A range of responses?

As it's the most vital -but largely neglected-threat facing the country, I raise this every week.

Perhaps the Leader of the House had not thought through his answer this afternoon. He is surely not defending the murder of civilians.

Earlier this week, I had a very disturbing reply about Wikileaks reports on incidents involving Afghan civilians and NATO soldiers. There are no records of some incidents and inadequate action on others. There is no chance of a full investigation until the fighting is over.

 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Will next week’s defence debate concentrate on the paramount need to reduce tension between the west and Iran in order to avoid this country stumbling into another avoidable war, and may we explain to those responsible that murdering Iranian scientists can have only one outcome: making war more likely?

Sir George Young: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman couched his remarks in a suitable way they would be perfectly in order in next Thursday’s debate. I have noted his views. There is a real threat to the rest of the world from Iran possessing nuclear weapons, and I think that it is right that a range of responses is available.

 

Comments

[HuwOS]

I love it when they state fantasy as fact
"There is a real threat to the rest of the world from Iran possessing nuclear weapons"

Is there? Since when? in what context?
Is the actual threat that if Iran had nuclear weapons we would have to be a lot more circumspect in our dealings with the middle east, is that the threat to the rest of the world.
The threat that we couldn't bully and threaten, invade, send drone attacks into or engage in targeted murder in countries in that region with impunity?
Is that what we are supposed to find to be such a "real threat".

Has the situation actually changed from when the United States' own intelligence services reported that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons programme.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/04/world/fg-iran4
I am aware that the last IAEA report expressed some concerns, but given that, the "IAEA report is based largely on intelligence the United Statesand other IAEA member states have been sharing with the agency for some time"
and given what we now know conclusively about the tendency of the US to simply lie to give any impression they wish to give of any country they consider to be an enemy, how can we possibly take it seriously.
http://www.armscontrol.org/issuebriefs/The-IAEAs-Iran-Report_Assessment-and-Implications

Perhaps it's another kind of threat, perhaps the threat is that if we don't focus on the bogeyeman in Iran that people might start to wonder why the "official" nuclear countries have utterly failed to live up to their parts of the non proliferation treaty.
Or maybe it's to wonder why even the idea that Iran might someday have nuclear weapons is quite so scary when India and Pakistan two countries that have had incredibly tense relationships with each other since their creation both have nuclear weapons and what they might consider to be "good reasons" to use them but somehow don't.
Or is it that people might wonder why no pressure whatsoever is being put on Israel to sign up to the NPT, which Iran is a signatory to.
Hell, even North Korea has them and while there are many valid criticisms of Iran, that country doesn't come close to being the wreck that North Korea is.

[HuwOS]

May I on yet another note point out that the US has just taken down 4% of the internet by shutting down megaupload.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/13052817473/doj-gives-its-opinion-sopa-unilaterally-shutting-down-foreign-rogue-site-megaupload-without-sopapipa.shtml

A site only recently endorsed and supported by musicians and content creators.

http://vimeo.com/33424808

Although despite the fact that this was a genuine and non infringing advert for megaupload, with full permissions from all the involved artists, UMG still issued a DMCA takedown on this content to which they had no rights whatsoever.
http://techland.time.com/2011/12/13/megaupload-sues-universal-music-group-over-illegal-takedown/

This kind of thing is only going to get worse, not just here where one of Britain's college students is now facing extradition to the US for having had the gall to have a site that linked to content on other sites, something which the authorities here did not see as being worth even attempting to charge him for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/tvshack-student-founder-extradition?newsfeed=true

Like I said, it will only get worse, not just here but everywhere, until some politicians start to get to grips with this and robustly push in the other direction.

[HuwOS]

Seriously Paul, reaction to copyright maximalists will not be enough, it is time for MPs to step up on this and push these idiots back.

[Paul Flynn]

Many Thanks Huw. I will follow up the links. This is clearly a major threat.

[HuwOS]

The collective Anonymous have done their predictable response by the internet equivalent of multiple sit ins by flooding various sites so that they are temporarily inaccessible.
The usual standards of those involved, mpaa, riaa, justice.gov and universal music to name a few.
Personally I am glad they have, but the US prefer to treat these sit in equivalents as crimes, so I wouldn't like to be some members of anonymous over the next week.