Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Excellent resource, thanks.

What about citizens appealing to the Queen? Would it be feasible for a family group (or any group with a common interest) to seek advice from a solicitor, with a view to petitioning the Queen through the Governor-General?

If this suggestion has legs, could someone post a guess at costs?

We live in dangerous times. Liberties that we have taken for granted are now under threat. What is needed now is leadership from those political parties on the left of centre, the Labor party, the Democrats and the Greens. More than unfortunately, our Labor leaders are not taking the debate up to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Members of the Labor Party (and the other left of centre parties) who are alarmed at the Howard Government's current proposed legislation must push their leaderships on these important issues, at this important time. A resolution that your branch of your party may wish to consider:

"This Branch notes that legal protection from arbitrary arrest and from imprisonment without trial is one of our societies most valuable civil liberties.

This Branch notes that, under the proposed anti-terrorism measures agreed to by Australia's heads of government on 27 September 2005,
the police will be able to arrest any person as young as 16, and imprison
them for 14 days if they have "reasonable grounds" for believing that they
pose a "terrorist threat."

Furthermore, "suspects" could be tagged with electronic tracking devices or
held in house arrest for up to a year, without charge. The so-called
"judicial review" of such measures is virtually meaningless, as it would be
a review limited to determine if the letter of the law had been obeyed. The
judge would not be permitted to investigate or determine the question of
whether there was factual evidence for branding a person a terrorist
suspect.

Nor would there be any mechanism to guard against these periods of detention (arrest for 14 days or house arrest for a year) being rolled over
indefinitely. Detainees could be released, but then re-arrested in minutes.

This Branch notes that the agreement of the Labor leaders of the states and territories was necessary to ensure that this package of legislation could be implemented.

This Branch also notes that the Federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, has given in principle support for the proposed package, and said it didn't' go far enough.

This Branch condemns unequivocally this betrayal of basic civil liberties and call on the state governments and the Federal Labor leadership to reconsider their position and oppose these laws."

A second resloution could be:

"This Branch commends John Stanhope for his courage in placing the Draft Anti Terrorist legislation on the ACT Government website and his continuing resistance to the Howard Government's attempt to pass this legislation with no consultation with the Australian people."

If passed by your branch of your party, please send these resolutions to higher party forums and the leadership of the party. An email or letter should be sent to John Stanhope and the ACT Government.

And this.
Essential liberties are lost in imitation
October 27, 2005

Without a bill of rights, Australia lacks the safeguards that underpin Britain's stand on terrorism, writes George Williams.

AFTER the London bombings in July, it comes as no surprise that Britain, like Australia, is in the midst of debate about new terrorism laws. These debates cover the same ground because the Australian law is based largely on British precedents. Indeed, John Howard has sought to justify our new law on the basis that it represents "best practice" from overseas.

... A key difference is that Australia is looking to copy new powers such as control orders and preventive detention from Britain without their most important safeguards: British law is read in light of its 1998 Human Rights Act, which sets out the basic standards of liberty needed for a democracy. As the House of Lords demonstrated last year, the act can be a powerful tool in ensuring terrorism laws do not undermine the values they are meant to protect.

A current (today, Thursday 27 Oct) poll on The Age website asks:

Should the counter-terrorism laws be subjected to greater parliamentary scrutiny?

The options are: Yes or No.

So far 630 people have voted.

Labor caving in so readily to this dreadful legislation has put me right off my beloved party. I doubt I'll be voting for them federally again.

We have seen from comments from the AFP about the Bali Nine after their disgraceful involvement in outscourcing the death penalty to a country with highly dubious legal ethics, that local and federal police forces already abuse the power they have. The AFP boss is already claiming he has 'saved' lives by doing so. Incorrect of course - if the nine had been arrested in Australia noone would be hurt but them.

We have also seen in recent days a number of state police in court for unwarranted attacks upon civilians. Giving these people more power to abuse with no safeguards for the hapless person who becomes the target of their nastiness is pure madness. It's makes none of safer and does nothing to combat terrorism nor would it likely stop any attack upon us. It may do the very opposite.

It worries me that we have law enforcment and security agencies that to date have fed our Parlaiment bogus information for which they have never been called to account. We have police agencies that have failed miserably to protect our citizens from attacks abroad. For John Howard to be taking political advantage at every move of this legislation whether it's attempting to rush it through Parliment without scrutiny or attacking those like Jon Stanhope who brings it to our attention shows that finally he is the most undemocratic PM Australia has ever had. The man's a petty tyrant.

92% - Yes! As at 6:30 am

Anti-terror laws: Should the counter-terrorism laws be subjected to greater parliamentary scrutiny?

Yes - 92%
No - 8%
Total Votes: 836 Poll date: 27/10/05

Michael de Angelos: ”Labor caving in so readily to this dreadful legislation has put me right off my beloved party. I doubt I'll be voting for them federally again”.

Don’t worry Michael they will not win the next election anyway.

How many people who visited the Age reader poll site Kerri Browne cites, as per dishonest framing of of a question concerning a topic.

The question should have been posed thus:

"Do you agree with the proposed changes, or not?"

Not equivocal rot about whether they should be harsher or not. They should not even be being considered at all, they are such a disgrace. What choice is bad or worse; against good, apart from a propaganda-laden one bludgeoning aceptance by denying a real choice exists, if only psychologically in our authoritarian times?

Fairfax could have, what's more, asked if readers felt the government had been honest in its presentation of these laws and whether or not ample time was being given for the public to consider them, in order (of course) to gain feedback.

That would have ben difficult though, since neither the preliminary or any subsequent proposals have actually been released for our scrutiny (peculiar oversight?), except by Jon Stanhope, who surprisingly was abused by other politicians and journalists for doing this.

This sort of dishonesty is really emblemetic of the backsliding of Fairfax and media in general over recent times, into a misleading and reactionary position on political issues, against challenging the incessant Howardist dishonesty.

Of course, we have learned today that Fairfax intends to sack many journalists, to make up the shortfall of $millions for the Fred Himmler retirement cheque. These are passed off as apparent "efficiencies", but this writer wonders how a newspaper sacking journalists makes it "efficient", any more than taking the wheels off a car makes it go better. Still, once the new sedition laws are up, there will be no place for journalists anyway, apart from ones who want to go to gaol.

Now wonder one Margo Kingston walked away from these people, presumably in disgust.

Melbourne Cup day is for the punters, and if I were a betting man I would suggest that the odds will be pretty short on there will be reports of a thwarted terrorist attack on Flemington racecourse. No-one is supposed to know about it, but you can bet it will be leaked to Andrew Bolt or another of the Murdoch cheersquad. No details of course for operational and security reasons.

What brave soldiers are our premiers, under the leadership of Emporor Howard, saving us all from carnage and mayhem.

I think that these new anti-terrorist laws are just another layer of cover up – the worse kind. Already if you have ever tried to get serious allegations of corruption or misconduct investigated you will find that you come across bureaucratic brick wall after bureaucratic brick wall and that victims really have no rights. The system is set up to cover up and it is quite easy to accomplish when there is no supervision or accountability and nobody is required to ask questions.

I believe that the Government’s worry is not so much terrorists, but that they no longer have control over the media. Previously they were protected as the media would not go against them. With new media outlets like Webdiary and blogs becoming so popular people can express themselves and whistleblowers can blow the whistle on the Government or other agencies without having to rely on the system or the main stream media and the Government is seriously concerned. This is really what they are trying to stop!

These laws should be fought as they deprive us of the limited rights and avenues that we have to be heard so as to be in a position to be afforded our basic human rights.

Otherwise people will be too scared to say anything and if that happens we no longer have free speech or live in a free country. Fear, fear and more fear. All of this, and there hasn’t been one terrorist attack in Australia!

Shame they don’t focus their money and energy on mental health and fixing the problems as the state of the mind is the most important thing and could very well be the cause of many terrorist acts.

Dear Webbers, Ive been so anxious and down about both the content and the effects of both IR and arbitrary detention legislation I'm struggling to put words together. Anyway here is a bit from Richard Akland in todays SMH which encapsulates in a nutshell how I think of the detention legislation:

It runs to the heart of the sort of nation we are - which makes it doubly damnable for a government to seek to alter the balance so fundamentally and in such a sneaky manner. The fact that the heightened threat of terrorism facing us is partly a product of the government's policies turns the whole thing into a dreadful self-enforcing construct.

Will the boss of the Australian Wheat Board be sent to gaol, for supplying financial support to Saddam Hussein, the target of the "War of Terror" in Iraq?

A few project proposals for Webdiary readers in relation to the government's terror legislation.

Control orders are to be secret but the detainee allowed to tell others that "the person being detained is safe but is not able to be contacted for the time being."

There we have it. The new phrase for being in detention without trial is "safe but uncontactable".

PROJECT PROPOSAL #1

That Webdiary readers strive to bring the above phrase (or whatever other euphemism the final legislation allows) into common usage as a synonym for "under a control order".

For example, you might write "Mohammad is currently safe but uncontactable at 1234 Short Street, Lakemba".

PROJECT PROPOSAL #2

Once the phrase is in common usage, submit the references to the Macquarie Dictionary. Let's get an entry in the Macquarie along the lines of:

Safe but uncontactable colloq. to be detained without trial in violation of one's human rights; to be unsafe and uncontactable; to be under a control order.

Once the dictionary entry is there you can shout from the rooftops that someone has been detained without trial and you can defend yourself by quoting the legislation itself.

PROJECT PROPOSAL #3

To set up a "Deadman's Switch" network, to pick up people who disappear. By whatever means, people regularly check in with a trusted party (and maybe tell them a shared secret). If a person fails to check in they might be reminded. If they do not respond to the reminder (or respond with the wrong shared secret) the trusted party tells everybody that their friend has disappeared, that they might be "safe but uncontactable" and they need to verify the person's safety.

Some methods might include:

• Word of mouth
• Telephone
• Encrypted email
• A web site with which people can register and to which they have to regularly send email of visit a web link. If they fail their "schedule" the website automatically emails thousands of people with a list of possible places the person might be "safe but uncontactable". Such a website could operate unattended in a neutral country and set up by a non-Australian.
• An online distributed peer-to-peer network with a function similar to the above.

Just a few ideas. Any takers, especially non-Australian ones for the website idea?

Hi Hamish, please see here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here
and here.

This is something that has been reported around the world and yet the usual Israel bashers on this blog have remained strangely (?) silent. Where is the outrage at the President of one nation calling for the total destruction of another?

I do not believe that this would pass without comment on Webdiary if it was the President of Israel or the US making such an outrageous comment. This once again demonstrates the double standard so often applied in this forum (and others).

ed Hamish: it hasn't passed without comment. We have you!

It's pleasing to see so many people on Webdiary condemning the Iranian President's call to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth! (Yes, I am being sarcastic!)

Your silence on this speaks volumes as I'm sure that if it was the Israeli President making such comments about Iran we would have seen over 50 "this just proves my point" posts by now.

By the way, I realise that this is not the most logical place to place this post but (surprise, surprise) so topic has been opened to discuss this (not newsworthy?).

ed Hamish: Grant, tell us more about the statements of the Iranian President please. What's the problem with you being the Webdiarist who provides some of the information?

Grant Ye, you gotta just wonder what could have brought on an outburst like that from the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Outrageous, I agree, but in light of the way the US and Israel have been carrying on with very thinly veiled threats to Iran over its nuclear energy program these last few years or so, it’s hardly suprising.

See here: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649
here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/22/wnuke22.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/22/ixportaltop.html
here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html
here: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/April/middleeast_April313.xml&section=middleeast&col=
here: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050929-114709-2065r.htm
here: http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
here:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/10/114100.shtml
here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/08/12/ixportaltop.html
here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html
here: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/76332C2C-23BA-4FEA-A707-F12FE9534CD3.htm
here: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1359348.htm
here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050313-iran-aim.htm
and here: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/13/sharon.mideast/

Rhetoric aside, the reality is; Israel and the US have nuclear weapons. Iran does not.

Grant Ye's point remains unanswered still. After more than six hours.

The world has just witnessed the President of a large and powerful country call for the obliteration of a much smaller state. His meaning could not be more clear. It was done in the midst of a "World without Zionism" festival. The threat of mass murder still lingers in the air like the stench of blood itself. God knows this is no empty threat.

The response from Webdiary? Barely a murmur. Not even that but for Grant. A glib even snide comment from the editor perhaps. But from those who trip over themselves to accuse Israel of human rights violations because it has the audacity to secure its own borders or because it's not fast enough to make all road signs in two languages? It's business as usual. Which indeed it is.

Why on earth should it be up to Grant Ye to make the only comment or be the sole source of information on matters like this? Wouldn't it be far healthier if he didn't have to? There once was a time when the "left" could be relied on to take a stand against the bloodthirsty and the hate filled bigots and tyrants. The "left" was there to lend a hand if it could.

Not any more. The Grant Ye's of this world are on their own as far as the non-communist "left" is concerned. So is Israel. No doubt this is a familar sting to them. They are lucky if the "left" does not line up with the tyrants.

Nothing better defines the tragic decay of a once noble and vital movement. To identify with what passes for the "left" in much of modern Europe and increasingly in Australia is shameful.

The statements from the Iranian president are nothing new. Iran's explicit national policy has long been the elimination of Israel. This policy is in direct violation of the UN Charter I might add.

When they paraded their new missiles, capable of hitting Israeli targets, through the streets of Tehran, "Death to Israel" was emblazoned on the sides.

Israel has never called for the destruction of Iran or any other country.

The "World Without Zionism" rally at which his remarks were made is an annual event, usually timed to coincide with the end of Ramadan. I'm not aware of any other sovereign member nation of the UN which uses the culmination of the holiest period of its national religion to call for another sovereign UN member nation to be "wiped off the map."

Grant, as someone who has participated for a number of years in collaborative media (Slashdot), I will take the liberty of making a few observations.

There is no 'us' and 'them', 'left' or 'right' in collabortative media. A website only reflects the views of those who use it. Your participation swings a website a little closer to your own views.

There is no 'Webdiary' (apart from the name of a website). The only thing I have in common with the other people on this website is that I sometimes post to the same website as them. Posting to the same website does not mean I share their views or in some way we are a single entity. Some people are for a cause, others are against it and there are lots of shades of grey in between. It cannot be said that there is a 'Webdiary view' on any issue.

It is up to the users to raise issues and start discussions. No story on a topic that means something to you? Write the story or start the discussion. It's great that you have started the discussion on Iran vs Israel. (I think that's what Hamish was trying to say, just that it came across as being a little personal.) Personally I would have phrased it as, "Here is an important issue, here is why it is important and why it is worthy of discussion" rather than taking its absence to be a sleight.

To address the issue you raised, I think it stinks that the president of Iran is calling for the obliteration of Israel. US policies or whatever are no justification. Violence, from either side is not an answer. Personally I didn't think the issue worth discussing as I had already dismissed his comments as those of a raving lunatic, and assumed few would take them seriously.

Simon Dennis

1) Many of those supposed quotes from Israeli politicians have been shown to be false, so be careful throwing those around, unless you can verify them.

2) Whatever happened in the past, Israel now officially takes the position of accepting the formation of a Palestinian state. The state of Palestine does not exist yet, but hopefully will soon and will take its rightful place among other UN members.

3) Israel has never called for the eradication of any other state, and indeed declared itself ready to accept the two-state solution in 1948, as the Zionist proto-state had in 1937.

TIT for TAT ?

Who's worst ?

"Ahmadinejad stood fast behind his demand on Wednesday that the Jewish state be wiped off the map" (SMH Sat 29 "One million Iranians in anti-Isreal protest")

Or... In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist."

Or... Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing."

Or... Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts."

Or... Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed.

To quote but a few ! ...You be the judge !

Grant Ye, I have read closely the document (.pdf) you referred to and nowhere in it can I find any reference whatsoever of Iran having any nuclear weapons. ‘Significant concerns’ does not confirm Iran having nuclear weapons. However, I do note that the Board of Governors in item (b) do recall “that ‘Article IV on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stipulates that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights 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 Article I and II of the Treaty.”

I also note that the only breaches noted by the IAEA are those that are in relation to its Safeguards Agreement and some aspects of ‘concealment’ (similar to claims that were made in relation to Iraq’s pursuit of ‘nuclear weapons’).

Mordecai Vanunu’s conviction on its own is enough evidence for the world to know that Israel has nuclear weapons.

I reiterate, Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran does not. You and Will Howard may spin it any way you wish but that’s the reality. I might also remind you that the EU and the UN take the reality of a nuclear-armed Israel just as seriously as they do the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The US also has nuclear weapons.

I might also remind you that the US is the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons and that they were used on civilian populations.

If ever nuclear weapons are ever used again I believe it will be by the US or Israel.

Damian Lataan says: "Secondly, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The notion that it is trying get nuclear weapons is simply propaganda from Israel and the US in its efforts to destabilise the current theocratic government. Iran has consistently denied that it is seeking nuclear weapons and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise other than the false accusations being made by the US and Israel.

"I say again, it was no more than an empty piece of rhetoric. I do not agree with what the Iranian President said but it remains nonetheless pure rhetoric."

How do you know all this?

If these are false accusations (and they may be) it sure seems as if the EU and the UN are taking the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran seriously.

Damian, I haven't seen any official confirmation that Israel does have nuclear weapons (although I noted that they may). Perhaps you could provide evidence of your absolute statement on this matter.

You also seem very confident that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons: "Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The notion that it is trying get nuclear weapons is simply propaganda from Israel and the US in its efforts to destabilise the current theocratic government."

Perhaps you could also back this up with documentation as I'm sure that the International Atomic Energy Agency would be keen to share your confidence. As you can see here the IAEA has significant concerns that are not based "simply on propaganda from Israel and the US".

Damian, I'm not keen for another war, however, also don't think that the world should put their head in the sand with regards to a nation that they legitimately believe is trying to get its hands on atomic weapons (not everyone is as sure as you are that they don't) as it makes threats to wipe another nation off the map. We could, of course, just wait and see but proving that you were wrong wouldn't be much consolation for the people of Israel would it?

Grant Ye reckons: “Israel and America may have nuclear weapons…” First, it’s not ‘may have nuclear weapons’ – they DO have nuclear weapons. Secondly, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The notion that it is trying get nuclear weapons is simply propaganda from Israel and the US in its efforts to destabilise the current theocratic government. Iran has consistently denied that it is seeking nuclear weapons and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise other than the false accusations being made by the US and Israel.

Grant Ye goes on to say: “You may [call] the Iranian President's statement rhetoric but to me they sound more like a threat. When someone makes a threat as frightening as this on the one hand and wants to produce nuclear weapons on the other then I do not believe that the world can stand idly by.”

I say again, it was no more than an empty piece of rhetoric. I do not agree with what the Iranian President said but it remains nonetheless pure rhetoric.

You say the ‘world should not stand idly by’. So what do you suggest it do? Invade Iran?

What do you think Iran will do in order to pursue this empty threat? Launch missiles with conventional warheads on Israel? What do you think an Israeli and US response will be? Its all chest thumping as a result of years of taunting by the US and Israel; nothing more.

Of course the Iranian President was wrong to say what he did, but that’s no reason to start another war which could very easily escalate into something that the world will regret.

Damian, Israel and America may have nuclear weapons (Israel has not confirmed this) but have never (as far as I am aware) called for another soverign state to be "wiped off the map".

Iran has called for another state to be wiped of the map and wishes to have nuclear weapons (as far as we know they don't have them yet).

You may called the Iranian President's statement rhetoric but to me they sound more like a threat. When someone makes a threat as frightening as this on the one hand and wants to produce nuclear weapons on the other then I do not believe that the world can stand idly by.

John, my point is that there are many people who post on this site who are very quick to accuse Israel of "evil" and yet when threats of something far worse are made against Israel they remain silent. To your point, I have now raised this issue and yet all but one of the usual Israel bashers have chosen to ignore my posting and this issue. Their silence speaks volumes as to the true agenda behind their postings.

Damian Lataan says, "I reiterate, Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran does not. You and Will Howard may spin it any way you wish but that’s the reality."

I'm not "spinning" anything, just trying to establish the facts. You assert a "reality" that may or may not be true. If Israel wanted the Arabs to believe it had nukes, I imagine chucking Vanunu in jail would be exactly what they'd do. How's that for a conspiracy theory? It's purely speculative and has no more basis in fact than your assertion above.

It is true that the US used nukes on Japan, and the morality of that action continues to be a subject of debate, but how that's relevant to the Iranian President calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" is not clear. You assert this statement is "empty rhetoric" but how do you know that?

Damian,

I have never said that Iran definitely has nuclear weapons, merely suggested that they may (and presented evidence to show that I am not the only one with these concerns).

I have never said that Israel does not have nuclear weapons. I have no proof either way.

You have stated categorically that Iran does not have and does not seek nuclear weapons but have presented no evidence to back this assertion.

You have stated categorically that Israel does have nuclear weapon but again, have not presented any evidence of you absolute claim.

Rather than trotting out the "propaganda" and innuendo lines, perhaps you can provide us with evidence for your very specific assertions.

To Will's point, you also seem positive that Iran's threat is rhetoric. As I stated earlier, if the world does nothing and waits for Iran to carry out on this threat, the fact that you were wrong will be little consolation to the people of Israel.

Will Howard, you may choose to believe that Israel has no nuclear weapons if you want to, but the rest of the world believes Israel has. If you want to be in denial, that’s up to you.

You say: “It is true that the US used nukes on Japan, and the morality of that action continues to be a subject of debate, but how that's relevant to the Iranian President calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" is not clear.”

My inference is perfectly clear. Since the US has used nuclear weapons before on a civilian population that was not a threat to the US then there is no reason not to believe that they would not use them again on a nation that they accuse, wrongly, of being a threat to their friend and ally Israel. What can be clearer?

Iran is no threat at all to Israel. With total disregard for you requirement of proof, the world is very much aware of Israel having nuclear arms. It is also very much aware that Iran does not. Iran’s rhetoric is empty by virtue of not being able to follow up on its ‘threat’ as you perceive it.

The world believes that the biggest threat to world peace is the US. The US has nuclear weapons. So does Israel. Iran does not.

I suppose Mein Kampf was a "rhetorical" flourish too? I suppose massive Iranian support for Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad is also evidence that "Iran is no threat at all to Israel"?

I guess the huge diplomatic effort by Europe over the last two years to dissuade Iran from persuing its nuclear weapons program just shows how much the Europeans enjoy wasting their time?

No doubt the flight of Iran's once large and venerable Jewish community since the republic just masks the regime's philosemitism?

And of course the routine institutionalised calls of "Death to Israel" in a variety of languages don't really mean death to Israel. This is just Iranian ironic humour, a bit like telling an actor to "break a leg" just before the show. It really means "Good luck to Israel".

There's an important piece of wisdom that I'm prepared to pass on for what it's worth.

When someone says he wants to kill you -- believe him.

Damian, the consensus is that Iran doesn't have (or presumably seek) nuclear weapons, heh. Check this out from today's SMH.

Just for peaceful means? Just trumped up US and Israeli propaganda?

Time to pull your head out of the sand, Damian.

The phrase "mindless neoconservative propaganda" is nothing more than a meaningless scrap of slogan ranting masquerading as political discussion.

Has been for years.

Damian Lataan to Grant Ye "I do not feel in any way obliged to prove to you that Israel has nuclear weapons. While the evidence remains circumstantial, it is strong enough for the rest of the world for and me to be convincing.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Again, I feel no need whatsoever to convince you. The consensus is that Iran has no nuclear weapons. That’s good enough for me."

This is an interesting, and revealing, response. I read it and thought 'Hang on - isn't a (if not THE) big criticism of the COTW case for war against Iraq that they hadn't proven Iraq had WMD?"

Yet, not the basis, of admittedly "circumstantial" evidence we are told to believe Israel does have nukes. (All Webdiarists would be aware of Israel's policy of strategic ambiguity - it will neither confirm nor deny possession of nuclear weapons.)

About this "consensus" that Iran does not have nukes - who exactly forms it? By the way, the charge is that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, not that is has them already.

Damian,

The world consnsus is NOT that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. I have provided evidence of this. If you choose to ignore this that is up to you but don't go claiming that all the world agrees with you just because you're ignoring evidence to the contrary!

As I have said before, proving that you were wrong would be little comfort to the people of Israel if Iranian threats are ignored and they do carry out on their threat.

Just out of curiosity, Ariel Sharon threatened to wipe Iran off the map would you consider this to "rhetoric" or "proof that he is a warmonger and a threat to world peace that must be immediately addressed"?

Geoff Pahoff says: “I suppose Mein Kampf was a "rhetorical" flourish too? I suppose massive Iranian support for Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad is also evidence that Iran is no threat at all to Israel?”

What’s the reciprocal of this piece of nonsense then? Could it be: ‘I suppose massive US (with its nuclear weapons) support for Israel is evidence that Israel, (also with its nuclear weapons) is a threat to Iran?

Well, Iran seems to think so.

But where does it end? This idea that somehow Iran is a threat to Israel is mindless neoconservative propaganda. Has been for years.

Grant Ye, I do not feel in any way obliged to prove to you that Israel has nuclear weapons. While the evidence remains circumstantial, it is strong enough for the rest of the world for and me to be convincing. If you choose to go into some kind of denial about it then that is up to you. The rest of the world believes Israel has nuclear weapons. If you don’t then that’s fine by me. As I said, the US does have nuclear weapons and has been happy to use them in the past.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Again, I feel no need whatsoever to convince you. The consensus is that Iran has no nuclear weapons. That’s good enough for me. If it’s not good enough for you then that’s your problem.

The bottom line is; nobody is going to go to war just because Iran’s President does a bit of chest thumping… or are they? If they do, of course, we know which warmongering nation it will be that starts it, don’t we.