Iran unveils first bomber drone
22 August 2010 Last updated at 12:42 GMT

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48825000/jpg/_48825046_48825047.jpg
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right) pulled away a sheet to reveal the "Karrar" drone

Iran has unveiled what it says is its first domestically built unmanned - or drone - bomber.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the plane could serve as a "messenger of death", but that its key message was one of friendship.

Iranian state TV later showed the "Karrar" aircraft in flight.

It said it had a range of 1,000km (620 miles) and could carry two 250-pound (115kg) bombs, or a precision bomb of 500 pounds.

The plane is the latest in a series of new pieces of military hardware unveiled by Iran.

"This jet is a messenger of honour and human generosity and a saviour of mankind, before being a messenger of death for enemies of mankind," President Ahmadinejad said after unveiling the Karrar at a ceremony with defence officials.

"The key message is friendship," he added. "We must make efforts to render all the enemy's weapons useless with our defence potential."

The unveiling came amid continuing concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

Western states suspect Iran is trying to obtain a nuclear bomb, though Iran says its programme is designed to boost domestic power supplies.

On Saturday, Iran began loading fuel rods at the Bushehr nuclear power station built and operated by Russia.

The US said it saw no "proliferation risk" from the plant, though Israel condemned the move.

Source: BBC

What wasn't as well publicised (in fact it's barely been mentioned in any Western media at all) about Iran's UAV program was that earlier this month, Western terrorists or their "sleeper cells" inside Iran murdered the head of the UAV program by bombing his house.

Israeli websites didn't mind publishing this information, knowing full well their "goy" allies would be too docile to even question it anyway, or too feeble-minded to even notice.

very interesting. Gee, if that was ever launched by one country against a military power, they'd get a few back wouldn't they.
Good move!

Iran's achievements in military technology are purely a case of playing catch up to counter the offensive posturing of other countries. It is purely defensive in nature, since other countries have been threatening them for decades. So developing these technologies is a must, and is better than not developing them, because they're most likely going to end up victims of the aggressive Zionist/Yank policies anyway.

Also keep in mind the U.S has invaded and occupies both of Iran's two main neighbours.... Imagine if China invaded and occupied NZ and Indonesia and was trying to impose sanctions on us... don't you think we'd be a little defensive too?

Come on think rationally... what else would any country do in their situation? What would you do in their situation?

This is what I predict your feeble-minded answer is going to sound like: "I'd be a good little world citizen, and submit myself wholly to the Zionist/Yank world order, and make myself their devoted slave, so they'd have no reason to threaten me".

no, abu, I wouldn't respond like that; never do.
But - if I wave a great big new weapon in a big boy's face, I don't expect they are going to do me any favours.
Tough talk brings tough response. There are much better and smarter ways of getting what you want than doing that, especially when you are dealing with big guys who are on the extreme side.
If you are a small guy, in reality, if you pursue aggression and posturing, you are going to lose. You might inflict some damage on your opponent or scare them, but in the end you will lose.
This is a maxim as old as history itself, and countries just keep trying, failing and finally learning. America itself is very aware of this, and a number of countries have tried to do what Iran is now doing and have failed. They need to look at history and outside a narrow frame of reference. It is a pity really to see these mistakes being made, in what otherwise was an historically old and very cultured society.
What a pity.

Quote:

But - if I wave a great big new weapon in a big boy's face, I don't expect they are going to do me any favours.

But they weren't getting any favours from them anyway, they were already getting threats, overthrown governments, installed regimes etc. So they've got little to lose... no?

You see when you've got nothing to lose, you might as well go for broke...

That's the situation much of the Muslim world is in now. They've been bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown that often, that there's not too many consequences you can threaten them with anymore. As our Environment Minister once said "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees".


Quote:

countries just keep trying, failing and finally learning. America itself is very aware of this, and a number of countries have tried to do what Iran is now doing and have failed.

Which countries?

which countries?! Well, start with Japan and Germany in world war one AND two as prime examples.

abu, I truly believe, for a long time now, that the muslim world totally does NOT understand the western mindset and how to deal with it.
It is *not* "one uniform way of thinking". No one has studied the history, for goodness sake. There is a way through this, but I look upon with fear when they do things like this, because I know the mindset of who they are provoking, and it is scary.

When you are dealing with America you are dealing with a very strong Anglo Protestant mindset, it comes historically from Protestant England.  It is not a continental European way of thinking at all. You need to deal with it in a different way. The Jewish people understand how to do that, that is the difference.  People think that religion plays no part in the West. It certainly does now, and historically it was most certainly a formative influence on cultures for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Some parts of western culture can be quite warlike, it is true, so there is a way to deal with that, but it is NOT by trying to beat it militarily. Are they in touch with reality doing that??? They can NOT possibly win doing that. Other countries have done exactly that with America and they have not succeeded. There is a way, but not that.
I really fear for a country like Iran. Once the mark has been overstepped, you will notice that all sorts of matters are imputed to the situation, perhaps they are not true, perhaps they are, but no one will ever really know, before perhaps there is irretrievable military conflict. It is dangerous to wave weapons like that, it provokes, it does not defuse; and as you know - they have long memories.

they have everything to lose, abu.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47pm:

What wasn't as well publicised (in fact it's barely been mentioned in any Western media at all) about Iran's UAV program was that earlier this month, Western terrorists or their "sleeper cells" inside Iran murdered the head of the UAV program by bombing his house. Israeli websites didn't mind publishing this information, knowing full well their "goy" allies would be too docile to even question it anyway, or too feeble-minded to even notice.

You sound like it's bad news.

As the Guardian noted, only the DebkaFiles carried this piece of unconfirmed news. You can't find any refernce to it except in relation that blog.
Still, good news.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:19am:

You see when you've got nothing to lose, you might as well go for broke... That's the situation much of the Muslim world is in now. They've been bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown that often, that there's not too many consequences you can threaten them with anymore. As our Environment Minister once said "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees".

Political Islam as a replacement for Kemalist nationalism is the glue that will hold Turkey together, in Erdogan's view. It does not seem to be doing a good job. Islamic solidarity was supposed to persuade the Kurds to behave themselves, along with a few nods in the direction of the use of the Kurdish language, which the Kemalists tried to suppress. The killing of 11 Turkish soldiers in raids staged from Iraq and the bombing of a military bus in Ankara show that Kurdish resistance has not diminished. Erdogan, previously so concerned about human rights and the Biblical injunction against killing, raged that the Kurdish rebels will "drown in their own blood".

Erdogan's political Islam failed to stabilize Turkey. It will contribute to instability in the region to an extent that is difficult to foresee. Iran now has the more reason to assert its influence in Iraq, perhaps by encouraging the breakup of the country and the emergence of a Kurdish state that might threaten Turkey.

Turkey, in turn, has all the more reason to agitate among the Turkish-speaking, or Azeri, quarter of Iran's population. Iran will use its influence among Turkish Alevis to challenge the Turkish Sunni establishment; Iran will encourage Turkish separatism. Meanwhile Erdogan's alliance of opportunity with Hamas undercuts the American-allied Sunni Arab states, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Mahmoud Abbas' Palestine Authority.

With the United States in full strategic withdrawal, a Thirty Years War in western and central Asia seems all the more likely.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF29Ak01.html

Why does Persia insist on its own arms industry anyway? I mean, it's nice initiative and everything but there's nothing they can create that would be better than something they could probably purchase from the Russians.

Russia has a new stealth jet out I believe; the PAK FA T-50. It's looking very cool.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:39pm:

Why does Persia insist on its own arms industry anyway?

It is a tool for peace, Insh'allah. It is a gesture of friendship.

Muslims who insist on getting even with Uncle do not understand the key lessons learned from the US's recent history.

It's not about superior military might, Beating Uncle at his own game is about playing on your own home ground and understanding, as Mao so elegantly put it, that the "weak shall overcome the strong." You beat Uncle by being lighter, more flexible, and being in there for the long haul. The drone in the picture is just a propaganda tool.

Why on earth anyone would defend the creation of a new arms race is beyond me.

soren,


Quote:

You sound like it's bad news. Still, good news.

So you support the murder of scientists? You support blowing up people because they are working on military science projects? Do you consider all Australian and American scientists involved in military research projects, and their families and homes to be legitimate targets for bombs as well?


Quote:

Erdogan's political Islam failed to stabilize Turkey...

Erdogan is a puppet just like the others. He's merely there to falsely quench the thirst of the people for Islam, when in fact he offers nothing of the sort. He's like a nicotine patch, designed to keep the people satisfied without giving them the real thing, obviously so they stop wanting the real thing.

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 12:41am:

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:39pm: Why does Persia insist on its own arms industry anyway? It is a tool for peace, Insh'allah. It is a gesture of friendship. Muslims who insist on getting even with Uncle do not understand the key lessons learned from the US's recent history. It's not about superior military might, Beating Uncle at his own game is about playing on your own home ground and understanding, as Mao so elegantly put it, that the "weak shall overcome the strong." You beat Uncle by being lighter, more flexible, and being in there for the long haul. The drone in the picture is just a propaganda tool. Why on earth anyone would defend the creation of a new arms race is beyond me.

Do you know - I have never quoted myself before. Mere plagiarism and vanity.

However, I also hate to admit I'm wr..., but I certainly am in this case. It's not my fault, of course.

The fundamental flaw in the above post (and the tone of this thread, I'm afraid) is the assumption that Iran is sticking it to Uncle. It's not.

What Iran is doing, insh'allah, is sticking it to Israel. But more importantly, it's attempting to cement its new-found hegemony in Central Asia. It looks like Iran didn't get the nukes it was after, but the only reason to have nukes would be to counter Israel. Which is a complete abstraction, because anyone who nukes anyone else in the Middle East will nuke themselves, as Israel well knows. It's all about bluff.

Drones look like a much better idea. As the US has shown, drones are an excellent way to fight a short range war, long-distance. You can fight from any laptop in the world, I guess. I could be zapping people right now if I wanted.

I'm assuming Israel's got a couple of drones hanging about - they have all the latest gadgets, I'm told, so of course Iran would want them too. But Iran isn't chiefly in a tizz over Israel.

Israel is merely political.

Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, are geopolitical. This is where the US is playing with its drones. Now drones don't seem to me to be a particularly defensive weapon. You fly them deep into an enemy's borders. I can't see how they'd be that much good if you were using them to defend troops or populations. Anti-aircraft fire would wipe them out pretty quick, and there goes your latest investment.

Iran doesn't want to put its hand down Uncle's pants in Afghanistan right now. That would be madness. What Iran's doing is getting in on what Uncle grandiosely calls the War On Terror, but which we all know is just a futile waste of time doomed to finish in a couple of years or so. A war without means or ends.

But Iran will still be there. Afghanistan and Pakistan will still be there. Now what else would Iran be doing with a drone? Continuing the US's gripes?

Hardly. Iran has its eye on its own game-plan in the region. It's not defensive or friendly, or even about Uncle, who everybody knows, is on the way out.

The future in Central Asia is Russia, China and Iran. Amerika still has a big presence in the region, but it's time-limited. Amerika doesn't have hegemony anymore. It can only hold on for dear life. But the others...

Iran has its eye on the big picture. You could say it's Iran's way of "moving forward."

Karnal wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 8:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 12:41am: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:39pm: Why does Persia insist on its own arms industry anyway? It is a tool for peace, Insh'allah. It is a gesture of friendship. Muslims who insist on getting even with Uncle do not understand the key lessons learned from the US's recent history. It's not about superior military might, Beating Uncle at his own game is about playing on your own home ground and understanding, as Mao so elegantly put it, that the "weak shall overcome the strong." You beat Uncle by being lighter, more flexible, and being in there for the long haul. The drone in the picture is just a propaganda tool. Why on earth anyone would defend the creation of a new arms race is beyond me. Do you know - I have never quoted myself before. Mere plagiarism and vanity. However, I also hate to admit I'm wr..., but I certainly am in this case. It's not my fault, of course. The fundamental flaw in the above post (and the tone of this thread, I'm afraid) is the assumption that Iran is sticking it to Uncle. It's not. What Iran is doing, insh'allah, is sticking it to Israel. But more importantly, it's attempting to cement its new-found hegemony in Central Asia. It looks like Iran didn't get the nukes it was after, but the only reason to have nukes would be to counter Israel. Which is a complete abstraction, because anyone who nukes anyone else in the Middle East will nuke themselves, as Israel well knows. It's all about bluff.

You ARE a Musulman stooge, after all, you Paki bugger.


Israel is no military threat to any country. israle has no hegemonic ambition or terrirorial claims.


The Pesrians, on the other hand, frighten the bejes... e...  bemohammed out of the Muslim neighbourhood. Turkey doesn't want Persian hegemony. Araby doesn't. Egypt doesn't. Nobody except Persian client do.

Israel is irrelevant in the age-old Mulsim infighting.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:54am:

soren, Quote: You sound like it's bad news. Still, good news. So you support the murder of scientists? You support blowing up people because they are working on military science projects?

I'm ululating, mate.

Quote:

I'm ululating, mate.

You're definitely something-ating, but ulul wouldn't have been my first guess.  ;D

Quote:

Israel is no military threat to any country. israle has no hegemonic ambition or terrirorial claims.

Israel *is* a territorial claim.

Quote:

Israel *is* a territorial claim.

That's what happens when you side with the losers Abu, you lose ground.

It's almost arrogantly that the west has provided such a thin slice of land to Israel and kept confidence in Islam nations to respect democracy.

If the shoe were on the other foot, we'd be obliterated. Thanks God that Islamics are dumbass morons who wear slippers because they can't tie a shoelace.
Islam exists only at our behest, none other.
That's the truth and truth is God.

Quote:

Islam exists only at our behest, none other. That's the truth and truth is God.

Islam exists because truth prevails over falsehood.

Islam exists because it obliterated the superpowers of it's day (The Romans and Persians) and it will continue to exist as it continues to thrust aside the next generation of wannabe superpowers (ie. the Soviets and Yanks).

Soren wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 8:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 26th, 2010 at 8:32pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 12:41am: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:39pm: Why does Persia insist on its own arms industry anyway? It is a tool for peace, Insh'allah. It is a gesture of friendship. Muslims who insist on getting even with Uncle do not understand the key lessons learned from the US's recent history. It's not about superior military might, Beating Uncle at his own game is about playing on your own home ground and understanding, as Mao so elegantly put it, that the "weak shall overcome the strong." You beat Uncle by being lighter, more flexible, and being in there for the long haul. The drone in the picture is just a propaganda tool. Why on earth anyone would defend the creation of a new arms race is beyond me. Do you know - I have never quoted myself before. Mere plagiarism and vanity. However, I also hate to admit I'm wr..., but I certainly am in this case. It's not my fault, of course. The fundamental flaw in the above post (and the tone of this thread, I'm afraid) is the assumption that Iran is sticking it to Uncle. It's not. What Iran is doing, insh'allah, is sticking it to Israel. But more importantly, it's attempting to cement its new-found hegemony in Central Asia. It looks like Iran didn't get the nukes it was after, but the only reason to have nukes would be to counter Israel. Which is a complete abstraction, because anyone who nukes anyone else in the Middle East will nuke themselves, as Israel well knows. It's all about bluff. You ARE a Musulman stooge, after all, you Paki bugger. Israel is no military threat to any country. israle has no hegemonic ambition or terrirorial claims. The Pesrians, on the other hand, frighten the bejes... e...  bemohammed out of the Muslim neighbourhood. Turkey doesn't want Persian hegemony. Araby doesn't. Egypt doesn't. Nobody except Persian client do. Israel is irrelevant in the age-old Mulsim infighting.

You're doing yourself a disservice, old boy.

Kindly READ the posts you're critiquing before sending the missiles in.

I doubt I would see Israel as nice country after its various incursions, Mossad operations and so-called diplomacy. We see it as benign because it is no threat to US.

But if you lived next door, I'm sure you'd have a different perspective.

Quote:

I doubt I would see Israel as nice country after its various incursions, Mossad operations and so-called diplomacy. We see it as benign because it is no threat to US.

It certainly pushes and bites the hand that feeds it at times, though. Israeli agents are frequently caught spying on the U.S and I'm pretty well convinced that Israelis purposely attacked the USS Liberty.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 10:26pm:

Quote: Israel is no military threat to any country. israle has no hegemonic ambition or terrirorial claims. Israel *is* a territorial claim.

A claim that was granted by the legal authority over the territory.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 3:05pm:

Quote: I doubt I would see Israel as nice country after its various incursions, Mossad operations and so-called diplomacy. We see it as benign because it is no threat to US. I'm pretty well convinced that Israelis purposely attacked the USS Liberty.

To whose benefit?

The motives have been fairly well discussed; there are a lot of competing theories. The entire thing is a fascinating little aspect of the Middle Eastern conflict.

How badarse was Moshe Dayan though?!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Moshe_Dayan.jpg

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 7:33am:

Quote: Islam exists only at our behest, none other. That's the truth and truth is God. Islam exists because truth prevails over falsehood. Islam exists because it obliterated the superpowers of it's day (The Romans and Persians) and it will continue to exist as it continues to thrust aside the next generation of wannabe superpowers (ie. the Soviets and Yanks).

Allah certainly has an unfathomable way of giving his nod of approval to the prevailing Muslim truth: he has kept Muslims in deep ignorance and poverty for centuries.


'thrust aside the next generation of wannabe superpowers', eh? But unable to 'thrust aside' all those puppet governments ruling over the Muslims. Go figure, as they say in Great Satanland.


The unmistakable symptom of the imported, mish-mash quality of Islamist politics (your mindset) is your language. It is a combination of the ascendant nazi ideology and Soviet agit-prop bombast. Like Islam itself, an unselfconscious parody of Judaism and Chritianity, your political rhetoric is a quaint and menacing throwback to European forms of psychosis. You can't be even mad in an original way. Sons of Ishmael, resentment is your lot. And your limit.

Soren wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 4:19pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26th, 2010 at 10:26pm: Quote: Israel is no military threat to any country. israle has no hegemonic ambition or terrirorial claims. Israel *is* a territorial claim. A claim that was granted by the legal authority over the territory.

Ah, legal authority. And what about the legal authorities of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon? Or what about the UN? The UN have proposed several resolutions for Israel to give back the land seized in the 67 war and the war with Lebanon in the 80s.

Alas, if it wasn't for the US's Security Council veto power, which they used in most resolutions, they would have passed.

Just like the resolutions the US upheld for Saddam - and went to war for too.

See how the world works?

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 7:33am:

Quote: Islam exists only at our behest, none other. That's the truth and truth is God. Islam exists because truth prevails over falsehood. Islam exists because it obliterated the superpowers of it's day (The Romans and Persians) and it will continue to exist as it continues to thrust aside the next generation of wannabe superpowers (ie. the Soviets and Yanks).

So Islam exists as a force for obliteration?

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. But most importantly: ignorance is strength.

If Islam's existence is propagated on endless war, it might as well join Dick Cheney and his golfing buddies.

Alas, I don't think it is, but I haven't taken the right medication. I think - and I stress that this is simply a thought - that there is much more to Islam than this.

But Soren's a Christian, so I guess anything's possible.

Perhaps you have more in common than you originally thought?

Karnal,


Quote:

So Islam exists as a force for obliteration? War is peace. Freedom is slavery. But most importantly: ignorance is strength.

Unlike Christianity, Islam is a "down to earth" religion. It is not self-deceiving, claiming to be all peace loving and turning the other cheek and all this crap, and then smiting everyone it comes across.

Islam recognises that there is times when war will be necessary, and it regulates that accordingly. It does not deny this fact of human nature, but like with all things it demands fairness and restraint in enacting it.

The Romans and Persians both wanted to crush the fledgling Muslim state, and so Islam obliterated them.

On the other hand, the Abyssinians who were a kind and peaceful Christian nation, and had actually offered refuge to the Muslims when they were persecuted in Makkah were left as is, even though they were closer to the Muslims in proximity than either Romans or Persians.


Quote:

If Islam's existence is propagated on endless war, it might as well join Dick Cheney and his golfing buddies. Alas, I don't think it is, but I haven't taken the right medication. I think - and I stress that this is simply a thought - that there is much more to Islam than this.

Islam seeks to live in peace, but not with those who are warmongers. It will challenge, oppose and obliterate them. No Pharaoh is safe so long as a single Muslim breathes, and the Pharaohs of today know this too well.


Quote:

But Soren's a Christian, so I guess anything's possible. Perhaps you have more in common than you originally thought?

I don't think so. Christianity and Islam are poles apart. Islam is an honest and straight down the line religion, Christianity is nothing but a barrel of deception and lies, that promotes itself as peace loving and cheek turning, when in fact it's entire history until this very day tells us the complete opposite.

So yes both Islam and Christianity can wage war, but one does it in an honest, open and restrained way out of necessity, whilst the other does it in a deceptive and mischievous way out of greed and a desire to control all people and their resources.

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 12:51am:

Soren wrote on Aug 27th, 2010 at 4:19pm: abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26th, 2010 at 10:26pm: Quote: Israel is no military threat to any country. israle has no hegemonic ambition or terrirorial claims. Israel *is* a territorial claim. A claim that was granted by the legal authority over the territory. Ah, legal authority. And what about the legal authorities of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon? Or what about the UN? The UN have proposed several resolutions for Israel to give back the land seized in the 67 war and the war with Lebanon in the 80s.

What about the legal authorities of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon? Western creations each.


The legal authority over Palestine after the Great War was Great Britain. It was not the League of Nations that defated the ottomans but the Allied Powers.

THE UN has no power, just as the League of Nations didn't.

Soren wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 12:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28th, 2010 at 12:51am: Soren wrote on Aug 27th, 2010 at 4:19pm: abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26th, 2010 at 10:26pm: Quote: Israel is no military threat to any country. israle has no hegemonic ambition or terrirorial claims. Israel *is* a territorial claim. A claim that was granted by the legal authority over the territory. Ah, legal authority. And what about the legal authorities of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon? Or what about the UN? The UN have proposed several resolutions for Israel to give back the land seized in the 67 war and the war with Lebanon in the 80s. What about the legal authorities of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon? Western creations each. The legal authority over Palestine after the Great War was Great Britain. It was not the League of Nations that defated the ottomans but the Allied Powers. THE UN has no power, just as the League of Nations didn't.

You're stating the obvious here, old boy.

I doubt very much you were saying that the UN has no authority when the US went into Iraq over its failure to uphold UN resolutions. This, after all, was the only legal justification for invading Iraq. Twice.

Fair enough. But what applies to the goose should also apply to the gander.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

I don't think so. Christianity and Islam are poles apart. Islam is an honest and straight down the line religion, Christianity is nothing but a barrel of deception and lies, that promotes itself as peace loving and cheek turning, when in fact it's entire history until this very day tells us the complete opposite. So yes both Islam and Christianity can wage war, but one does it in an honest, open and restrained way out of necessity, whilst the other does it in a deceptive and mischievous way out of greed and a desire to control all people and their resources.

Being "honest" about brutality and imperialism doesn't excuse it.

Christianity doesn't control labour and resources, capitalism does. And before capitalism, empires did. I'm sure the Ottomans had as many slaves as the Romans.

I think you're mistaking political and economic structures for religious ones.

All soldiers are sold the lie that they are fighting on God's side. The point isn't the sides, but the political and economic structures that keep the war going.

Again, to get to the point of the thread, Iran is not fighting a defensive war. It's playing geopolitics. Religion might have something to do with it, but it is - as you put it - about the control of people and resources.

Fair enough? About time? Perhaps. But your original post highlighted the self-deception inherent in all war propaganda. If we're going to call the Christians bullsh!t artists, we should give the Muslims their due when they do the same.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Don't let your allegiance destroy your capacity for critical thought. If any type of religion encourages this, it's false religion.

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:

Don't let your allegiance destroy your capacity for critical thought.

Telling that to poor Rashid's dad - you are waaaay too smacking late, pal, if I may speak French for a moment.

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 4:28pm:

I doubt very much you were saying that the UN has no authority when the US went into Iraq over its failure to uphold UN resolutions. This, after all, was the only legal justification for invading Iraq. Twice. Fair enough. But what applies to the goose should also apply to the gander.

The US did not need UN authority. Bush got sucked into humouring Blair's endless UN 'legitimacy' mongering.

Nobody actually needs UN authority for anything (last of all the US) because nobody goes to war for the UN. There was no UN authorisation for attacking Afghanistan. The US decided to do it, so it was done.

The UN is without any capacity to enforce anything. Without the US financing it, the UN could't even cover its own wages bill.

Karnal,


Quote:

Being "honest" about brutality and imperialism doesn't excuse it

Nowhere did I state anything about brutality. As for imperialism, you cannot call Islam imperialistic, because it simply wasn't. Islam raised up the lands it opened, it did not occupy and drain them of their resources as imperialists do. A prime example of how Islam differed from pretty much all other states that existed before and after it, is that it's capital moved throughout the new lands that came under its domain. As the Ottomans for instance opened a new land, a city in that new land would become the capital. There was no concept of the dichotomy that exists in imperialist states where there is a homeland and then there are imperial possessions. All lands were one, and all shared the same status.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

The Romans and Persians both wanted to crush the fledgling Muslim state, and so Islam obliterated them.

Islam obliterated the Romans and invented the wheel. Being a Muslims, you are more credulous than Alice, who belived only 6 impossible things before breakfast.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 11:22pm:

Karnal, Quote: Being "honest" about brutality and imperialism doesn't excuse it Nowhere did I state anything about brutality. As for imperialism, you cannot call Islam imperialistic, because it simply wasn't. Islam raised up the lands it opened, it did not occupy and drain them of their resources as imperialists do. A prime example of how Islam differed from pretty much all other states that existed before and after it, is that it's capital moved throughout the new lands that came under its domain. As the Ottomans for instance opened a new land, a city in that new land would become the capital. There was no concept of the dichotomy that exists in imperialist states where there is a homeland and then there are imperial possessions. All lands were one, and all shared the same status.

I think there might have been a bit of a dichotomy between the Turks and the Assyrians though, don"t you think?

Hey, Abu_Rashid,
Don't you think Religious people (that includes Christians & Jews too)
have a Gun problem as if they think they were in the Military
...like Musicians seem to have a Drug problem
as if they were in the Medical
?

- no offence, but I thought Moslem nations only carry books around in the name of Religion.

Karnal,

Are you referring to the Ottoman quelling of the Assyrian & Armenian rebels who'd been incited by the Russians to fight against their own state? If so, then how can the Ottomans really be criticised for that? anyway my point still stands, there was no concept of a Turkish homeland and then imperial possessions. Assyrians, Armenians, Copts etc. were all full citizens of the Osmanli state, and all were free to live in Constantinople or in which ever part of the state they chose (except al-Hijaz, which was a consecrated sanctuary for Muslims only).

This is not even remotely similar to any other state which was considered an empire.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 11:22pm:

Karnal, Quote: Being "honest" about brutality and imperialism doesn't excuse it Nowhere did I state anything about brutality. As for imperialism, you cannot call Islam imperialistic, because it simply wasn't. Islam raised up the lands it opened, it did not occupy and drain them of their resources as imperialists do. A prime example of how Islam differed from pretty much all other states that existed before and after it, is that it's capital moved throughout the new lands that came under its domain. As the Ottomans for instance opened a new land, a city in that new land would become the capital. There was no concept of the dichotomy that exists in imperialist states where there is a homeland and then there are imperial possessions. All lands were one, and all shared the same status.

Hang on....did you say that the groups like Hamas want to recreate the Caliphate????
If the 'World wide' Caliphate isn't 'imperialism'...then WHAT is?????

gizmo,

Did you actually read any of what's written? I've clearly outlined why the Caliphate system is not imperialistic.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:

Karnal, Are you referring to the Ottoman quelling of the Assyrian & Armenian rebels who'd been incited by the Russians to fight against their own state? If so, then how can the Ottomans really be criticised for that? anyway my point still stands, there was no concept of a Turkish homeland and then imperial possessions. Assyrians, Armenians, Copts etc. were all full citizens of the Osmanli state, and all were free to live in Constantinople or in which ever part of the state they chose (except al-Hijaz, which was a consecrated sanctuary for Muslims only). This is not even remotely similar to any other state which was considered an empire.

Sure, but the Assyrians weren't free to escape the first modern, systematic genocide of the 20th century now were they? Surely you're not seriously defending this just because they were Muslims. I don't know many Germans who'd defend the Third Reich - a few members of this board perhaps...

You do raise a really important point about empires, and I'm happy to accept your argument on the Ottoman empire at face value. However, I think it's a mistake to see the Dutch, British or even the current "pax Americana" as empires. What these "empires" have done, in succession, is lead the process of global capitalism - and obviously exploit it to their own advantage.

But this exploitation does not, in itself, make an empire. An empire extorts lesser states, kingdoms or fiefdoms in the promise of protection, the Pax Romana as an example. It's a relationship based on brute force and taxation. Since the 16th century, successive states have arisen to lead capitalism, a completely different process to the imperial dominions of the past. They have acted to protect capitalism itself, which is essentially America's role today. It doesn't go into Iraq or Vietnam or Korea for its own sake. It does it to take care of business. The business of America, just like the British and Dutch before them, is business, and it's their business because the centre of global trade is based primarily within their borders.

The Ottomans were on the periphery of the economic core in the late 19th century, when the British led the way. I'll accept your argument that their domination wasn't merely about extorting surplus crops - although I have some doubts about this. Their place was the traditional form of empire, where they dominated lesser kingdoms and took them under their protection in return for favours, largely in the form of taxes on trade, given their control of important trading routes.

The Ottoman Turks weren't some pious, devoted Muslim utopia in the service of the people. Like all great powers, they relied on the rack and the iron maiden (or in recent Turkish history, the car battery, thumbscrews, and all the rest). Thank God they've changed into a secular state. Thank God they've ousted the military.

All great powers are corrupt to the core. They have to be to remain in power. There is no return to a golden age of brotherhood - especially at the global level. Sure, a handful of communities living simple lives, with decisions made by those you live with. But a global caliphate? Might as well bring back Stalinism and learn to live with the rack.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:

gizmo, Did you actually read any of what's written? I've clearly outlined why the Caliphate system is not imperialistic.

Abu, any system that wishes to bring the whole world under one ruler is imperialistic..

Whether you call the ruler Emperor, King, Pope, Khan, Furher or Caliph doesn't matter....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 8:57am:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 6:34pm: gizmo, Did you actually read any of what's written? I've clearly outlined why the Caliphate system is not imperialistic. Abu, any system that wishes to bring the whole world under one ruler is imperialistic.. Whether you call the ruler Emperor, King, Pope, Khan, Furher or Caliph doesn't matter....

Exactly.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:

gizmo, Did you actually read any of what's written? I've clearly outlined why the Caliphate system is not imperialistic.

And as for the arguement that the Caliphate isn't imperialistic because "Islam raised up the lands it opened, it did not occupy and drain them of their resources as imperialists do"...That's a load of crap..

EVERY single Empire throughout history has 'raised up' the lands it conquered........It's an absolutely unavoidable by-product of conquest, once you occupy a nation/country the improvements you make (even if you use slave labour to make those improvements) raises the technology level of the conquered country, because you use local workers to do it.....

And the usual 'resources' that empires remove from conquered countries are things the native inhabitants have no use for....

And EVEN the Caliphate moved troops, traders and administrators into conquered territories.....if that's NOT occupation, what is???

I doubt that drone is any good.
The most important feature has to be secure communications.
Satelites are needed for this so that the drone can be controlled
while receiving real time video in high definition &
also on a secure channel/ channels.

Iran doesn't have a whole range of advanced satelites.
This is just silly sabre rattling.