Skip to content or view screen version

If Any State Nukes Iran--It means war with all humanity

Clayton Hallmark | 13.01.2007 20:54 | Anti-militarism

Bush's "troop surge" is just a false tactic leading to WAR WITH IRAN.

The goal is, and has always been, control of all of the Middle East's oil -- not just to grab Iraq's.

Personally, I see one thing clearly: An unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran by Israel or anyone else would mean that a STATE OF WAR exists between the state making the attack and THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. Nuclear war is forever -- it sets intolerable precedents worse than Hiroshima and makes large land masses uninhabitable essentially forever. Any state commiting nuclear aggression has declared war on all humanity, deserves all-out war in return.

Attacks of any nature against the state of Israel, Israeli interests, and Zionist advocates anywhere in the world (with the exceptions listed below) would be justified -- and I do mean "of any nature." The commission of "terrorism" to recompense a nuclear attack would not be possible -- by definition, attacks against a nuclear aggressor, of any nature, would be justified and certainly not terrorism.

The same thing goes for any client state of Israel aiding and abetting a nuclear attack on Iran. Turkey, for example, if it allowed the overflight of Israeli aircraft in a nuclear attack, would lay itself open to attacks of any nature by anyone having a grievance against the attacks and attackers -- and that includes not just the world's one billion Muslims but all humanity.

A LEGAL CAVEAT

Now as an American, I do not and can not support or advocate "terrorism." I do not advocate violence of any kind against Americans, American interests, or on American-controlled soil. I do not advocate anyone supporting "terrorist" groups that are illegal to support according to the U.S. Government, nor do I advocate violation of any United States laws.

However, I say again, that if any state launches a nuclear attack against Iran or aids such an attack, that A STATE OF WAR EXISTS between the government of the state and the people of the world. This transcends one's duties to one's own country.

The unprovoked use of nuclear weapons is that serious. It is a breach of ancient social mores of the entire world. It is an unprecedented breach that must be punished in ways that will ensure it will not be repeated for many years.

SEDITION

I urge all concerned -- decent -- people in the world to join in a commitment to punish a nuclear attack by any and all means. One must protect one's self, of course. Citizens should ensure that they are not liable to prosecution by their governments for crimes such as sedition. Learn the laws and obey the laws, at least so you can continue the fight.

A CALL TO ARMS

So this is a call to the people of the world to take up arms against those who would use nuclear weapons in a military aggression. There is no such thing as "terrorism" in responding to a nuclear-bomb attack. No one need have any ethical qualms in this unprecedented situation, either.

THE IRAQ WAR AND IT'S ESCALATION

Sad to say, but President Bush's concept of victory in Iraq is not in the interest of the American people or their future.

The war in Iraq is lost already. It is out of American hands. It is in the hands of the two sides of a civil war (about to become at least three sides, if you include the Kurds). It was based on lies by President Bush in his State of the Union Address and lies in the United Nations by the ridiculous, disgraced Colin Powell.

So what if the United States sends in 20,000 or even 40,000 more troops for 6 months. All that those in Iraq opposing this action must do is what guerillas are trained to do: pull back and melt into the general population. And bide their time and refresh. The surge troops eventually will leave. So will the 140,000 now there, and the insurgents know all this. The American people want out, and their getting out is only a matter of months.

The only reason the Iraq War lost in the November U.S. elections, the only reason the American people want out, is the mounting cost in U.S. casualties and money. The American people did not care when Iraqi civilian deaths were estimated in Lancet (British medical journal) at 40,000 and they do not care now that the civilian toll is estimated at 425,000 people. American hides are all that they care about. Be honest: How many Americans have you heard complain about the civilian toll, or say that it is much worse (40,000 to 3000, or 425,000 to 3000) than the American toll? I am afraid that to Americans, foreign lives are cheap; only American lives are dear.

MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION

In the face of an unprovoked nuclear attack, each person the world over must make his or her own decisions about what is the higher law and which authority they will obey, and whether they are still members of the human race.

IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SURGE TO SUCCEED

Here we are in another Vietnam. It took us decades to recover from the last one. This one challenges our republican (elected) form of government and our basic humanity the way the Second World War challenged Germans' humanity. If this surge succeeds, we will only be drawn fully into another Vietnam and setting the stage for future Vietnams in Iran and elsewhere.

A lesson needs to be learned in Iraq, by the United States of America: no more military aggression.

Clayton Hallmark

Clayton Hallmark

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

Indymedia

13.01.2007 22:28

watch out for blacksuits looking for hard drives

whoah


cognitive dissonance

13.01.2007 22:47

'Any state commiting [sic] nuclear aggression has declared war on all humanity'

'Attacks of any nature against the state of Israel, Israeli interests, and Zionist advocates anywhere in the world (with the exceptions listed below) would be justified -- and I do mean "of any nature."'

So nuclear aggression against Israel is justified?

sceptic


To Cognitive: Israel is the presumed aggressor.

14.01.2007 00:53

Nuclear aggression should be punished by all humanity by all means.

If Israel makes the first strike with nuclear weapons, then any kind of response is appropriate.

It is Israel's action in that case that would be the nuclear aggression.

Who would commit a first strike with nukes against Israel? Who has nuclear weapons in the Middle East?

I hope I am wrong and that no state is contemplating nuclear aggression.

If I am wrong, then we will be in an unprecedented situation.

The United States is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, but the United States was attacked first, fought a long war on two fronts, and was faced with an incredibly bloody island-hopping war in the Pacific. Allegedly that is why the atomic bomb was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If Israel or some other state were to nuke Iran, that is an entirely different matter from what I described in the preceding paragraph.

Clayton

C Hallmark


Going for it.

14.01.2007 00:55

IMUK seems to be hellbent on getting Special Branch to seize all their equipment and chuck them in an underground cell for a month.

Two unhidden post supporting acts of terrorism in 24 hours!

So, I guess, like there are no such thing as innocent Americans, there is also no such thing as an innocent Israeli. Clayton Hallmark has, despite his pointless caveat, called a no-rules open season on Israelis and this hasn't been hidden.

If this is the standard of debate here then all I can say is fucking shut this place down and spare us all the racist double standards.

APR


Clayton

14.01.2007 01:24

Attacks of any nature against the state of Israel, Israeli interests, and Zionist advocates anywhere in the world (with the exceptions listed below) would be justified -- and I do mean "of any nature."

- So, putting ground glass in baby milk, or burning civillians in their beds or bringing down a passenger jet with a SAM is legitmate by your incitement.

Clayton, you are as much a dehumanised arsehole as those you oppose.

Go post on Stormfront and never come back here!

APR


A question

14.01.2007 01:55

Let me guess: If another country nukes Israel first - that would be quite okay right?

Question


as usual

14.01.2007 10:08

the mealy mouthed come out in force on this one

the poster has stated a clear case for a deterant against any political group currently 'runing' a country considering a nuclear war of aggression

a typical unintelligent liberal response ensues, such as the notion that assulting babies is what is implied (fantasy) or that by sugesting a position of resistance, the forces of the state will become involved (as if any meaningful resistance wouldn't produce this result - the alternative? - do nothing?)

finally, the heavy hitter - brought out in a triumphal ritual - the curse of anti-semitism

quite ignoring the very real FACT that israel:
a) does not represent all jewish people
b) its zionist leaders and directors have stated openly their consideration of using their illegally held, unannounced nuclear arsenal in a first strike capacity
c) that very many jewish people themselves would take an equally dim view and probable extreme action should such an unthinkable move be made

the quality of thinking - as represented by the replies - seems to me to be predicated on a wholly untenable position, ie that we are powerless and unjustified in presenting ultimatums to states and governmnets when they consider action that is not to the benefit of the citizens they supposidly represent

let the agents of the state read this, and let them realise that if the unthinkable ensues, that I and many others will resign from civilzation and engage in all out WAR to remove the racist money grabbing power mad scum from the undeserved condition of life

let them put this into their war games
let this filter into their fetid brains
let it be understood that there can be no return to normality if they rape us this way

dada


dAdA

14.01.2007 11:04

"and I do mean "of any nature." "

This is from the original post. This is in the abscence of any rules of engagement is incitement to at the best war crimes and at the worst outright terrorism.

Is that what you advocate? Do you see your own family and friends as being legitimate targets?

Who elected you as a representative of the public interest anyway, or is it just your sense of self-righteousness. Wuld that be the same kind of zeal that persuades individuals that putting nailbombs in shopping centres is a neccessary deviation from normal morality?


APR


you are dishonest

14.01.2007 12:22

the poster quite clearly states a series of caveats

do you expect them to state evry caveat?

what a ridiculous and dishonest position, not to say conveiniently hysterical

mama


mama

14.01.2007 18:06

"and I do mean "of any nature." "

Is it so difficult to see what this phrase means? It means the author endoreses any kind of attack: ANY.

Do you really think that objecting to the promotion of terrorism is "hysterical"?

APR


APR (whatever that might mean)

15.01.2007 20:57

are you in charge of the indymedia opinion steering action group?
Take a break!

santerre