPF was the most unread and most ignored bestseller of the 1930s. Good Lord, if only more people had actually read the stuff and paid attention to the signs of the times.... Aheminidjhad is making it much easier for us in the Internet age - he is spouting his personal MEIN KAMPF out of his mouth 24/7. All we have to do is hear and pay attention to the signs of the times.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of such tyrannical maniacs. Enough is enough.

If push comes to shove, then I say: Nuke 'em.

(And btw, I am not a neocon, I am a moderate and I voted for Kerry...so don't anyone come at me with that "liberals are traitors" junk. Most of us moderates are starting to get the same suspicions that you have here on this website)

Posted by: bonncaruso at May 12, 2006 3:09 PM

More like a hideous Stephen King novel come to life.

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 3:10 PM

bonncaruso says ...so don't anyone come at me with that "liberals are traitors" junk.

On this website we're all fellow Infidels with targets painted on our backs.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at May 12, 2006 3:18 PM

Yes, U-238 does not sustain fission. However, surround a neutron source with U-238 with heavy water (water containing the deuterium isotope of hydrogen) to slow down the neutrons, you get uranium-239 by slow-neutron capture. U-239 is not stable. Two neutrons decay, producing two protons and two beta particles. Now you have Pu-239.

Bomb fuel. Same stuff used to incinerate Nagasaki. Made the same way since the 1940's.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 12, 2006 3:18 PM

Most of us moderates are starting to get the same suspicions that you have here on this website

Posted by: bonncaruso at May 12, 2006 03:09 PM

Glad you are starting to tune in to what is happening. The problem is way too many on the left still think the war against Islam is something dreamed up by the Neocons. The sad fact is they have been at war with us for 1400 years.

Even the Bush presidency still seems to think that Islam is a religion of peace. We need leaders that recognize the threat and respond accordingly.

Robert Spencer for President, Hugh Fitzgerald for secretary of state and Michael Savage for secretary of defence. :-)

Posted by: km at May 12, 2006 3:27 PM

Alarmed_Pig_Farmer for Sec. of Agriculture

Naseem for court jester.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at May 12, 2006 3:32 PM

scary though, you can see how the countries line up for this big one.

Posted by: Lulu yes it is,but i always think of the people in the twin towers on 9-11.they never knew jets were about to take their lives.we must warn the ones who dont see the danger comming,or live with the fact we saw the wolf and said nothing.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 12, 2006 3:35 PM

bonncaruso wrote..
Most of us moderates are starting to get the same suspicions that you have here on this website.

i consider myself a moderate all until anyone threatens our way of life. Then, all bets are off. there are 2 types of moderate right now, those who fully understand the truth as it exists today and those who have yet to fully understand.
Welcome to the former!

Posted by: tgusa at May 12, 2006 3:39 PM

That glow around Ahmadinejad is radiation, not a holy aura. He was probably playing with his new toy. With luck he will die quick from the exposure.

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at May 12, 2006 3:46 PM

Short board surfer:

LOL!

Posted by: km at May 12, 2006 3:50 PM

Yes, U-238 does not sustain fission. However, surround a neutron source with U-238 with heavy water (water containing the deuterium isotope of hydrogen) to slow down the neutrons, you get uranium-239 by slow-neutron capture. U-239 is not stable. Two neutrons decay, producing two protons and two beta particles. Now you have Pu-239.

Bomb fuel. Same stuff used to incinerate Nagasaki. Made the same way since the 1940's.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 12, 2006 03:18 PM

This is absolutely correct. That is why we should be concerned even if Iran did not have "enriched Uranium" -- as I believe you have pointed out already.

It is with profound obtuseness that so-called experts can find "enriched uranium" and are unable to connect the dots as to how the situation came to be and what it ultimately implies.

Or is it rather -- wanton and willfull ignornace. How is it that people can deny the existence of the biggest [expletive delete] white elephant residing in their own living rooms?

Especially, when that pachyderm is standing on their broken, and crumpled little toes!

Posted by: witness at May 12, 2006 3:51 PM

left,right black or right.....if only americans would think like americans.stuff the labels and face the danger,we might win.but left is half,as is right.we need a whole.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 12, 2006 4:07 PM

I wish we could get our hands on some of this stuff. If there was a way to measure isotope ratios or some other way to get a "signature" of where this stuff came from... I have a feeling that the signature would show that it came from Pakistan or N. Korea.

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at May 12, 2006 4:24 PM

ShortboardSurfer said

I just read on Drudge that Pres Bush may use the National Guard on the borders.

And this from the Administration that informs the Mexican government where the Minutemen are located so the illegal aliens can avoid them.

Aye yi yi.

BTW, I answered my own question about Hugh's absence; I was just on the wrong thread, he's present and accounted for.

Posted by: special_guest at May 12, 2006 4:31 PM

"Naseem for court jester" ....LOL

Naseem suffers from MPD (multiple personality disorder), so "court jester" is but one of the many hats she wears beneath that burqa!

Posted by: champ at May 12, 2006 4:37 PM

I have a question......after the heavy water is used and the nuclear stuff goes bad and it's time to get rid of the "old" stuff......where do you put it???

I guess nuclear waste is what I'm talking about. Is there nuclear waste from enriching all this?

If there is, are they smart enough to contain it there or will they just dump it in the ocean?

Posted by: freewoman at May 12, 2006 5:27 PM

And I'm still not so sure if they realize what the aftermath of a nuclear bomb would be.

I just don't think these people are smart enough to have a weapon like this. Besides the fact their religion is not stable, THEY aren't stable.

I just don't think they've given thought of what a nuclear winter or the fallout would do to the entire area. What good would it do them if they have a leak like Chernobyl and can't even live there for say 25,000 years.

These people go nuts over a stupid cartoon. Imagine what would happen if their neighbor just spoke a wrong word.

Some people are too stupid to live.

Posted by: freewoman at May 12, 2006 5:37 PM

" Over here..over here..bring the basket..I have found more.."

Posted by: pismopal at May 12, 2006 6:55 PM

I just don't think these people are smart enough to have a weapon like this. Besides the fact their religion is not stable, THEY aren't stable.

Oh they're smart enough alright.

They have the best American Phd's and post-doctorates in Nuclear Physics & Chemistry from the top American Universities that Amercian taxpayers can buy.

The only idiots I'm sorry to say, are the one's who so gleefully paid for their education at the same time they so eagerly denied the same opportunites to their own kids.

Yeah, saddle em with student loans they'll never be able to pay off; let em work their way through college by washing dishes and mowing lawns. The foreign guests will just have to get grants!

LOL!

As Blondie said to Tuco in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:" -- "God's not on our side Tuco; He hates idiots."

Posted by: witness at May 12, 2006 7:35 PM

Is there nuclear waste from enriching all this?

If there is, are they smart enough to contain it there or will they just dump it in the ocean?

Plenty of waste; I don't think its the ocean is where they plan on dumping it. Perhaps, someone elses city.

Posted by: witness at May 12, 2006 7:40 PM

the leaders of iran are waiting for the 12th imam and the islamic jesus.then the islamic republic of iran can rule the world.and people wonder if they have thought this out.is it just me or is that a silly question?

Posted by: storagemanager at May 12, 2006 7:55 PM

storagemanager -

No, this is not a silly question, this is a very serious question; and I share your concern.

I've heard of the 12th Imam, but who is the Islamic Jesus?

Posted by: champ at May 12, 2006 8:09 PM

Some people here seem to have advanced physics knowledge.
Can anyone answer this ?
I've seen on the news that some of Iran's nuclear preparation looks very ameteurish. It looks like theyre making home brew in a garage.
What are the chances of them blowing themselves up by prematurely putting the wrong things together as they often do with conventional bombs in Palestine? ( and therefore saving us the trouble )
Of course the West would get blamed.
Which leads me to a 2nd thought. as we will get blamed anyhow can we send in one of our guys with a fake beard and a briefcase with a timer which he leaves in a locker at Teheran Central or buried in a sand dune near Iminadinnerjacket's crib or one of their garage labs. Then catches the 1st flight out before the timer hit 12 .

Posted by: protestcat at May 12, 2006 9:40 PM

re prev. post
You can tell I've read a lot of Spy vs Spy comics in MAD magazine,
So I know my stuff.

Posted by: protestcat at May 12, 2006 9:44 PM

I have not read any news so frightening in years.
Posted by: chsw at May 12, 2006 02:45 PM
+++++++++++++++++=

How about the dems winning the presidency, the senate and the house??????????????

Posted by: Texican at May 12, 2006 10:00 PM

This might be a stretch regarding this thread, but interesting article regarding Iran, Pakistan and using nukes on Israel:

inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/05/iran-asked-pak-army-for-nuclea/

Posted by: amana39 at May 12, 2006 10:05 PM

Interesting what is lost in all this, the U.N. has this info (and how much more?) and it was given out in a hidden manner.

And the U.N. knows, but STILL can't see fit to sanction Iran, or even draft a letter, anything?

We should stay at th U.N. only to secure it's inaction on all issues that serve our enemys.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at May 12, 2006 11:03 PM

No hi, no hello, no nothing...

When I saw naked cartoons of a God's Messenger (P.B.U.H.) in one of the links posted on this site, I decided I will never come back to this website. But, still I came here to point out two things.
Firstly, I would like aware "Kate US" that I had made a complete reply (about 210 KB) to his "comment" in the article "D.C. Watson: All it took was a cartoon," but, I could not make a comment at that article. Either I have been deprived of posting more in that article or the comments have reached their maximum limit. Anywayz, I don't want to re-discuss all those issues here.
Secondly, I just came for posting the truth of the Iranian problem... It's an article by David Morrison, a citizen who does not blindly follow his government... That's all! Don't expect me to be coming back for reading or posting comments.

Q: Is Iran breaking the NPT?
A: No, but the US/EU are
by David Morrison
1 May 2006, Labour & Trade Union Review

Available at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/irannot.pdf

FULL TEXT IS GIVEN BELOW:-
----------------------------------------------

Q: Is Iran breaking the NPT?
A: No, but the US/EU are
by David Morrison

“Under NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] rules, there is nothing illegal about any state having enrichment or reprocessing technology – processes that are basic to the production and recycling of nuclear reactor fuel – even though these operations can also produce the high enriched uranium or plutonium that can be used in a nuclear weapon. An increasing number of countries have sought to master these parts of the ‘nuclear fuel cycle…”

These are words of the Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, in an interview with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram (6-12 April 2006) [1]

Specifically, on Iran’s enrichment programme, he told Reuters on 30 March 2006: [2]

“Nobody has the right to punish Iran for enrichment. We have not seen nuclear material diverted to a nuclear weapon…”

It could hardly be clearer. By engaging in uranium enrichment-related activities to produce nuclear fuel, as Brazil and Japan are also doing, Iran is acting within the NPT. And the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is diverting nuclear material for weapons purposes. In short, Iran is not breaking any of its NPT commitments.

None of this will come as a surprise to regular readers of the Labour & Trade Union Review, but it is rare for ElBaradei to state these crucial facts with such clarity, facts which demolish the US/EU case for reporting Iran to the Security Council and pressurising it to abandon its enrichment programme.

(But don’t expect ElBaradei to repeat these crucial facts every day of the week – to do so would bring down the wrath of the US and others upon his head – so, having put these crucial facts on the record once, you can be sure that from now on all you will hear from him are his doubts about Iran’s past nuclear activities and its alleged failure to answer questions about them. And when it is stated as a fact by the US and others that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, don’t expect ElBaradei to pop up and make it clear that the IAEA is not in possession of evidence to prove this.

It reminds me of the run up to the invasion of Iraq, when Hans Blix, the head of UNMOVIC, made regular reports to the Security Council. Then, it could be guaranteed that buried away in each of them there would be a sentence saying that UNMOVIC didn’t have any evidence that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons – for example, the report he delivered on 27 January 2003 stated “these reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq” – but on each occasion this crucial fact was masked by a host of queries about “unaccounted for” material. And, when time and time again the US/UK asserted baldly that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, Blix never made it clear that UNMOVIC didn’t possess evidence to prove this. Had he done so, it would have made it much more difficult for the US/UK to invade Iraq on the pretext that Iraq possessed such weapons. However, he said enough to be able to claim after the event, when no weapons were discovered in Iraq, that he and UNMOVIC had got it right.)

ElBaradei could have gone further and pointed out that possessing enrichment and reprocessing technology for peaceful purposes is not merely legal under NPT rules, it is supposed to be an “inalienable right” guaranteed under the NPT to all signatories to the Treaty, Article IV(1) of which states:[3]

“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

In other words, those states that are seeking to prevent Iran from engaging in uranium enrichment to fuel nuclear power stations are acting contrary to the NPT. Iran is not.

Reported to the Security Council
--------------------------------
The issue of Iran’s nuclear activities is now on the agenda of the UN Security Council. It got there as a result of a resolution passed by the IAEA Board on 4 February 2006 [4]. This requested ElBaradei to inform the Security Council that certain steps, defined in paragraph 1 of the resolution, were “required of Iran” (and to send the Security Council all future IAEA reports and resolutions about Iran).

My article, Iran “reported” to the Security Council[5], examines these steps, chief among which is the resuspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. None of these steps are “required of Iran” under the NPT. The resolution itself makes this clear in paragraph 5, where the steps are referred to as “confidence-building measures, which are voluntary, and non legally binding.”

In other words, Iran was reported to the Security Council, not because it refused to take measures required by the NPT, but because it refused to take measures that were explicitly stated to be voluntary and not required by the NPT. It gives a whole new meaning to the word voluntary.

Negotiations with the EU
------------------------
It is important to recall that Iran first agreed to the suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities in November 2004, when it signed the Paris Agreement [6] with the EU (represented by UK, France and Germany). This suspension was a voluntary act of goodwill on the part of Iran while negotiations with the EU were taking place. As the Paris Agreement itself states:

“The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation …. In the context of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements.”

The negotiations came to an abrupt halt in August 2005 when the EU proposed [7] to Iran that it abandon not just uranium enrichment, but all aspects of its so-called “nuclear fuel cycle”. Instead of mining its own uranium ore, and processing and enriching it to make fuel for its nuclear reactors, as Iran planned to do, the EU proposals required Iran to import enriched uranium fuel, and to export spent fuel afterwards.

This would have meant that nuclear power generation in Iran would be completely dependent on fuel from abroad, which could be cut off at any time, even though Iran has a domestic supply of uranium ore. It was no surprise, therefore, that Iran rejected these proposals out of hand.

Following the failure to reach “a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements” with the EU, Iran proceeded to resume enrichment and reprocessing activities – as it was entitled to do since the suspension was voluntary in the first place. The resumption began at the uranium processing plant in Isfahan in August 2005. Later, in January 2006, enrichment was resumed at the pilot plant at Natanz.

The latter was the trigger for the EU to call a special meeting of the IAEA Board which passed the resolution of 4 February 2006 reporting Iran to the Security Council. Iran’s only crime was to voluntarily resume what it had voluntarily suspended in November 2004.

March Report
------------
The formal reporting of Iran to the Security Council occurred after the March meeting of the IAEA Board, at which ElBaradei made yet another report to the Board on Iran’s nuclear activities [8]. On 8 March 2006, he duly sent this report to the Security Council.

Like all of his previous reports, this one did not present any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. It formally reported that Iran had not obeyed the IAEA Board’s request to suspend enrichment and related activities. On IAEA access to Iran’s nuclear sites, the report said:

“Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency and, until 6 February 2006, implemented the Additional Protocol as if it were in force, including by providing, in a timely manner, the requisite declarations and access to locations.” (Paragraph 30)

In other words, in response to its referral to the Security Council by the IAEA Board resolution of 4 February 2006, Iran reduced IAEA access to its nuclear sites. Since 6 February 2006, it is no longer granting unannounced access to sites in accordance with the so-called Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA (which Iran signed in December 2006 but the Majlis hasn’t ratified). So, the net effect to date of referring Iran to the Security Council has been to reduce the IAEA’s ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities.

Signing a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, and implementing its provisions, is a requirement of the NPT (see Article III(1)). Signing and implementing an Additional Protocol is not a requirement of the NPT. It is a voluntary matter for each signatory state, so by ceasing to implement its provisions Iran is not breaking any commitment under the NPT – it is continuing to allow the IAEA the degree of access that is mandatory under the NPT.

Presidential statement
----------------------
The US/UK predicted immediate “action” by the Security Council in response to this report by ElBaradei. However, it took them three weeks to persuade Russia and China to agree a form of words for a statement by the President of the Council, which was eventually issued on 29 March 2006 [9] in the name of César Mayoral of Argentina, the President of the Council in March.

(A presidential statement is the lowest form of Security Council “action” – even lower than a Chapter VI resolution, which can be safely ignored since it doesn’t carry any form of sanction, either economic or military. Only Chapter VII resolutions may be accompanied by the latter.)

The presidential statement calls upon Iran to take the steps “required” of it by the IAEA Board in its resolution of 4 February 2006. However, it doesn’t describe these steps as “voluntary and non legally binding” as the Board resolution does. But, it begins by reaffirming that engaging in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes is a right guaranteed under the NPT, saying:

“The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recalls the right of States Party, in conformity with articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.”

In other words, having reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT, the Security Council is asking Iran to desist from activities that are supposed to be its “inalienable right” under the NPT.

Another IAEA report
-------------------
The Presidential statement requested that ElBaradei make a report to the IAEA and the Security Council within 30 days, and he did so as ordered on 28 April 2006 (see, for example, BBC summary[10])

The report told essentially the same story as before: again no evidence was presented that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Even John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, reluctantly admitted this on 28 April 2006, saying:[11]

“I think, if anything, the IAEA report shows that Iran has accelerated its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, although, of course, the report doesn’t make any conclusions in the regard.”

The “acceleration” referred to by Bolton related to Iran’s announcement on 13 April 2006 that it had succeeded in enriching a small amount of uranium to the level required for nuclear fuel. ElBaradei reported that the IAEA had examined samples of what had been produced and concluded that the enrichment level declared by Iran (3.6%) was probably correct.

What next?
----------
The US/EU now intend to press for a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, demanding that Iran take the steps “required” of it by the IAEA Board in its February resolution, in particular, the suspension of enrichment-related activities. Initially, they do not intend to press for a Chapter VII resolution accompanied by economic sanctions.

The UK strategy for action against Iran in the Security Council was set out in a letter, which was leaked to The Times and published on 22 March 2006. The letter, dated 16 March 2006, was written by John Sawers, the political director of the Foreign Office, to his counterparts in France, Germany and the US. Its main theme was that it was going to be difficult to persuade Russia and China to take any effective action on the Security Council. Sawers wrote:[12]

“Implicit in the paper is a recognition that we are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around.”

“Kislyak [Sawers’ Russian counterpart] might argue that those diplomatic efforts should start straightaway after a Presidential Statement is adopted. Our own assessment here is that the Iranians will not feel under much pressure from PRST [Presidential statement] on its own, and they will need to know that more serious measures are likely. This means putting the Iran dossier onto a Chapter VII basis. We may also need to remove one of the Iranian arguments that the suspension called for is ‘voluntary’. We could do both by making the voluntary suspension a mandatory requirement to the Security Council, in a Resolution we would aim to adopt I, say, early May.”

Note that an important reason advanced for a Chapter VII resolution is to transform a request to Iran from the IAEA Board to voluntarily suspend its enrichment-related activities – a request Iran could legitimately refuse – into a mandatory demand from the Security Council, perhaps eventually backed up by economic sanctions, if Iran refuses to comply.

For the US, John Bolton expressed it this way on 28 April 2006:[11]

“The purpose of acting under Chapter 7 is to invoke the mandatory compliance features of Chapter 7, which … would be binding on all UN members. Therefore, it’s not a matter of discretion for Iran. They have to comply or the Security Council is free to take other steps.”

Obviously, the US/EU are conscious of the shaky ground on which they currently stand in asking Iran to suspend enrichment. They know full well that Iran is within its rights in refusing to take any of the steps “required” of it by the IAEA Board resolution of 4 February 2006. As the resolution itself says, these steps amount to “confidence-building measures, which are voluntary, and non legally binding” and not required of Iran by the NPT. Understandably, therefore, the US/EU are anxious to move onto more solid ground where the Security Council orders Iran to take these steps in a Chapter VII resolution.

Iran a threat to peace?
Article 39 is the first article in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It says:[13]

“The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Article 41 provides for economic sanctions and Article 42 for military sanctions.

Before a Chapter VII resolution is passed in respect of Iran – even recommendations under Article 40 without sanctions, which is envisaged by the US/EU initially – the Security Council has to formally declare that Iran is a “threat to the peace” or that a “breach of the peace, or act of aggression” has taken place. Even the most fertile minds in Washington and London would have difficulty making a case that Iran has been guilty of either of the latter, so the US/EU will most likely try to persuade Russia and China to indict Iran as a “threat to the peace.”

At a press conference on 28 April 2006, John Bolton was asked what case could be made that Iran was a threat to peace. He replied:[11]

“I think that the evidence of Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, its extensive program to achieve a ballistic missile capability of longer and longer range and greater accuracy, constitutes a classic threat to international peace and security, especially when combined with Iran’s long status as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”

He should think before opening his mouth – if the possession of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is a measure of a state’s “threat to peace”, then John Bolton has the privilege of representing the biggest “threat to peace” in the world – by a distance. And Iran is way, way behind.

Remember that Iran, unlike Israel, possesses no nuclear weapons, and there is no objective evidence that it is developing them. Remember that Iran, unlike Israel, has not invaded any of its neighbours in living memory and, when it was invaded by Iraq in 1980, the Security Council didn’t lift a finger to help, because the US/UK were cheering on Iraq at the time.

Yet the US/EU is about to press the Security Council to deem Iran a “threat to the peace”, something which it has never done to Israel – a Chapter VII resolution of any kind has never been passed against Israel, despite its possession of nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them, and its invasion of every one of its neighbours at one time or another, and its annexation of bits of them.

The supreme irony of this is that the US/UK, which invaded Iraq in 2003 causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people, are taking the lead in the indictment of Iran as a “threat to peace”. They were, of course, able to invade and occupy Iraq without being deemed a “threat to peace” by the Security Council because they wield a veto on the Security Council. By the same token, Israel has never been deemed a “threat to peace” by the Security Council, because it has a veto-wielding friend in Washington.

The corollary of this is that, if the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council decide to gang up on an ordinary UN member, with no veto and no special friend with a veto, it can be declared to be a “threat to the peace” without the slightest justification. It remains to be seen if Russia and China allow this to happen to Iran.

Amending the NPT
----------------
If Iran is forbidden to enrich uranium by a mandatory Security Council resolution, that is tantamount to amending the NPT, without Iran’s consent, to take away Iran’s right to engage in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. Article IV(1) of the NPT would in effect become:

“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty EXCEPT IRAN to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

At that point, Iran would be justified in withdrawing from the NPT, since rights that were supposedly guaranteed under the NPT when it signed up to in 1968 would have been taken away.

It remains to be seen if Russia and China go along with this denial of NPT rights to Iran. At the moment, they say that they are opposed to a Chapter VII resolution, even one without economic sanctions. But, both of them are opposed to Iran having enrichment facilities on its own soil, so they may support a Chapter VII resolution eventually. According to Sawers’ letter, the UK believes that they can be persuaded to agree to one without accompanying economic sanctions in the next few weeks.

New offer to Iran
-----------------
Sawers then envisages a new offer being made to Iran to supply fuel from abroad for its proposed nuclear power stations. Making such an offer to Iran is deemed to be a necessary condition for persuading Russia and China to go further and agree to another Chapter VII resolution, this time one with economic sanctions of some kind. Sawers writes:

“In return for the Russians and Chinese agreeing to this [initial Chapter VII resolution], we would then want to put together a package that could be presented to the Iranians as a new proposal. Ideally this would have the explicit backing of Russia, China and the United States as well as the E3, though Nick [Burns of the US] will want to consider the scope of presenting this in that way. Our thought is that we would need to finalise this during June, and the obvious occasion to do so would be in the margins of the G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting. The period running up to the G8 Summit will be when our influence on Russia will be at its maximum, and we need to plan accordingly.”

“In parallel with agreeing a new proposal, we will also want to bind Russia and China into agreeing to further measures that will be taken by the Security Council should the Iranians fail to engage positively. … We would not, at this stage, want to be explicit about what would be involved then – there will need to be extensive negotiations on that in May/June.”

An offer from Russia for the supply of fuel to Iran has been on the table since last autumn. This is that Russia take uranium hexafluoride produced by Iran from domestic ore at Isfahan and enrich it in Russia, and produce fuel rods for return to Iran. This would mean Iran abandoning uranium enrichment at Natanz. Any new proposal is bound to be on similar lines, the key element being that Iran has no enrichment facilities on its own soil.

The Russian proposal has the support of the EU, and China – and of the US, which until November 2005 had not associated itself with any proposal of this kind to Iran. While Iran has not publicly accepted this proposal, even as a basis for negotiations, it has not rejected it out of hand either and fitful discussions seem to be continuing with Russia about it.

Note that, according to Sawers, the US is hanging back from being associated with any new proposal to Iran, along with the EU and Russia and China. This is a continuation of the US refusal to deal directly with Iran since 1979 (apart from the arms for hostages affair in the 1980s.)

This principle has recently been breached with Bush’s authorisation of Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Iraq, to talk directly to Iran about Iraqi matters. This authorisation was granted last November 2005, but no meetings have taken place as yet, even though Khalilzad has repeatedly asked Iran for a meeting – in early March an Iranian official showed John Snow of Channel 4 News evidence of Khalilzad’s requests. However, it now appears that no meetings will take place until after a new Iraqi government is established and in a position to take part.

It will be interesting to see if the US agrees to deal directly with Iran on nuclear issues as well.

References
----------
[1] weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/789/in4.htm
[2] go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=11701885
[3] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf
[4] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf
[5] www.david-morrison.org.uk/iran/iran-reported.htm
[6] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2004/infcirc637.pdf
[7] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf
[8] www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-15.pdf
[9] www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8679.doc.htm
[10] news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4956882.stm
[11] www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/65458.htm
[12] www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2098203,00.html
[13] www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

SUMMARY
-------
(1) Enriching Uranium is Iran's inalienable right, granted to it by Article IV (1) of the NPT.
(2) Iran will not be capable of making a nuclear weapon in the near future, Russian Chief of General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky said on Saturday. "I can confidently say that what Iran is doing today does not allow it the possibility, either in the near or distant future, to make a nuclear weapon," he was quoted by Interfax as saying.
Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/15/content_4427907.htm
Furthermore, there is NO documented evidence available with any one that Iran is making a nuclear weapon. Rather, Mohammed ElBaradei pointed out that Iran's claim of enriching Uranium upto 3.6% was correct. John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, reluctantly admitted this on 28 April 2006.
(3) Mohammed ElBaradei said only once: "No one has the right to punish Iran." He does not repeat this statement, every time Sharon or Bush threatens Iran, nor does he give an explanation of the word "required" as used by US Officials, that this requirement is voluntary, not legally binding and Iran can safely shatter the US dreams and also, he does not want to lose his job, coz saying such things may earn him the "Wrath" of US & Israel.
(4) US & Israel are depriving Iran of its inalienable right, by force & by threatening to attack it with B-61 Nuclear bombs and Bunker buster JDAMs, GBUs, etc. Thus these two countries should be declared, a threat to public peace by the UN, in accordance with Article 39 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. After doing this, they should pass Chapter VII resolution for military and economic sanctions against Iran, but, nothing is happening.
(5) US & Europe are striving zealously to ammend Article IV (1) of the NPT, to include the words "EXCEPT IRAN." Such is the discriminatory attitude with the Muslim countries and yet the US/EU are "surprised" that Iran will consider to break the NPT, if such an ammendment is undertaken.
(6) John Bolton said: 'I think that the evidence of Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, its extensive program to achieve a ballistic missile capability of longer and longer range and greater accuracy, constitutes a classic threat to international peace...' If this is the criteria for identifying a 'threat to public peace' then, as David Morrison says, "'...then John Bolton has the privilege of representing the biggest “threat to peace” in the world."
(7) Iran is neither making any nukes nor has any nukes, unlike Israel, yet no sanctions is put on Israel, despite Israel being a 'threat to public peace.' Furthermore, Brazil and Japan are also doing exactly the same as Iran i.e. mastering parts of the Nuclear Fuel cycle, yet no trouble is given to them.
(8) Might is Right and the Media is the propanganda machine, proving that might is "indeed" right. "The corollary of this," says David Morrison, "is that, if the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council decide to gang up on an ordinary UN member, with no veto and no special friend with a veto, it can be declared to be a “threat to the peace” without the slightest justification."
(9) The packages being provided to Iran are come to the conclusion that there should be no enrichment on the Iranian soil, so that whenever desired, the supply of nuclear fuel can be cut out.
(10) David Morrsion wrote: "Signing and implementing an Additional Protocol is not a requirement of the NPT. It is a voluntary matter for each signatory state, so by ceasing to implement its provisions Iran is not breaking any commitment under the NPT – it is continuing to allow the IAEA the degree of access that is mandatory under the NPT."
(11) The US/UK predicted immediate “action” by the Security Council in response to this report by ElBaradei. However, it took them three weeks to persuade Russia and China to agree a form of words for a statement by the President of the Council. A presidential statement is the lowest form of Security Council “action” – even lower than a Chapter VI resolution, which can be safely ignored since it doesn’t carry any form of sanction, either economic or military.
(12) The Security Council is asking Iran to desist from activities that are supposed to be its “inalienable right” under the NPT.

LET US ALL WAIT FOR THE NEW 9/11 or 7/7 on G8 SUMMIT
--------------------------------
Yeah! I am damn serious! There will be a new 9/11 or 7/7 on this year's G-8 Summit, manufactured by expert Intelligence agencies like CIA, MI-5, MI-6 and other companies participating in "anti"-terror drills. We will be "waiting" for this "terrorist" attack and of course, as usual, there will be "anti"-terror drills, at the same time and at the same place (of course, with the same 'terrorists'.)

David Morrison wrote:
The UK strategy for action against Iran in the Security Council was set out in a letter, which was leaked to The Times and published on 22 March 2006. The letter, dated 16 March 2006, was written by John Sawers, the political director of the Foreign Office, to his counterparts in France, Germany and the US. Its main theme was that it was going to be difficult to persuade Russia and China to take any effective action on the Security Council. Sawers wrote:[1]

“We may also need to remove one of the Iranian arguments that the suspension called for is ‘voluntary’. We could do both by making the voluntary suspension a mandatory requirement to the Security Council, in a Resolution we would aim to adopt I, say, early May.”
“In return for the Russians and Chinese agreeing to this [initial Chapter VII resolution], we would then want to put together a package that could be presented to the Iranians as a new proposal. Ideally this would have the explicit backing of Russia, China and the United States as well as the E3, though Nick [Burns of the US] will want to consider the scope of presenting this in that way. Our thought is that we would need to finalise this during June, and the obvious occasion to do so would be in the margins of the G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting. The period running up to the G8 Summit will be when our influence on Russia will be at its maximum, and we need to plan accordingly.”

NOTES
-----
[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2098203,00.html
--------------

Yeah! "to plan accordingly" for the G8 Summit is to have a new 9/11 or 7/7 on G8 Summit, I can say this seriously!
Look at what Webster G. Tarpley has to say on this issue:-
"IF A TERRORIST ATTACK OCCURS, BLAME CHENEY
------------------------------------------
Since last July, the world has known of the order from Dick Cheney to the Pentagon to prepare for the atomic bombing of Iran in the wake of a new 9/11 terrorist atrocity. Given Cheney’s manifest aggressive intent, it should also be plain that he is not occupying his time doing rain dances in the hopes of conjuring up a new terrorist attack. Cheney and his invisible government backers in the US-UK rogue network are actively preparing a new 9/11 or Gulf of Tonkin provocation with weapons of mass destruction in order to secure the pretext for their attack. Our advice to the world is accordingly: if mysterious WMD incidents occur anywhere in the world, don’t start looking for the swarthy perpetrators sporting turbans in the caves of Pushtunistan. Look instead in Dick Cheney’s office."

Source: http://www.waronfreedom.org/wgt/cartoon.html
Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) Cartoons, RECRUITING EUROPE FOR BUSH’S ATTACK ON IRAN
By Webster Griffin Tarpley

O God! Save us from this new 9/11 or 7/7 which is going to happen on G8 SUMMIT! O God! Save Iran from the US & Israel's "War On Freedom" and "War for Spreading Terror." (AMEN!)

That's all what I came to say... Good bye.

Posted by: Abdul Rehman at May 12, 2006 11:04 PM

iran thinks when the hidden imam returns jesus will be with him.but this jesus is muslim.which i reject because jesus was a jew.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 12, 2006 11:39 PM

Wow, the muslims are busy tonight. The jews are behind it all I got that. You are the good guys, I got that too. I'm still coming after you. BTW, I will have help. Your days of terror are over. My turn.

Posted by: Ronin at May 12, 2006 11:53 PM

Special quest, so true "I wonder why Iran has not, yet. Did their provocative statements get ahead of their production capabilities? Or do they have something else in mind for a test detonation?"

As I have followed the rise of nuclear Iran I have often wondered just that. I have been wishing see this test detonation, as strange as it might seem, because I too fear that a test might be made on an infidel target , an American port or a European target. At least if they do a conventional test it will be out in the open and perhaps it can be dealt with.

This is one old man who fears for the lives of his grandchildren and prays everyday for our leaders to wake up before it is too late.

If the world plunges into a nuclear war, then truly the dark dreams of the Iranian tyrant will come true. The world of our grandchildren will be forever changed, we can only hope that they are stronge and fortunate enough to overcome this new dark age. If they understand and cherish their history, culture and religion they will survive.

As I follow the rise of nuclear Iran, I steal myself for the darkness ahead.

Perhaps I'm just a tired and ailing old man, but praying would be the right thing just now. Let us now continue the struggle for our children's sack.

For the future of our civilization, Stop Iran from getting the bomb!

Posted by: El Cid at May 13, 2006 12:38 AM

El Cid...it's possible that Iran already has 'the bomb', and is the reason for so much bravado.

Mutual assured destruction wont work with Beasty Boy the sock puppet. As it is, he is begging to get smacked, wants to start some sht. It's quite possible that the Sons of Allah have already placed WMD's of some types in and around the US, possibly other countrys. All to go off on some signal from Mahdi or someone. I think that will quickly convince all skeptics. Iran and anyone who gets in the way, will get fried. Iran will do damage to the US and Israel, but will not prevail...Allah will not help them, and he knows best...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 13, 2006 3:46 AM

(7) Iran is neither making any nukes nor has any nukes, unlike Israel, yet no sanctions is put on Israel, despite Israel being a 'threat to public peace.' Furthermore, Brazil and Japan are also doing exactly the same as Iran i.e. mastering parts of the Nuclear Fuel cycle, yet no trouble is given to them.

Posted by: Abdul Rehman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 12, 2006 11:04 PM

Abdul, Abdul, Abdul.

Thats quite a rant you had going there but let me just clarify the issue for you.

(1) Iran managed to hide its nuclear program for close to 20 years.

(2) Israel, Brazil and Japan havent recently threatend to wipe any countries off the map.

(3) Muslims are ordered by their holy scripture to kill the infidels and jews.

Muslims just cant be trusted!

Posted by: km at May 13, 2006 4:02 AM

Yes that is right km. muslims can't be trusted ANYWHERE in the world.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 13, 2006 4:29 AM

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
Winston Churchill

Let us think where we shall fight the muslims. We shall not fight them on the beaches. The muslim navigator will spend half is time calculting the direction of bloody mecca,and our navies will get the muslim ships meanwhile. Landing grounds,no. Whatever remains of the pathetic air forces will be destroyed at the muslim runways.Yes we shall fight in the fields and the hills. And on the streets.Urban warfare is the way of muslims. We have to be VERY ruthless in urban warfare.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 13, 2006 4:36 AM

Urban warfare is the way of muslims. We have to be VERY ruthless in urban warfare.
Posted by: arjun.sevak

Yuck...you may be right, but it's still a big yuck. An army usually tries to avoid that if possible. But when the ruthless rule in invoked, it's time to go for the throat. BUT, due to PC influences, several American soldiers were charged with crimes, for doing just that, in battle. A soldier is supposed to be ruthless in battle...he may get himself killed if he is not.
BUUUTTT...dont get too ruthless. If you do too good a job protecting yourself, and taking out the enemy, you might get arrested. They used to give you medals for that, now it's jail time.
So the clever tie your hands , give you a gun with no bullets, and send you off to face the enemy, then arrest you if you manage to survive...thanks a lot...yuck...have a good day...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 13, 2006 6:01 AM

Abdul Rehman wants to blame Cheney for any nuclear bombs? Abdul you are a typical muslim, you cannot take responsibility for any of your own actions. why does iran need nuclear electricity, when they are sitting on an ocean of oil? mmm
iran is continuely wanting a fight, they are calling for destruction of the West, Israel and the US.
if you think iran can go and set off bombs without any repercussions, you will be sadly mistaken. you can kiss off mecca, medina and rest of your stone age culture goodbye!

Posted by: Lulu at May 13, 2006 8:13 AM

arjun.sevak, we will prevail, we must prevail at whatever cost. The nature of the confrontation in all it's ferocity will be determined by our enemies, just as it was in the last great war.

The West turned away for total global catastrophe during the cold war, the other side had just enough of a drop humanity to turn away from the nuclear furnace.

I wonder if this new enemy, political Islam, shiite Iran has this self preservation. I doubt it and I doubt it more after my understanding of Islam grows.

These people are greater diehards then the last evil the world faced.

I believe that they want this fight, now or later, but will not stop and take with them a generation of young and old, and leave our world humbled.

If we resist we must be willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure.

If we do nothing then the worlds culture plunge into a thousand years of dark age.

These are the choices we face now, none of them good but one that will allow our survival.

Brace yourself, great will and strength will be required for what is ahead.

Posted by: El Cid at May 13, 2006 11:10 AM

>>> Abdul Rehman wants to blame Cheney for any nuclear bombs? Abdul you are a typical muslim, you cannot take responsibility for any of your own actions.
It was WEBSTER GRIFFIN TARPLEY who blamed Cheney...

>>> Why does iran need nuclear electricity, when they are sitting on an ocean of oil? mmm

NPT Article IV(1) reads:
“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

Source: www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf

So, it is the inalienable right of every member of the UN & those who signed this NPT, that they are allowed "to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination..."
My exams will start on 25th May, 2006 so I can't give time explaining to you guys (and of course, I already know that you will never change your views regarding the Muslims...)

>>> if you think iran can go and set off bombs without any repercussions, you will be sadly mistaken. you can kiss off mecca, medina and rest of your stone age culture goodbye!

Ha ha ha... keep on going mister... The Bush regime along with Rogue networks carried out the drama of 9/11, killing 20,000 innocent Americans. Tens and thousands of americans are testifying this, mostly those who were eye-witnesses, fire-fighters or knew about other atrocities and the controlled media for promoting propaganda. You can buy the book "9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA," written by Webster G. Tarpley and the thousand other materials available on the web...

>>> The West turned away for total global catastrophe during the cold war, the other side had just enough of a drop humanity to turn away from the nuclear furnace.

It is indeed amazing that the ones who fear a nuclear strike, are the only ones living under the sky, to have used it & whose hands are dirty with the blood of innocent citizens of Japan.

Neither have I enough time to satisfy you, nor do I want to waste my energies in those who think they are already "well-awared" of what is happening.

The only thing which is visible from your posts is the amount of Islamophobia diffused into your hearts and minds by the state-controlled Media.

Regarding Jihad, I already answered Robert Spencer's article "Qur'an and Jihadism" and also witnessed the results.

>>> "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
Winston Churchill

Your choice; I won't stop you if you prefer Winston Churchill to Jesus (P.B.U.H.) [who said: "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other also"] lest you accuse me of pasting Islam on the sword.

>>>we will prevail, we must prevail at whatever cost.

Rest of the comments are 99% the same. So, you agree that you are depriving a UN member of its "unalienable" rights, whenever you desire.
All this reflects one thing: Might is Right.

>>>muslims can't be trusted ANYWHERE in the world.

My only mistake was that I was born to a Muslim family. This was the mistake which I made, but, didn't knew the method to avoid it. Soon we will be under the "Wrath" of the Bush regime; I live in Peshawar (NWFP, Pakistan) close to North Waziristan. Who knows when a US Jihadi pilot comes and throws one bomb onto our house and then, my body will shatter into a hundred thousand pieces and my bones converted into a powder of Calcium Phosphate and soon, some birds, insects & other animals would be feeding on me. And on all this, Jihad Watch will say: 'Some terrorists having WMDs were killed in an air-strike.'

The conclusion of all this is that A MUSLIM'S ONLY MISTAKE IS THAT HE IS A MUSLIM.

I don't why I came here again when I know in advance that I will be "gifted" with a dozen of abuses.

Posted by: Abdul Rehman at May 13, 2006 12:05 PM

So you just completely ignore the reasons I outlined for you Abdul. Here they are again for you.

(1) Iran managed to hide its nuclear program for close to 20 years.

(2) Israel, Brazil and Japan havent recently threatend to wipe any countries off the map.

(3) Muslims are ordered by their holy scripture to kill the infidels and jews.

Muslims just cant be trusted!

Answer the 3 points raised above and maybe we will start to take you seriously. I will wager though that your Muslim mind will not be able to see past the US/Zioniist conspiracy theories you have been indoctrinated into.

Let me just clarify my own view of things as well, 911 was not the start of this war. This war has been on going for 1400 years. There are indeed many lines of evidence which suggest the US allowed 911 to happen. All I can say is I am glad that our leaders had the foresight to allow Muslims to attack New york and Washington. Had this not happened your demographic jihad would be continuing to this day without anyone in the west raising an eyebrow. What matters most from 911 is that the world recieved a much needed wakeup call to Islams intentions, 3000 people and a couple of buildings were worth the sacrifice.

We in the west are on to you and your barbaric religion. I personally dont blame you for being born into a muslim family. However it is obvious that you have access to information sources other than the koran so if you cant see the problems that your so called religion of peace is causing across the globe then I will not feel sorry when you are vaporised by munitions which my tax dollars have paid for.

Posted by: km at May 13, 2006 12:42 PM

storagemanager -

Yeah, the term "Islamic Jesus" is an oxymoron, for the very reason you stated: Jesus was a Jew!

Posted by: champ at May 13, 2006 1:22 PM

Abdul Rehman -

In your above post you mentioned the words of Jesus, "If anyone strikes your right cheek, offer him your left".

I happen to agree with Jesus' mandate to "turn the other cheek", but what I DON'T agree with, is how you've chosen to use this particular passage. In my opinion, there are two huge errors that you are making with this scripture:

You are quoting from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and it's important to note that Jesus was speaking to "individuals" during that sermon, not to governmental organizations.

Which brings me to your second error -- the bible does give "Kings and Rulers" certain powers and rights to "make war" in order that they can protect the nation that they have been put in charge of; and since you seem to know the Bible so well, then I will let you research these scriptures yourself, as there are far too many to quote.

So you see, President Bush DOES have biblical grounds for making war with Iran, or anyone else who poses a threat to our safety and security. It's my president's JOB to ensure that American lives be protected!!!!!!!

And let me add one more important fact before closing -- One day, Jesus Christ will return to earth and "make war" on those who oppose Him; but I bet you knew that, because you seem to know the bible so well. Read the Book of Revelation, and you will learn that Jesus has a wrathful side as well. All in good time, all in good time.

If you choose to reply, then PLEASE keep it short and to the point. Thank you.

Posted by: champ at May 13, 2006 2:00 PM

Sorry for this late reply... I could not find adequate time to post something here. I want to tell everyone that I am preparing an answer to the objections raised; I will post it as soon as I complete it.
I found it better to notify you guys here lest someone starts living in a fool's paradise that I have "run away" from the discussion.

Posted by: Abdul Rehman at May 16, 2006 3:50 AM

Were waiting Abdul.

Posted by: km at May 16, 2006 1:29 PM

(Sorry for this extremely late reply... My exams are starting on 25th May, so, I don’t find enough time for this...
Sorry to Mr. Champ... Firstly, because, I have not answered him in this post; secondly, because, I did not act upon his advice and made this post too much long...)

IMPORTANT GUIDELINES
(1) Read the post fully & carefully
(2) Don’t SKIP through the text; read it in the order it has been arranged, otherwise, it may seem to be a complete “non-sense.”
(3) Read the provided links for details if skeptic
(4) Stay cool-minded!!!

I will first start off with those things which I missed before.

Spencer’s coverage of this issue is incredible, like he started this article with a title: “More Uranium Reportedly Found in Iran.” The title is interesting because the use of the word “More” signifies the fact that there was already something fishy going on in Iran!
Furthermore, the use of the word “reportedly” is appreciable; careful selection of words is important in developing Islamophobia. A US Citizen, Stephen M. St. John, wrote in his article (A Dissenting Critique of the 9/11 Commission Report) as follows:-

‘Let this new investigation [into 9/11] avoid altogether the word “reportedly” which the 9/11 Commissioners used no less than 63 times. Loose use of language is conducive to imprecise thinking, which leads to shaky conclusions.’
Source: http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps/id5.html

I would also like to add that simply using the word “reportedly” obscures the one who actually has reported that fact (and thus hides the authenticity of the report) and does not give the reader a chance to become aware of the reporter, unless he takes the trouble to see the footnotes or whatever else has been provided, if any (which ordinary readers [i.e. lay-men] will not do in 80% of the cases.)

Now, coming to the body-text, there are a lot of problems here!
(1) U.N. Atomic Agency found traces of highly enriched Uranium in an Iranian site, but, yet Mohammed ElBaradei told Reuters on 30 March 2006:
“We have not seen nuclear material diverted to a nuclear weapon...”
Source: http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=11701885
Mohammed ElBaradei made another report and presented it to the IAEA and the Security Council on 28 April, 2006. In this report, ElBaradei showed that IAEA had examined samples of what had been produced and concluded that the enrichment level declared by Iran (3.6%) was probably correct.
(2) The “diplomats” in Austria came to know this and gave away the information, even before the samples were sent to the lab for analysis, which is indeed interesting!
(3) No reporter in Iran reported any such news, but, some “diplomats” succeeded in “becoming aware” about these facts.
(4) The diplomats did not reveal their identity, because, they knew that they may get into trouble, when the world comes to know about their rumours.

That fixes up the news...

PERSONAL VIEWS OF KM
--------------------
Wow! Wow! Wow! Mr. KM! I really wanted such good & clear explanation of things. Let me dissect your views:-
>>>There are indeed many lines of evidence which suggest the US allowed 911 to happen. All I can say is I am glad that our leaders had the foresight to allow Muslims to attack New york and Washington.

You also wrote:
>>>What matters most from 911 is that the world recieved a much needed wakeup call to Islams intentions, 3000 people and a couple of buildings were worth the sacrifice.

And also wrote the following:
>>>We in the west are on to you
>>>if you cant see the problems that your so called religion of peace is causing across the globe then I will not feel sorry when you are vaporised by munitions which my tax dollars have paid for.

In the whole literature of Jihad Watch, I could not have found such a clear explanation of “Jihad Watch-ism.” What do you mean by all this if not that:-
(1) You want to “wipe” one-third of the world’s population “off the map.”
(2) US itself allowed 9/11 to happen, because, 9/11 paved path for the US leaders’ intentions. Your “leaders had the foresight” and in fact, they wanted 9/11 to happen so that they could “wipe” every third person (who is a Muslim) “off the map.” Expanding further, they would not hesitate to carry out 9/11 themselves for paving their path for this “cleansing” of muslims off the world!
(3) You are not sorry if a Muslim Sho’ah requires the destruction of the WTC and the killing of 3,000 innocent US citizens. You are gone mad; your heart has grown as hard as a rock. You don’t feel sorry to kill women, children, old ones, disabled, patients, etc. unless they agree that Islam is the cause of all evils.
You are a true JihadWatch-ist! Tomorrow, if your son/daughter says “Islam is good,” you won’t hesitate to “wipe” him/her “off” this earth! Your doctrine of “Anti-Muslim Jihad” is even worse than Robert Spencer’s scripture-twisting of the Islamic Jihad! You are a perfect fascist, who does not hesitate to force Muslims to accept that Islam is bad and if not, you will “wipe” him/her “off the map.” How could you accuse Muslims of spreading Islam by compulsion, in the past, when they didn’t do that and on top of that, you yourselves are stopping Islam from spreading, at the edge of a nuke (keep aside a sword!) We are feeling your opression, right here, right now! Your slogan is: “Curse Islam or else, lose your life!”
You have failed to even have sympathy for people of your own family, race, country, religion, etc. You can “wipe off” a US Citizen or a Christian if he thinks Islam is good. People like you cannot get united with anyone, on any basis: neither religion nor nationalism, unless he becomes a follower of your views.

Over all this, you may say: ‘They are all criminals.’ You also wrote in your post:
>>>(3) Muslims are ordered by their holy scripture to kill the infidels and jews.

Before answering this argument, I GIVE YOU AN OPEN CHALLENGE! Assuming that the Muslim population is 1 billion, go and travel every part of the world and ask the Muslims this question: ‘Is killing a non-muslim permissible, only because he is a non-muslim?’ I CHALLENGE YOU! IF YOU GET EVEN 0.001% OF THE MUSLIMS [UNLESS YOU FABRICATE THEM YOURSELVES OR DO SOME OTHER TREACHERY] SAYING “YES” TO THAT QUESTION, I WILL AGREE THAT ISLAM IS THE CAUSE OF ALL MISERIES. BUT, IF YOU FAIL AND YOU WILL FAIL, THEN THE CAUSE OF TROUBLE IS NOT ISLAM; IT’S YOU & OTHER SPENCER-TYPE CHARACTERS WHO ACT AS A VECTOR FOR THE DISEASE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA AND SPREAD MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISLAM. But, I think I should take my challenge back, the reason being YOUR untrustworthiness, because, you don’t hesitate to destroy the WTC and kill 3,000 innocent US citizens to pave path for a “Muslim” Sho’ah, so is it conceivable that you would not hesitate to fabricate false narrations for your ill intentions?
Now, coming to your argument; I will answer it with the help of what Mr. Champ said:
>>>You are quoting from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and it’s important to note that Jesus was speaking to “individuals” during that sermon, not to governmental organizations.

I will agree with YOUR interpretation of YOUR religious scripture, IF you agree with MY interpretation of MY religious scripture! So, will ya? IF yes, I can present my interpretation; IF no, then you have no right to stop me from interpreting your scripture, according to my desires!
Assuming, you will agree with my interpretation (and I challenge you to point out a defect in it), I am telling you the real & correct interpretation below:-
Before interpreting the Qur’an, you need to know the Rules of Interpretation of the Qur’an. There is a science of Interpretation of the Holy Qur’an, known as Usul-e-Tafseer. Usul-e-Tafseer does not mean “fucking virgins” or “killing Jews.” Usul means principles and Tafseer is derived from the root word ‘Fussaira’ meaning to explain. Thus Usul-e-Tafseer means the rules of interpretation of the Holy Qur’an.

The most important ayah which you should know before interpreting the Qur’an is:
“Summa Inna Alaina Bayaana” [Surah al-Qiyamah 75:19]
Translation: “Then, (O Muhammad P.B.U.H.) it is upon US (God) to explain it (i.e. the Qur’an.)”
This verse means that the MEANING OF THE QUR’AN IS DESCRIBED BY GOD HIMSELF. The following sayings of the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) elaborate the same point:-
Abdullah ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) reported that Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) said: “Whoever says something in interpreting the Qur’an based on his own opinion should find his place in the Fire.” (Tirmidhi)
Jundub, May Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Anyone who speaks on the Qur’an by his own opinion and is right is still wrong.” (Abu Dawud)

The knowledge of Tafseer was given to the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) and it was described by him:-
“And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad P.B.U.H.) the reminder and the advice (the Qur’an), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought.” [Surah An-Nahl 16:44]
This verse tells us two things:-
(i) The correct interpretation of the Qur’an was described by the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) himself
(ii) Giving one’s own thoughts on the Qur’an is after the description of the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) This means that the meaning of a particular verse cannot be circumscribed by one’s own thoughts; it should be in the light of the Prophet’s (P.B.U.H.) sayings.
So, to understand a verse, we should first take into account all the verses related to that matter. Then, we must search the Prophet’s (P.B.U.H.) traditions/sayings/actions (henceforth, Hadith [plural: Ahadith]) Then, the Companions (R.A.A.) and the Successors (R.A.) were the experts and their sayings must be taken into account. After searching all these, we still do not find anything, we can interpret an ayah (verse) according to the principles of the Arabic language and after that one can use deliberation & deduction.
All these constitute what are known as “The Sources of Tafseer.” These are 6 in total and are enumerated below:-
(1) The Qur’an itself
(2) The Ahadith
(3) The Sayings of the Companions (R.A.A.)
(4) The Sayings of the Successors (R.A.)
(5) The Arabic language
(6) Deliberation & deduction
Thus tafseer can be divided into two main types:-
(1) Tafseer bil Riwayah i.e. tafseer based on reports whose chain of transmission is traced back to sound sources.
(2) Tafseer bil Ra`yee i.e. tafseer on one’s own thoughts and opinions; this is concerned Haram (forbidden.)
One may raise a question here: ‘Why are there differences in the interpretation of Qur’an between the scholars?’ The reasons are:-
- Disregard for isnad (chain of transmission of a tradition)
- Genuine mistake in comprehension
- Interpretation based on unconscious preconceived notion
- Multiplicity of meanings in the revelation from Allah
- Difference in the rules regarding the reports (Ahadith)
One may also raise another question here: “Isn’t it possible for someone to do an interpretation, from the six sources, which completely distorts the meaning of the Qur’an?” The answer is to stick with Tafseer Wahbi i.e. a type of tafseer based on previous Tafaseer (plural of Tafseer.) Whenever someone coins a new interpretation for any verse, which has not been mentioned by any previous scholar, it is a sign of going astray from the correct meaning!
You can read this article regarding more knowledge of Usul-e-Tafseer:-
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/Quran_Majid/intro_to_tafsir.html

This was only the Prologue for my interpretation of the verses regarding Jihad; if you haven’t understood it or did not read it completely/carefully, then I request you to go back and do it now!
Now, we come to the real task of interpreting the verses related to Jihad. We first enumerate the conditions under which Jihad is prohibited (Haram.)

(i) We find in Surah al-Anfaal, the following verse:-
“But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.” [Surah Anfaal 8:61]
This verse shows that you cannot attack a nation if it “inclines to peace.” This means that launching Jihad against someone is prohibited if you have signed a peace treaty with it.

(ii) In Surah at-Touba, we find the following verse:-
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger; (2) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture: until they pay the Jezyah ‘Ayn Yaden Wa Hum Zaghiroon’” [Surah Touba 9:29]
I have retained some words in Arabic, because, if I translated them literally, this may cause someone to misinterpret the ayah. Remember, you cannot interpret an ayah, according to the 5th source i.e. the Arabic language, until you have searched the first four sources.
When we search the first four principles, we find that we cannot translate those words literally. Imam Shafi’i, who was of the successors (Taba’i Tab’ieen) and was a Mujtahid fi Shar’ah (highest rank of scholar), said regarding this ayah that in this ayah, ‘Yadeh’ is in the meaning of power/authority/sovereignty and ‘Ayn’ means “due to.” Furthermore, ‘Zaghiroon’ means that the non-muslims start obeying the common law (not any Personal law; they can follow their personal law.) This saying of Imam Shafi’i is also cited in Tafseer Ma`ariful Qur`an. Thus the ayat, if correctly explained, means that you cannot fight the citizens of a non-Muslim state (dhimmis) as long as they pay Jezyah (a low tax) and obey the General law of that Muslim country. In matters of personal law, they are free to follow their religion. Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) allowed the non-Muslims to follow their personal laws; he (P.B.U.H) accepted their marriages as valid and allowed them to eat pork and drink wine. [Cf. Ma’ariful Qur’an - English Edition, Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Vol.3, p.157]
Thus we came to know that the citizens of a non-Muslim state (dhimmis) are 100% safe and protected, if they fulfill their obligations i.e. paying Jezyah and obeying the common law.
(As I will explain shortly, those non-Muslims who did not fight personally against a Muslim army, in the battlefield, but, now their land has been conquered by the Muslims, THEY WILL BECOME DHIMMIS i.e. RESPECTFUL CITIZENS. They are NOT “Maal-e-Ghaneemat” (Booty of War) meaning that they do NOT become slaves or liable to death penalty. Those Spencer-type characters who spread such a misconception are themselves astray, because, they fail to distinguish b/w Maal-e-F`ay and Maal-e-Ghaneemat...)

(iii) Below is one of those ayahs which are most-often misinterpreted by non-Muslims:-
“Then when the Sacred Months (The 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them [in Mecca and Medina], and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Salah and give Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Surah at-Touba 9:5]
This ayah which if taken literally and out of context may make an “ignorant” non-Muslim jump out of his seat, but, actually it is being detached from the very next ayah, which is:-
“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear The Word of Allah (Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure...” [Surah at-Touba 9:6]
From this ayah, we came to know that if a non-Muslim comes to a Muslim state after taking permission, which now-a-days is in the form of VISA/Passport, then it is incumbent upon the Muslims to protect him/her, until he/she reaches his own state/country. Such a non-Muslim who has entered a Muslim state after taking permission is known as “Mustam’ain” in the Islamic Fiqh.

I once read a review posted on Amazon by some non-Muslim. He wrote:

“To proceed to clarify some issues, let me use an example. The honorable late President John F. Kennedy during his Presidency and while the US was going to war with Vietnam said something to the effect, ‘Defend your country, show courage and galor, and fight all vietnamese whereever you see one.’ So do you still fight a vietnamese when you see one? No, this command was for that instance only. Hence, in the Quran, when Allah The AlMighty says: ‘fight the non-believers wherever you see one’ falls in the same category.”

(iv) From many verses of the Qur’an and ahadith, it becomes clear that if someone accepts Islam by saying the “Kalima” then it is prohibited to launch Jihad against him/it.

These were the conditions under which Jihad is impermissible; thus only two types of Jihad is permissible:-
(i) Defensive (Defa’i) Jihad
(ii) Offensive (Iqdami) Jihad
Defensive Jihad is self-explanatory i.e. if a non-Muslim state has attacked a Muslim state, they can do Jihad against them. When a non-Muslim state attacks a Muslim state, it is obligatory upon the Muslims of that country, as many are required, to do Jihad; if that state alone does not posses enough power, the obligation of Jihad extends to neighbouring countries. If even they do not posses enough power, the obligation extends to their neighbours and this obligation can extend, if required, to the all the Muslim states.
Offensive Jihad can be undertaken if the four conditions mentioned above are not fulfilled, for example, a non-Muslim state violates the peace treaty, etc. It can also be undertaken if a non-Muslim state is forcibly trying to convert Muslims to non-Muslims or stopping Muslims from preaching the teachings of Islam PEACEFULLY (Daw’ah.) According to some scholars, Offensive Jihad is impermissible also in the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar.

Then, there are other conditions which must be observed during Jihad, the details of which can be found in the books of Islamic Fiqh, for example, it is impermissible to fight with or kill women, children, aged ones, disabled, etc. Furthermore, it is impermissible to destroy crops, cut trees, destroy someone’s house, property, cattle, do un-Islamic acts like raping women or burning people or torturing them in any way, etc. If you want to know more, I can refer you to some books regarding these issues.

Someone may ask here: Isn’t it obligatory upon the Muslims to compell non-Muslims to convert to Islam? The answer is a big NO!!! There are 100% clear and explicit verses to answer this question directly:-

(1) “Let there be no compulsion in religion...” [Surah al-Baqarah 2:256]

(2) “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.
It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the wrong-doers.” [al-Mumtahinah 60:8-9]

(3) “...And (O Muhammad P.B.U.H.) say to those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates: (Arab pagans) ‘Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?’ If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message...” [Aal-e-Imran 3:20]
(Noteworthy is the fact that if they turn away, our duty is to convey plainly; our duty is NOT to force them!)

(4) “Then if you turn away, you should know that it is Our Messenger’s duty to convey (the Message) in the clearest way.” [Surah al-Maida 5:92]
(5) “The Messenger’s [i.e. Muhammad’s (P.B.U.H.)] duty is but to convey (the Message.) And Allah knows all that you reveal and all that you conceal.” [Surah al-Maida 5:99]

(6) “The Messengers said: ‘Our Lord knows that we have been sent as Messengers to you,
And our duty is only to convey plainly (the Message).’” [Yaseen 36:16-17]

(7) “And if you deny, then nations before you have denied (their Messengers.) And the duty of the Messenger is only to convey (the Message) plainly.” [Surah al-Ankaboot 29:18]
“...(O Muhammad! P.B.U.H.) Say: ‘The signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner.’” [Surah al-Ankaboot 29:50]

(8) “So remind them (O Muhammad P.B.U.H.), you are only a one who reminds.
You are NOT a DICTATOR over them [i.e. polytheists of Mecca].” [al-Ghashiyyah 88:21-22]

[These are only some of the verses which answer off that objection. The Qur’an is filled with such verses! Despite this fact, some people for their ulterior motives & reaping political benefits, don’t hesitate to take their eyes from these verses, either deliberately or due to their less knowledge and thus spread Islamophobia and end up astray.]

Okay, now I think there is nothing objectionable in the doctrine of Jihad for any sane person. Let me point out that this interpretation was not done by me; nay! I do not have enough knowledge to embark on such a daring task. The above description was actually an English translation of a Bayan (lecture) given by The Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Rafi Usmaani (R.A.) at madrassa “Darul Uloom Karachi.” Below is the link to the written version of the lecture in Urdu language:-
http://www.geocities.com/al_Ijma/talwar.html
http://www.geocities.com/al_Ijma/talwar1.html
So, would you still prefer the opinion of a deviant, non-Muslim, false-scholar to the Grand Mufti of Pakistan? Do you ever prefer a quack to a doctor? If no, then why don’t you agree with the above given interpretation? Can you point out any defect or error?

>>> Had this not happened your demographic jihad would be continuing to this day without anyone in the west raising an eyebrow.
What do you mean by “Demographic” Jihad? If you mean that the Muslims are spreading Islam by pasting it on the sword, then I answered it in detail in some of my comments which I posted earlier in other articles. I would like to add one more point here:-

************** DIFFERENCE B/W MAAL-E-GHANEEMAT & MAAL-E-F`AY **************
Maal-e-Ghaneemat refers to those swords, shields, tools, etc. which have been taken/picked up from the site of the battle.
Maal-e-F`ay refers to the people, lands, etc. over which victory has been acheived.
Thus only the swords, shields, etc. which were picked up at the site of the battle will be divided among the Mujahiddeen & become their private property and the fifth-part of this Maal-e-Ghaneemat will be given in charity.
THE REST OF THE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN CONQUERED AFTER THE BATTLE IS MAAL-E-F`AY. IT IS NOT A PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE MUJAHIDDEEN!!!!!
THE PEOPLE OF THAT LAND WILL BECOME RESPECTFUL CITIZENS, WHO ONLY HAVE TO OBEY THE GENERAL LAW & PAY A SMALL TAX (JEZYAH), IN WHICH RELIEF IS GIVEN TO THE POVERTY STRICKEN. THIS JEZYAH IS TAKEN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR LIFE, SHELTER, FOOD, ETC. WHICH IS PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE MUSLIM STATE.
SUCH PEOPLE ARE CALLED DHIMMIS; YOU CONSIDER THE WORD ‘DHIMMI’ TO BE INSULTING ONLY BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ARABIC AND ARE FOOLED BY OTHERS. DHIMMI LITERALLY MEANS A PERSON WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. IN THIS CASE, A NON-MUSLIM IS A DHIMMI IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY, BECAUSE, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTION OF HIS FOOD, SHELTER, LIFE, ETC. IS ON THE MUSLIM STATE; FOR ANY HARM TO IT, THE MUSLIM STATE WILL BE RESPONSIBILE FOR PROVIDING JUSTICE.
DHIMMI IS A RESPECTFUL WORD FOR NON-MUSLIMS AS IT SHOWS THAT THEIR RIGHTS CANNOT BE NEGLECTED! LOOK AT THIS HADITH:-
Narrated `Amr bin Maimun: `Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, “I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability.” [Sahih Bukhari, Vol.4, Bk.52]
(Umar R.A.A. was breathing his last, but, he was not worried of who killed him; rather, he was worried about the dhimmis!!! One can easily approximate the amount of care which non-muslims are given in a TRUE muslim state!)
ALAS! SOME PEOPLE, FOR REAPING PERSONAL BENEFITS, HAVE CREATED MISUNDERTSANDINGS! DHIMMIS COULD FOLLOW THEIR PERSONAL LAWS UNDER A ISLAMIC STATE, BUT, THEY MUST FOLLOW THE GENERAL LAW OF THE MUSLIM COUNTRY AND PAY JEZYAH.
What is bad in it?

If you mean by the term “Demographic Jihad” to mean that Muslims are rigorously trying to increase their population, then I would like to quote something from YOUR scripture:-
“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain!” [Psalms, Chapter 127]
So, when even a house cannot be built without God’s consent and permission, then how can Muslims do “Jihad” (struggle) to “build” (within commas) children and increase their population rapidly??? If you still disagree, then you should also object those living in Israel, free of any birth control and doing “demographic Jihad.”

>>>it is obvious that you have access to information sources other than the koran...
Aren’t you trying to be a little sarcastic? What do you want to say if not that I am someone ‘special’ to have access to information sources other than the Qur’an? You guys sit here and keep on moving your tongues, without ever knowing the difference between a “Maktab” and a “Madrassa.” A maktab is a place where people go (usually in childhood) to learn reciting the Holy Qur’an only; they may also be taught books containing information about the Shari’ah rulings. A madrassa on the other hand serves as a ‘factory’ for producing expert & authentic Islamic scholars. They provide a 8 to 10 year “Aalim” course; most madrassas provide courses of Modern Sciences, English Language, Islamic Banking & Computer-related courses also now-a-days. A madrassa is not the first & last source of knowledge of these scholars; the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) has said: ‘Obtain knowledge from the [mother’s] lap to the grave!’ He (P.B.U.H.) also said: ‘Seek knowledge even if it be in China!’

(It is noteworthy here that the Madrassas’ management tries its best to keep their students away from Militancy and ESPECIALLY, POLITICS; the reason is that if these two things enter into Madrassas, then the aim of producing true Islamic scholars will not be possible. The scholars produced will then seek political power and their attention from education will be diverted. The madrassas are blamed for the US Government’s own actions! The textbooks given to Afghan children were filled with violent passages & images, and all this was portrayed as Jihad, even though it had nothing to do so with Jihad. These were not prepared by any Mullah or Maulvi; the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID [Agency for International Development] grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university´s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994. These books were published in Pashtu and Dari languages and shocking as it may seem, An aid-worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages! REMEMBER, THESE BOOKS WERE NOT OF FIQH HANAFI OR SHIITE MAULVIS; THEY WERE MADE BY THE US THEMSELVES FOR PREPARING AN ARMY AGAINST THE SOVIET. If you want to know more about this, with references to authentic sources, read the article “Jihad & Jihadism” by Abid Ullah Jan. [ This article can be found on their website, by doing a little search; their website is: http://www.icssa.org/ ])
Muslim scholars all over the world are expert in other sciences, beside religious sciences. Even the Imam of my mosque can speak English and has knowledge of Modern Sciences as well. Then, another example is that of Retd. Justice Sheikh-ul-Hadith Mufti Maulana (name starts from here!) Muhammad Taqi Usmani sahib. He runs Darul Uloom Karachi in Pakistan, an Islamic institution in Jedah and is the he