Meltdown Pending in Iran - Page 2

Jefferson · 12-26-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Allow me to use an example. Right after 9/11, the tactics of the attack, and indeed the attack itself was pointedly repudiated by the vast majority of the Islamic community, and indeed even most of the radical Muslim clerics! Even some of Osama Bin Laden's followers left his leadership after the attack, and I remember reading about at least one who then worked to gather intelligence for the United States. The idea behind this was that they thought the attack on innocent civilians directly violated Muslim law of war. That Mohammad himself forbade the killing of children, women, cattle, and trees. In fact, torture, mutilation of dead bodies, plundering and looting, and 'killing the enemy by setting them ablaze' are all forbidden! In fact, according to Islam, Osama Bin Laden doesn't even have the authority to issue a fatwa.

However, instead of utilizing this initial rejection, George W. Bush and his set of self-described neo-conservative advisers thought to put their ideology into practice. As a result, radical Islam rallied behind anti-American rhetoric, and even especially when it comes to Iraq, many moderate Muslims rallied behind this rhetoric and the terror threat grew substantially rather than lessened. Now anti-American terrorism doesn't just encompass radical Islamic terrorism, but also anti-Imperialist terrorism, anti-American terrorism, and Iraqi national terrorism among others.

And Bush wasn't alone. Even President Clinton's actions helped flame the threat of terrorism by his military actions. I mean, if half the pharmaceutical production abilities of the US were wiped out by bombings, I don't think we're going to believe in much what the bombers say, nor follow their lead. In fact I would be correct in saying that it would lead to war.

Many Iranians are denouncing the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad; we need to use this opportunity! We need to denounce the failed policy of neo-conservatism and neo-Imperialism (which many of the original authors of neo-conservatism are now calling on the Bush administration to do). We need to take a non-violent stance, using the threat of military action only as a last resort rather than one of our first cards to play. The answer to your question is in fact a lot more processed than what I have just said, and I don't feel like writing a book. But it's not difficult to do.

Essentially we need to stop bragging we're the best country on the Earth, and start acting like it.

Then what are you talking about? I thought you recommended that we bomb their alleged nuclear sites.

Thus, there is no justifiable reason for military action. Nor is there really that much of a reason for sanctions. There is no tangible evidence whatsoever that Iran is in fact perusing nuclear weapons. It's just a hunch. I'm not saying that the hunch is invalid, I'm just saying that acting on this hunch is invalid.

Perhaps if we worked to eliminate the possible motives for a nuclear Iran, rather than working toward the myopic goal of a non-nuclear Iran, we wouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place.

Then it seems as if we have more in common with them than we thought!

I can agree with a lot of what you said.

However...

You desperately need to do some serious research on the life of Muhammad. You really do. The guy was the original terrorist. He married a 6-year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. So much for these wonderful Muslim morals! He waged war himself, led warriors into battle, and terrorized villages and towns - slaughtering the people. So much for the supposed teaching against killing innocent civilians. Muhammed became a rich, rich man as a direct result of plundering caravans and slaughtering armies. So much for ethics.

It's history. It's fact.

Now, in light of that... Let's not make believe that the Muslim population as a whole was denouncing what happened on 9-11. That's pure crap. And let's not believe that "not retaliating" would work. That's what your hero Bill Clinton did - and all it did was embolden the terrorists, and guarantee that there will be more attacks.

And finally, NO, I am NOT talking about pre-emptive military strikes. We need to tell President Asswipe that we're not invading Iran. However, if he even so much as TRIES to launch a nuclear warhead at Israel, the entire city of Tehran will cease to exist.

The reason the Cold War never became a World War is because the stakes were simply too high for the the USA and USSR. Therefore, they refrained. The same needs to be applied to Iran. Make it perfectly clear to him that attempting to use nuclear weapons will cost him dearly. Then... let time do it's thing. The guy won't be in power for more than another year or two.

Katczinsky · 12-26-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

I can agree with a lot of what you said.

However...

You desperately need to do some serious research on the life of Muhammad. You really do. The guy was the original terrorist. He married a 6-year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. So much for these wonderful Muslim morals! He waged war himself, led warriors into battle, and terrorized villages and towns - slaughtering the people. So much for the supposed teaching against killing innocent civilians. Muhammed became a rich, rich man as a direct result of plundering caravans and slaughtering armies. So much for ethics.

It's history. It's fact.

I don't doubt the hypocrisy of Islam, just as I don't doubt the hypocrisy of other religions. However, for such audacious statements, I'm seeing little factual substantiation.

Quote:

Now, in light of that... Let's not make believe that the Muslim population as a whole was denouncing what happened on 9-11. That's pure crap. And let's not believe that "not retaliating" would work. That's what your hero Bill Clinton did - and all it did was embolden the terrorists, and guarantee that there will be more attacks.

Pure crap? I will study the history of Islam if you will study the real contemporary beliefs of Islam and it's reaction to 9/11.

"The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society)."
September 27, 2001 - Fatwa, signed by:
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar
Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt
Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari'a, Egypt
Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria
Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria
Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council

"Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."
Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001

"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in."
King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in the Middle East Times, September 28, 2001.

"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people."
Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in the New York Times, September 28, 2001.

"Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime."
Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, September 28, 2001.

"We assert our utter rejection of these attacks and assert that confronting them must not touch innocent civilians and must not extend beyond those who carried out those attacks."
-President of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam

"Islam does not support terrorism under any circumstances. Terrorism goes against every principle in Islam." USA Today

Muslims Against Terrorism

“The General-Secretariat of the League of Arab States shares with the people and government of the United States of America the feelings of revulsion, horror and shock over the terrorist attacks that ripped through the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, inflicting heavy damage and killing and wounding thousands of many nationalities. These terrorist crimes have been viewed by the League as inadmissible and deserving all condemnation. Divergence of views between the Arabs and the United States over the latter’s foreign policy on the Middle East crisis does in no way adversely affect the common Arab attitude of compassion with the people and government of the United States at such moments of facing the menace and ruthlessness of international terrorism. In more than one statement released since the horrendous attacks, the League has also expressed deep sympathy with the families of the victims. In remarks to newsmen immediately following the tragic events, Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa described the feelings of the Arab world as demonstrably sympathetic with the American people, particularly with families and individuals who lost their loved ones. “It is indeed tormenting that any country or people or city anywhere in the world be the scene of such disastrous attacks,” he added. While convinced that it is both inconceivable and lamentable that such a large-scale, organised terrorist campaign take place anywhere, anytime, the League believes that the dreadful attacks against WTC and the Pentagon unveil, time and again, that the cancer of terrorism can be extensively damaging if left unchecked. It follows that there is a pressing and urgent need to combat world terrorism. In this context, an earlier call by [Egyptian] President Hosni Mubarak for convening an international conference to draw up universal accord on ways and means to eradicate this phenomenon and demonstrate international solidarity is worthy of active consideration. The Arabs have walked a large distancein the fight against cross-border terrorism by concluding in April 1998 the Arab Agreement on Combating Terrorism.”
-League of Arab States, September 17, 2001

And more...

Quote:

And finally, NO, I am NOT talking about pre-emptive military strikes. We need to tell President Asswipe that we're not invading Iran. However, if he even so much as TRIES to launch a nuclear warhead at Israel, the entire city of Tehran will cease to exist.

What do you mean "try"? Either he does or he doesn't. And retaliation must be equal. Otherwise it's just vengeance, not justice.

Quote:

The reason the Cold War never became a World War is because the stakes were simply too high for the the USA and USSR. Therefore, they refrained. The same needs to be applied to Iran. Make it perfectly clear to him that attempting to use nuclear weapons will cost him dearly. Then... let time do it's thing. The guy won't be in power for more than another year or two.

This wont work. Because the USSR and the United States were both self-declared nuclear states. Iran denies any motive to nuclear weapons, let alone a program. I think that the main motive Iran would have to have nuclear weapons is to keep up with Israel, which itself has nuclear weapons. Perhaps if we disarmed Israel first, things would start to work out. And don't give me the 'Israel is morally superior' bullsh*t. Israel helped the South Africans develop a nuclear bomb. And they're just as aggressive, perhaps more, than Iran.

alias · 12-26-2006, 06:11 PM

There is only one thing wrong with your thesis. It's wrong. I don't care how many peaceful muslims you quote. Unless Iran changes its course, they are headed for destruction.

And you actually believe they only want nukes for energy. Only a fool would take the word of a muslim. A religion that has a tenet that it is good to lie to infidels to further Islam.

It's almost like you have not heard the words coming out of there or you just think it's all "rhetoric". It's rhetoric alright, the same kind of rhetoric that came out of Europe in 1939.

And to say that Israel is just as aggressive or perhaps more so than Iran is just plain idiotic. This is not a case of Iran trying to play keep up with Israel. You don't get it. You actually don't think Iran wants to anihilate Israel. You take the word of Iran and believe them. That is pretty foolish.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode