"Israel Reconsiders Military Action Against Iran" Topic

"Historic negotiations with Iran will reach an inflection point on Monday, as world powers seek to clinch a comprehensive deal that will, to their satisfaction, end concerns over the nature of its vast, decade-old nuclear program.

But reflecting on the deal under discussion with The Jerusalem Post on the eve of the deadline, Israel has issued a stark, public warning to its allies with a clear argument: Current proposals guarantee the perpetuation of a crisis, backing Israel into a corner from which military force against Iran provides the only logical exit…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The deadline will come, and go, just like all the others, with no repercussions, as the thousands of centrifuges continue to spin.

You know I don't remember any Iranians being involved in 911. But know there were lots of Saudis both men and money that helped bring down the World Trade Center. I remember Arabs celebrating the deaths in the US. I also remember the candle light vigils held by the Iranians.

A nuclear armed Pakistan scares me to death since they are always one coup from a failed state. A nuclear armed Saudi Arabia or Egypt is a nightmare. Yet a nuclear armed Iran doesn't make me worried as much.

Don't get me wrong I have no love for the clergy in Iran, but most Iranians seem pretty decent people. They live in the real world and not that made up world most Arabs seem to live in. Plus they are wrestling fanatics.

+1 on the worry about Pakistan. Didn't a failed raid on their nuclear storage facilities come up in a "modern" novel? Can't remember the author. That would be an interesting scenario.

The Iranians know they will eventually be invaded, or face a sponsored insurgency, unless they develop a nuclear deterrent.

If the Persians get NUCs … which may occur sooner or later it appears … It may come down to, the IDF will have no choice.

I remember Arabs celebrating the deaths in the US [at 9/11]

I too remember that and all the footage from all over the moslem world especially in the ME. Now let me get this right … those celabrating were fanatical islamists, jihadists, moslem terrorsts etc. … not just the average followers of islam ? As I have been saying, it appears there may be more fanatical islamists about, then many in the West have initially thought. Where are the "moderates" (if many exist at all?!)? It seems ISIS et al. have no trouble getting new recruits to join their supposed corrupted version of islam. No matter how may we kill. Or they kill fighting among themselves …

I also remember the candle light vigils held by the Iranians.

Of course some one, one of the "experts", who likes to be "accurate" will say Persians/Iranians are not Arabs. Regardless Persians are primarily Shia and all [IIRC] the 9/11 attackers[lunatics] were Sunni. If I'm incorrect, on any of these points, I'm sure one of the "experts" will let me know. Even John OFM frequently corrects my spelling, since I'm such an under educated backwoods yokel …

You don't need to be an expert to know Iran is not an Arab country – you just need to know a bit of non-Eurocentric history.

The moderates are the billion and a half or so who have not done anything for the last 13 years except get up look after their kids and go to work, come home, go to sleep and start again. Like most people.

Shia/Sunni- what's your point? You seem to be arguing against yourself. Iran is Shia and not generally at all aggressive. Israel has many options. Starting a nuclear war sounds like one of the silliest.

I remember Yasser Arafat symbolically giving blood in the aftermath of 9/11; probably knowing full well that Israel would try and lump the Palestinians in with the jihadis as targets in the war on terror.
Iran has been fighting the taliban longer than the west has and via "volunteers" and hezbollah fighting Isis longer than the west has too.
Time we cut them some slack and opened the door for them – if it annoys israel so what? And as for nukes, even if they are building them, I remember very clearly being told that M.A.D was a good thing!

If the Iranians get nukes, so will the Saudis and probably some of the other nations in the region. MAD only works when the actors with nukes are rational…..

So we're allies with Israel who are enemies of Iran who are enemies of ISIS who are enemies of Syria who are enemies of us who are enemies of the Taliban who are enemies of China who are enemies of Us.

The people we pay to be in charge are just making this up on the spot, aren't they?

Regrettably the Machiavellian adage 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' doesn't really work in the real world (bit like his tactical theories).

Weasel, feeling too old with it all? Me too, sigh! Simple no nuclear for any of them and full strike capability to Israel. Its called balance, something the West has forgotten with all the chumming up they've done since Bush 1. Oil buddys don't make good or safe neighbours.
A shot of rum, and one for my friend.

No, they aren't aggressive at all, they're just funding terrorists, and terrorist groups all over the world, starting back in 1979 or so, when they illegally held several hundred Americans hostage. Note – their proxies, Hezbollah and the Palestinians do dance and celebrate the deaths of Americans (handing out candy to everyone in the streets after the killings), regularly. Most recently in the attack on the Temple Mount religious service, about a week ago, where at least three Americans were killed.

Since 1979, they and their Hezbollah proxies have blown up a Marine base in Lebanon, killing several hundred (250, or so, IIRC) in one blow, tried to kill an Israeli representative in the USA a few years ago, are paying for martyr rewards for suicide bombers, and were arming the insurgents/guerrillas fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, holding Americans against their will to this day, chanting Death to America regularly (I think that might be their unofficial, national anthem), etc. Those are just a few of their highlights, so, they are a very "peaceful" people.

Of course, as pointed out, the Sunnis/Saudis are just as bad.

No – they're not innocents -but the idea that most Iranians are aggressive is just not accurate.

As for Hezbollah – no fan here. But most Palestinians are Sunni. A nice piece of cross community cooperation perhaps?
Nobody should support murder of Americans or anyone else but to condemn whole swathes of people on account of a name seems a tad …draconian? Not to mention illegal in International law.

I think it matters not at all whether a person who murders another is a Sunni or Shia or Extreme Orthodox or Protestant or Roman Catholic or Hindu or Atheist. It generally the person who is committing the crime who is the bad element and not the excuse they use.

I don't recall a campaign of vicious attacks/murders/mass kidnappings, barracks bombings/shootings, jetliner plots, or suicide bombings by Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, or Atheists of late.

However, the vast majority do seem to be by Muslims, and/or Islamic, so perhaps that is something you should look into, Gwydion.

How long is your memory?
See Northern Ireland.
See Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo
See Hindu anti-muslim riots
See Tamil Tigers
See WWII?
See WWI (God was on everyone's side)
See… just think a minute.
The problem is people not whatever religion they pick.

I don't think Israel has the capability to do this.

If they did, they would've done it already.

Some problems with bombing Iran:

1. Dispersal of targets.

2. Number of key facilities are heavily fortified and in mountainous terrain.

3. Long range – Israel lacks tanking assets for such a large operation. Bombing Osirak or PLO base in Tunisia were small operations.

4. Iranian defense systems are on paper obsolete but no-one actually knows their true capability.

How long is your memory?

Mako did specify "of late" which means recent memory.

There's no denying increased Islamic fundamentalism and violence since 1970s.

And it's not just Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria – it's China, Nigeria, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Thailand, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Algeria, Tunisia, Russia, Spain, France, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Netherlands.

Some of these are old conflicts e.g. Mindanao in Philippines or Aceh in Indonesia or Pakistan-India – all bubbling and occassionally bursting into life since 1970s.

All these countries have experienced Islamist violence orp roblems with radical Islam over the last few years. And I'm sure I've missed some.

Islam condones violence. Indeed it's main prophet was a warlord who waged war in name of Islam. This is not a peaceful religion and it never has been.

Heck there's even passages in the Koran which advise men to hit their wives if they misbehave. Then there's jihad which despite what people say seems to apply to violent struggle as much as inner struggle.

It's also intolerant by nature – infidels, atheists and homosexuals are to be murdered whilst people of other Abrahamic religions have limited rights and have to pay taxes.

And with failure of nationalism and inbuilt incompatibility with liberal democracy, Muslims are increasingly turning to conversative Islam. Which means the fundamentalists are even more zealous and violent.

You don't need to be an expert to know Iran is not an Arab country – you just need to know a bit of non-Eurocentric history.

Well then I'm covered smart guy !

The moderates are the billion and a half or so who have not done anything for the last 13 years except get up look after their kids and go to work, come home, go to sleep and start again. Like most people.

Save for the ones killed in islamist terrorist acts … May I quote again –

Mao said,

The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.

Or Che

"The guerrilla band is an armed nucleus, the fighting vanguard of the people."

"It draws its great force from the mass of the people themselves."

I'm not saying all followers of the Koran are fanatical islamist/ moslem terrorist/jihadists … However based on recent events. I believe it's many more than what was first believed …

I thought that the Saudis had bought a couple nukes from the Pakistanis already? Supposedly still kept on Pakistani soil but under Saudi guard and keys.

Shia/Sunni- what's your point? You seem to be arguing against yourself. Iran is Shia and not generally at all aggressive. Israel has many options. Starting a nuclear war sounds like one of the silliest.

Not really, Sunni are killing Shia [And other Sunni as well as Christians, Yazidis, etc.] in Iraq and other locations … and vise versa … but it looks like the Shia need to step it up, IMO.

The thing with "moderates" is that from our perspective they're not that moderate.

1. Female genital mutiliation
2. Honour killings
3. Domestic violence against women
4. Marrying off extremely young girls (but then Mohammad had a nine year old bride).
5. Extreme homophobia.
6. Intolerance of other religions including pathological hate of Jews/Israel.

Of course cultures do vary – but a lot of these are common in most Muslim lands in Africa, Middle East and the subcontinent.

In Australia the Muslim population is only 2% but there's massive problems with things listed above.

Indeed a recent government report noted 200+ child brides in New South Wales (essentially Sydney) last few years and then claimed that was the tip of the iceberg. Honour killings are now just reported as murder which hides the intent.

And given success of Islamists in elections in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and increasingly Malaysia and Indonesia, it would appear the mainstream is increasingly fundamentalist (including sharia adopted in some Malaysian states and discrimination against non-Muslims).

In context of Iran, we forget that the revolution was a mass revolution. There are many elements of Iranian society that retain these hard core conservative values.

I've talked to guys who are into heavy metal music in Iran and they have to keep their interest quiet lest an overzealous neighbour or family member reports them to the police. They are also anti-Jewish cause some elements of culture are hard to let go of.

We are in the midst of an Islamic cultural resurgence.

Iran is Shia and not generally at all aggressive.

No – they're not innocents -but the idea that most Iranians are aggressive is just not accurate.

I'm sure a number of Americans who were former hostages for 444 days, may disagree … link Just say'n …

I have to agree with all you just posted Thomas …

and not generally at all aggressive. Israel has many options. Starting a nuclear war sounds like one of the silliest.

I said,
If the Persians get NUCs … which may occur sooner or later it appears … It may come down to, the IDF will have no choice. I didn't say the IDF will use Nucs … however, in the extremist of extremes, it could happen …

To quote Thomas, and again I agree

In context of Iran, we forget that the revolution was a mass revolution. There are many elements of Iranian society that retain these hard core conservative values.

I've talked to guys who are into heavy metal music in Iran and they have to keep their interest quiet lest an overzealous neighbour or family member reports them to the police. They are also anti-Jewish cause some elements of culture are hard to let go of.

Legion 4 said:

Well then I'm covered smart guy !

You were the one who sneered :

Of course some one, one of the "experts", who likes to be "accurate" will say Persians/Iranians are not Arabs.

Why the quotation marks – they aren't Arabs, its a fact.

And he also said

Save for the ones killed in islamist terrorist acts

Exactly – most muslims are victims and deserve our sympathy not our vitriolic silliness

As for Mr Hobbes:
No one was saying that anything on your list of grievances is to be worthy of approbation – it is however worth noting that none of those things is a requirement of Islam – they are all either cultural bolt ons from pre-Islamic society or misreadings of Hadith or just plain old people being nasty again – no tradition of domestic violence in western culture eh?

"I don't think Israel has the capability to do this."

Not the way she has been treated by her so called friend/s lately.
I cannot understand how amongst others (including some that should know better) one of them being UK government and their pals from across the house giving 'credits' to the palestinians as a 'nation', I'm amazed how far off modern governments (and thick people) feel a 'terrorist/group state needs to be acknowledged on a similar footing to one that if given a choice would not use guns and bombs to sort out differences.
Anyway you all know it ad nauseam.
Another round for my friends here,Barman!

From a military perspective, I think nuclear weapons are the only real military option for Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The conventional element lacks the massed long range strike capability.

Not only would you have to strike dispersed bases, but you also have to shut down their air defence network. That's quite a lot of assets required.

There are currently only 7-8 B707 tankers capable of air-to-air refuelling of Israeli jets and they'd require their own escorts as would any AWACS and EW aircraft.

The Israelis would also need Saudi authorisation (secretly possible) or fly over potentially dangerous Syrian air space. And in any case, if the IDF is having to shut down Syrian IADS, that means less assets against Iran.

And then there's maintaining sufficient reserves for homeland defence.

You were the one who sneered :

My sense of humor does not translate well on the internet … apologies …

Why the quotation marks – they aren't Arabs, its a fact.

I know Persian are not technically Arabs … I said that ?

"Save for the ones killed in islamist terrorist acts"

Exactly – most muslims are victims and deserve our sympathy not our vitriolic silliness

Yes, I've said many times more moslems kill other moslems then anyone else … However, they don't need my sympathy. They need stop blaming most of their ills on the West/US, etc. … Plus move into the 20th Century, let alone the 21st … So at this point we can agree to disagree …

The Saudis have a lot of unused tankers available, as well as some airbases which might serve the Israelis well, in a pinch.

Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and given Iranian moves to support radicals on the Arabian peninsula, and in Yemen, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see them aiding the Israelis with tankers, and perhaps even CAP support. The Israelis have the big, bunker-buster bombs.

Of course, if you really want to permanently halt their program at the known sites, nukes would be a good choice, rather than conventional bombs. They could use their sub-launched nukes for that, which would reduce/eliminate the possible high cost to their air force and pilots.

The Saudis have a lot of unused tankers available, as well as some airbases which might serve the Israelis well, in a pinch.

Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and given Iranian moves to support radicals on the Arabian peninsula, and in Yemen, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see them aiding the Israelis with tankers, and perhaps even CAP support. The Israelis have the big, bunker-buster bombs.

Totally agree. And then there's clandestine US support.

Still very risky for the Israelis especially if the Iranians shoot down some jets or even worse respond with a massed missile attack on Israel.

Iron Dome is good but it struggles with massed attacks. Indeed that's why the Israelis were actively hunting Hamas rocket sites in war in Gaza. Arrow series in in service but its capabilities especially against massed attack are unknown

If Saudi involvement is obvious, Iran could also strike at less well defended Saudi Arabia.

The most likely result for Israel though is equally disastrous – further isolation in the world. Given Iran is involved in nuclear talks, an unprovoked Israeli attack would create a lot of unwelcome publicity and potentially sanctions from Europe and elsewhere.

Europe especially is increasingly hostile to Israel and has not been hiding it's support for Palestinian independence or disdain for Israeli military adventures.

It could even lead to loss of US support – both from public outrage and from loss of US trust. Even Republicans might not look kindly on Israel humiliating USA whilst it was in midst of diplomatic talks.

And without global support, Israel's continued existence as a state becomes more and more tenuous.

The Saudis have a lot of unused tankers available, as well as some airbases which might serve the Israelis well, in a pinch.

The Saudi Princes might be worldly and cynical enough to do this, but I think your average Saudi Flight Lieutenant's head would explode if you ordered him to cooperate with the Israeli Air Force in an operation, even against those Persian Rafidite dogs. Likewise his Captain, Major and Colonel. The pathological hatred of Jews and Israel that is so widespread among the Arabs prevents any overt cooperation with Israel.

When the Arabs find a worse insult than 'Jew' to call each other, then I might think differently.

Zippy, the key is to fly those tankers when the Saudis are absent without leave or on extended smoke break and use "contract" Western crews. :P

Seriously, I've read how the Saudis and Emirates run their militaries. Boys clubs for rich with no professionalism. And if it wasn't for Western maintainers, these things would be grounded.

Syrians and Egyptian airforces are far more professional despite having older equipment.

No one was saying that anything on your list of grievances is to be worthy of approbation – it is however worth noting that none of those things is a requirement of Islam – they are all either cultural bolt ons from pre-Islamic society or misreadings of Hadith or just plain old people being nasty again – no tradition of domestic violence in western culture eh?

Load of rubbish.

Koran explictly does following:

1. Advocates jihad
2. Advocate hitting women
3. Killing of infidels (Kafir). Definition of infidel is many varied.
4. Killing of Muslims who cease to be Muslim
5. Marriage is seen as a contract between guardians of the bride and the bridegroom. These are usually fathers or grandfathers.
6. Homsexuality is a crime. No punishment prescribed in Koran but later on death penalty was introduced in later hadiths.

As to female genital mutilation, several schools of Islamic thought openly supported or even demanded it.

Underage marriage is assumed to be ok due to Sura 65 but also due to Mohammad himself marrying a 6 year old.

The Koran is an extensive set of rules as to how to live one's life. It's far more detailed than the Bible.

The other's might be cultural bolt ons but then so is the New Testament, Christmas and so are the many different subsects of Christainity!

And the Christian Bible certainly doesn't promote domestic violence or genital mutilation or whatever.

It's different concept entirely for a religion to promote these things as acceptable or obligatory then for them to be a sad element of general life.

The Christians also generally got less zealous for most part (other than countries like Poland). Islam on the other hand is going backwards as a whole.

Again I'm an atheist so no horse in this race. My only concern is when Muslims push for Sharia law in Western countries. So-called "moderates" have been calling for them to be under sharia law and not under Australian law for some time.

And indeed it apparently is already in place covertly given proliferation of child marriages.

I'm surprised that Isreal hasn't already struck at Iran.

But it's probably because Isreal knows better what stage of readiness Iran's nuke development really is at. They have very good intelligence sources in Iran, including assets inside the military and nuclear program. They have an active program of sabotage and assassination which appears to do a great job at hindering Iran's efforts. This included killing key scientists, the military head of the program, and daring commando raids which blew up nuke sites in 2013 and last October's spectacular destruction of Iran's nuke weaponization site at Parchin.

If, they need to do further attacks or air strikes, they have multiple Middle Eastern countries which would provide assistance.

If, they need to do further attacks or air strikes, they have multiple Middle Eastern countries which would provide assistance.

What multiple countries?

Saudi Arabia has been touted as a covert supporter and that was a couple of years ago and things have changed since.

That's it.

UAE lacks military infrastructure (two very crammed airbases) and is extremely close to Iran.

Iraq and Syria are pro-Iran.

Qatar and Turkey are pro-Islamist and very anti-Israel.

Kuwait would not want to risk Iranian ire as it's so close to Iran (in fact only 58 km away – that's the length of the Iraqi coastline between Iran and Kuwait). Oman is in a similar boat and also lacks military infrastructure.

Bahrain is too unstable with Shia rebellion in country a couple of years ago.

Countries that would help? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Azerbaijan, possibly Turkmenistan.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have air-refueling capabilities, in addition to resources from the USA that might or might not be available.

When you state that certain countries are "extremely close to Iran" on the map, -yeah, and they'll always remain physically close to Iran. That proximity is what fuels the fear and hostility between nations, especially when Iran has active and effective subversion programs in the entire region.

These countries are all held by despotic leaders with questionable control of their subjects, all of whom the Iranians would like to kill. Isreal has no intention of destroying these nations, while sharing a common goal of wanting Iran "non nuclear".

There is more cooperation that you may realize. What is said officially in announcements isn't what is done behind doors. Officially, they'll keep saying "death to Isreal!"

Did you know that the last drones Isreal sent to monitor Iranian nuke facilities came out of Azerbaijan?

Forgot to mention, the Koran does allow for enslavement of non-Muslims. Most Arab states legally allowed slavery to 1970s and only banned it due to British pressure.

It has never been universally condemned by Islamic clergy and it continues to be practiced in Islamic parts of Africa and is suspected to secretly happen in Arab world.

Indeed some high ranking Islamic clerics such as Saleh Al-Fawzan continue to maintain slavery is part of Islam.

So there you go, a moderate religion whose beliefs have essentially not changed since 7th century and whose adherents are increasingly embracing old views.

And the really scary thing is most Western countries are importing Muslims at the rate of 1-2% of their population every 10 years. And they maintain higher birth rates than indigenous populations.

Simple mathematics gives a very obvious and very scary picture for our future.

Countries that would help? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Azerbaijan, possibly Turkmenistan.

Forgot about Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

I agree with Saudi Arabia. UAE is possible too. Their A2A refuelling fleet is a mere 3 aircraft. UAE's location is not good either – the Iranian targets are generally too far north.

Jordan offers no real basing opportunities but does offer overflights.

I doubt Kuwait would do anything – as stated they're far too close to Iran.

Also as can been from that map, Israel would have it's hand full.

In fact I doubt IDF/AF has the capability at all. Hence they keep threatening but don't do.

"Even Republicans might not look kindly on Israel humiliating USA".

Too late, it's already occurred, with today's "deadline" being the latest in a long line of humiliations, of late.

Mind you Israel's own threats ring increasingly hollow. It's bluster and nothing else.

I've already posted that Isreali drones used to monitor Iranian nuke activity come from Azerbaijan. -Azerbaijan airfields, just to be clear.

As for Kuwait, I don't understand why you think physical proximity would be a deterrent. the closer you are to Iran, the more you probably fear them getting a hold of nukes. Kuwait didn't seem to have any problems stealing Iraq's oil, and they're located NEXT to Iraq. Besides, nowadays Kuwait is a forward staging area for US CENTCOM forces. That's air, naval, army and Marine assets. The US will protect Kuwait under any circumstance.

Here's a picture I grabbed of US materiel at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. Activity isn't as busy as before, but the military assets are still there and ready to roll.
link

The Iranians are Persians, the rest of the Gulf & Middle East are Arabs. They've hated each other since before Jesus or Allah appeared.

The US will protect Kuwait under any circumstance.

Problem lies with having Israel launching illegal air strikes from Kuwaiti territory.

It's a diplomatic nightmare.

And whilst people might hate, it doesn't mean they're stupid.

Going to war with Iran is daft for Kuwait even if the US is protecting them.

Iran could hit Kuwait in non-conventional ways too – insurgents from Iranian friendly Iraq, making life miserable for oil tankers coming out of Kuwait etc.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a list of things he blamed on Islam:

1. Female genital mutiliation
2. Honour killings
3. Domestic violence against women
4. Marrying off extremely young girls (but then Mohammad had a nine year old bride).
5. Extreme homophobia.
6. Intolerance of other religions including pathological hate of Jews/Israel

And when challenged changed his list and started citing as supporting evidence all the things he got wrong in the first place.

Most of this has nothing to do with the religion of Islam and lots to do with cultural baggage that has used Islam to justify it.

Christianity was used to justify slavery and racial intolerance (and still is by some people).

Jihad has nothing to do with your list – but since you mention it – there are many interpretations of what responsibility it imposes on Muslims and only a few scholars impute the interpretation you obviously take as normal.

As for 'beating women' I presume you are basing this on Sura 4:34 – go and read a modern translation or interpretation and get back to me – it doesn't sanction violence.

The Qu'ran does not explicitly advocate death for apostasy. Some Hadith do – they are open to interpretation.

The question of child marriage is again open to interpretation and the Qu'ran explicitly says there is an age of marriage for women – unfortunately it does not say what that is.

There are lots of valid reasons to criticise Islam, and MANY MORE to criticise those who use it to justify their violence.

All I am asking is that we base discussion on facts.
The last thing the world needs is more religious hatred based on myth.
Just saying I wrote:

Load of rubbish.

Is just rather silly, especially as my comments were factually correct

All I am asking is that we base discussion on facts.

What are these facts?

E.g. that "modern" definition of Sura 4:34. Where is it. All the English language translations talk about beating women.

MEN SHALL take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!

As for all the other things you mention, you offer no proof.

Most of this has nothing to do with the religion of Islam and lots to do with cultural baggage that has used Islam to justify it.

As stated same can be applied to any religion. Just because the Bible doesn't mention the Inquisition, doesn't mean the Inquisition was not a part of the Roman Catholic religion.

As for Islam, Islamic State et al are basically getting down to basics. There is actually not much difference between them and Mohammad in terms of views and actions.

And conservative Islamic societies such Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Afghanistan are all known for dismal gender rights. And it's all due to the fact that women are not regarded same as men according to most hadith and even Koran (Sura 2:182 – a man's testimony is worth that of 2 women).

Even in "civilised" countries ala UAE courts generally don't prosecute domestic violence in deference to Sharia and some of the more "modern" thinkers have argued the violence should be "light."

And we all know about practice of honour killings practiced across Islamic world. Not in Koran but how much of it originates from general second class treatment of women in Koran?

Indeed even that "moderate Islamist" Erdogan has just come out saying women are not equal to men.

bbc.com/news/world-europe-30183711

If that's a moderate Islamist, then I'd hate hear the direct words of a fanatic.

Finally while there are modern, liberal Muslims, the general trend since 1970s has been Islamic revival even amongst formerly secular countries (e.g. Turkey, Bosnia, Malaysia, Indonesia).

More and more jurisdictions are adopting sharia law and the growth of fundamentalism continues whilst secular Islam is dying.

sublimequran.org
is one source for 4:34
As for proof I have offered more than your popular anti-islamic myths -

Google your points for ease or go and read the Qu'ran and look up the Hadith. Its pretty simple if you can be bothered.

This is pretty basic stuff – in Britain its on any discussion programme on Radio 4 or BBC TV – there are many reputable sources online.
Many practices by people of one religion or another are lazily ascribed as being 'Christian', Jewish' 'Hindu' attitudes when often they are cultural values with a gloss of the dominant religion in that region. As you say

As stated same can be applied to any religion. Just because the Bible doesn't mention the Inquisition, doesn't mean the Inquisition was not a part of the Roman Catholic religion.

Agreed but is it a necessary part of Christianity? No. In fact most people would now agree it is anti-Christian values.

You keep changing your mind what you are talking about – initially you said moderate muslims did a whole lot of things they either don't or they may do but only because their national culture demands it – not Islam.
Then you said

Koran explictly does following:

and then listed another set of things entirely – again which the Qu'ran does NOT explicitly require.

I am not a supporter of Islam. But I'd like a discussion on what Islam is not what myth and prejudice present it as. Mistake and peddling untruth does not help a rational debate.

Wow ! Some great comments here ! Many of which I can agree . And yes, Christianity has had some very bad policies, etc. in the past. Like the Inquistition, The Witch Trials, etc., etc. … However it appears to the outside world that many moslems seems to be very much wedded to the past practices. Outlined in the Koran, etc…. Now no doubt much stated in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, by most Christians have been left in the past. Where they belong. Like witchs are no longer burned at the stake. But yet a very, very small percentage of Christian sects, take everything written in the Bible literally, ignore science, practice polygamy, handle snakes, etc. So again, it appears, right or wrong, that at this time. Much of the non-moslem world has evolved beyond many of the writings of each of their relative "holy books". Where much of islam is stuck very much in the distant past. like around 622 AD … And there is the rub … The 21st Century vs. the 7th. A clash of ideas, etc. … And unfortunately, it appears to me as Thomas noted,

More and more jurisdictions are adopting sharia law and the growth of fundamentalism continues whilst secular Islam is dying.

And again, where are the voices of the moderates, those that embrace modernity and still can practice religious beliefs that don't include, as Thomas noted:

1. Female genital mutiliation
2. Honour killings
3. Domestic violence against women
4. Marrying off extremely young girls (but then Mohammad had a nine year old bride).
5. Extreme homophobia.
6. Intolerance of other religions including pathological hate of Jews/Israel

These practices, etc. demonstrate such actions that would appear to be very much anachronistic in the 20th and 21st Centuries, to many … if not most …

sublimequran.org
is one source for 4:34
As for proof I have offered more than your popular anti-islamic myths -

Those modern interpretations have not been adopted by many leading clerics, especially leading ones in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or even Egypt etc. Even in Western countries Islamic clerics have been caught preaching or supporting domestic violence.

Also most Islamic countries don't have laws for domestic violence or don't implement them in "deference to Sharia." Or they maintain religious courts for domestic matters.

I fail to see how Israel striking Iran would be illegal, given that Iran is complicit in providing all of those rockets, and many other arms, that were in attacks from Gaza, just a few months ago.

Seems to me they've already kicked off the Iran-Israeli War, and the latter are able to respond in any way they choose.

Not to mention their plot to assassinate a high-profile Israeli here on US soil, not too long ago.

I fail to see how Israel striking Iran would be illegal, given that Iran is complicit in providing all of those rockets, and many other arms, that were in attacks from Gaza, just a few months ago.

UN Charter doesn't cover covert supply of arms (which incidentaly Israel was selling to Iran in 1980s), use of proxies or covert games of espionage.

Also there have been numerous assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, cyber attacks on Iranian defence computers and unexplained explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities. Finger is generally pointed at Mossad especially for the very sophisticated cyber attacks and assassinations. bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16501566

Indeed apparently even the US has been pressuring Israel to stop assassinations ( cbsnews.com/news/us-pushing-israel-to-stop-assassinating-iranian-nuclear-scientists

None of this or what Iran is doing is a legal reason for war under UN Charter VII Article 51.

And how on earth does bombing nuclear facilities prevent Iran from sending unguided rockets and Kalashnikovs to Hamas?!?

Indeed any Israeli action regarding Gaza would have to be proportional and directed at that support.

Or is this more TMP trademark hypocrisy whereby what Israel/US ally does is good but Iran/non-US ally is bad even if it's both equally nasty stuff?