If Iran is supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq and if the US has an internationally legal right to be the occupying force in Iraq, then why hasn't the US taken Iran to the International Court to prove US claims against Iran? Shouldn't the level of proof be higher to start a so-called legal war than it is to convict an American in the US?
The US claimed long ago that some of the roadside bombs it found were Iranian. However, it was shown by others that the Iraqis certainly could have been making them right there in Iraq. That meets the legal standard for reasonable doubt about the guilt of the alleged criminal (Iran) especially when that was the only so-called evidence that was produced.
The US is one of the most advance nations in the world when it comes to technology. Perhaps it is the most advance overall. Most people think so. Other nations excel in niche fields. Regardless, the US has the technological capability of adding a date stamp to knockoff (copy) versions of Iranian weapons or stolen Iranian weapons or Iranian weapons the US might just simply purchase on the black market.
The US has some 700 military bases in a total of 130 countries. It has many more bases in the US. Transportation between those bases is subject to zero customs inspections. The military can transport weapons all over the world without interference.
The US could easily fund the manufacture of copies of Iranian weapons that might prove difficult to detect as forgeries via forensic analysis even by the Iranians themselves and then put those weapons in Iraq. The US could even be making such weapons (some of them) right in Iraq. It would just depend upon how "perfect" the copies would have to be. That would depend upon who would ever have an opportunity to conduct thorough independent analyses on them.
Frankly, with the level of advancement in image manipulation, etc., it won't be long before one won't be able to be sure about many things. The US already has all sorts of technological devices that can impact upon people in ways that it might not occur to them that they're being targeted. The US can make people hear voices in their heads. It's been able to do that for decades via microwave technology, but it can be done via means other than microwaves. The US can direct energy beams of various types and various levels and with varying concentrations, durations, ranges, etc., that can do all sorts of things to the entire body or just parts and kinds of matter. It can do this right through thick walls made of nearly anything.
Unless a huge wave of honesty sweeps over humanity, dishonest people are going to do things to others wicked at the edge of what is imaginable.
Look, Iran could be helping the resistance in Iraq. If the US war against Iraq and the US occupation are really illegal, which they are by virtue of all the lies Bush told in the lead-up to the bombing and invasion of Baghdad, then how can aiding a people to resist an illegal invader be itself illegal? How can Iran's helping resistance fighters be internationally illegal under such circumstances?
The US neocons appeal only to "might makes right."
I don't advocate violent resistance. It is though the lesser evil. The belligerent aggressor has the greater sin regardless of whether or not he claims it is preventative. Anyone may do anything no matter how evil and then excuse it by labeling it preventative under the neocon standard. That standard is Hell's standard, and the neocons have brought only more Hell to Earth via its use.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)