All I can say is

This is the best news that I've heard in at least a year. Moderate muslims speaking out against terrorism is Islam's single greatest shot at stamping out the violence that plagues their countries.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-01-2008 at 09:48 PM.

Regardless, I'm glad these proponents of non-violence (or at least non-violence against 'innocent' citizens) are taking a stand. -for whatever it is worth

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Zair gently hums:
Anyone a Quran scholar? Does it preach strict non-violence or not?

---

That's pretty funny. When you think Koran, think Old Testament. Hard-core Old Testament. It's all about the stonings and the killing of infidels and the strict control of temptation by force and the loving of thy neighbor as long as he is of the faithful and follows alll the rules and if not see item one.

quote:

---

Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
That's pretty funny. When you think Koran, think Old Testament. Hard-core Old Testament. It's all about the stonings and the killing of infidels and the strict control of temptation by force and the loving of thy neighbor as long as he is of the faithful and follows alll the rules and if not see item one.

---

Thats what I assumed. There was that woman in the article talking about how true Muslims don't even kill a fly, etc. I was wondering where that comes from, and how her imam rationalizes that sort of reading.

Even if that woman is deluding herself to the nature of her holy book, it is a beneficial interpretation for everyone else at least.

But mum's the word.

quote:

---

x--ZairO-('-'Q) :
Thats what I assumed. There was that woman in the article talking about how true Muslims don't even kill a fly, etc. I was wondering where that comes from, and how her imam rationalizes that sort of reading.

Even if that woman is deluding herself to the nature of her holy book, it is a beneficial interpretation for everyone else at least.

---

A lot of it has to do with interpretation. Certain suras in the Koran are quite unambiguous in their prohibition of violence. Sura 5:32 is an often quoted example;

quote:

---

Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people of the world. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people of the world.

---

The Koran is never very clear on what qualifies as a horrendous crime, though, and so extremists get around this view generally by taking the position that infidels are subhuman and that holding any faith other than Islam as true qualifies as "horrendous crimes." That way, not only are you allowed to cheat, rape, murder, or otherwise violence infidels, but doing so is actually a highly virtuous act.

This is why talks with the regime in Iran are so pointless - Ali Khamenei and, by extension, Ahmadinejad view us as subhuman, and so deceiving us is not only acceptable to them, but highly commendable.

quote:

---

Check out the big brain on Maradon!!

This is why talks with the regime in Iran are so pointless - Ali Khamenei and, by extension, Ahmadinejad view us as subhuman, and so deceiving us is not only acceptable to them, but highly commendable.

---

This makes no sense to me. When making negotiations with any country, especially unfriendly ones, we have to assume they might abandon any deal made if it serves their self-interest. The best you can do is lay out incentives for them to hold to any agreements, and threats of consequences if they don't. Why would it matter how they morally feel for breaking an agreement? They still won't take any action if it is disastrous for them.

That seems like a silly and dangerous reason to decide to not talk to Iran.

I've also seen no real evidence that the powers that be in Iran won't do what is best for their own self-interest first, and what is virtuous to Islam second.

Zair fucked around with this message on 12-02-2008 at 07:27 PM.

quote:

---

x--ZairO-('-'Q) :
This makes no sense to me. When making negotiations with any country, especially unfriendly ones, we have to assume they might abandon any deal made if it serves their self-interest. The best you can do is lay out incentives for them to hold to any agreements, and threats of consequences if they don't. Why would it matter how they morally feel for breaking an agreement? They still won't take any action if it is disastrous for them.

That seems like a silly and dangerous reason to decide to not talk to Iran.

---

You really need to think about this a little deeper. The only reason to have diplomatic relations with any country is to enter into some kind of agreement with them. That's what treaties are. If you know beforehand that a nation will instantly betray any agreement that you establish with them the second it serves them to do so, why on earth would you bother entering into an agreement with them at all?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that diplomatic relations are for getting the other nation to like you and understand your moods and hopes for the future, which would be pointless even if it were true, or that without unconditional talks Iran just won't know what not to do to keep from pissing us off.

quote:

---

I've also seen no real evidence that the powers that be in Iran won't do what is best for their own self-interest first, and what is virtuous to Islam second.

---

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

-Ali Khamenei, 1980

Their ongoing nuclear weapons development isn't enough of an indicator to you?

How about the fact that the government is donating millions in public funds to a shrine central to a sect of Shiia that's dedicated to bringing about the apocalypse?

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-02-2008 at 08:04 PM.

You seem to assume they would betray our trust for the sake of betraying our trust. You really can't envision any kind of agreements Iran could make with us that would be in mutual self-interest?

quote:

---

x--ZairO-('-'Q) :
Of course Iran MIGHT go back on any treaty we agree to.

---

No, not MIGHT, they WILL reliably, absolutely, with certainty go back on any treaty we agree to the second it benefits them to do so.

That is NOT the case with every treaty and it renders all diplomacy completely meaningless.

quote:

---

You seem to assume they would betray our trust for the sake of betraying our trust.

---

Yes, that is precisely the case.

quote:

---

You really can't envision any kind of agreements Iran could make with us that would be in mutual self-interest?

---

Why would we need diplomatic talks to get them to do something they wanted to do? A compromise involves sacrifice on both sides, what point is there if we know they won't live up to their end of the bargain? If we ask them to stop developing nukes in exchange for something, they'll tell us it's civilian! it's civilian! right up until Israel is a glass parking lot. Then Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and the rest of the theocracy can move to the summer palace in Syria maybe.

This is what happens when you try to be diplomatic with openly insane people. For other examples, see: The Agreed Framework, or Neville Chamberlain

No diplomacy or trade with Cuba sure worked out well too.

Which would be a disaster.

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq Noxhil2 booooze lime pole over bench lick:
The more hostile we are to Iran the more extremist the government becomes.

---

This statement assumes that Iran is extremist because we're hostile to them, which is really pretty baseless. Iran remained just as aggressive and extremist through indifferent administrations like Clinton and pre-Iraq Bush as it was under Reagan. Their stance has remained the same, only the twelfth imam business is relatively new, as far as I know anyway.

I know it's a natural reflex to immediately blame everything on America, but even if only by the law of averages, it can't always work out that way.

quote:

---

No diplomacy or trade with Cuba sure worked out well too.

---

Well, yeah it kinda did. Once again, you're assuming that the goal of diplomacy is to get a nation to like you. That's the job of tourism agencies, not diplomats.

quote:

---

Zairing:
Based on Maradon's view of our relations with Iran, war is the only option, and sooner rather than later.

Which would be a disaster.

---

We are presently at war with Iran, and have been since the 80's.

That caveat aside, I very much oppose open war with Iran. What I'd rather see is multilateral tactical strikes against only their most threatening programs, which is currently going on, and weakening of the central government on an economic level and in their international relations, neither of which are happening but are supposed be.

If the government of Iran is defamed internationally and domestically, it will be virtually impossible for them to accomplish anything that even hints of aggression without losing support, both from other nations that want to maintain a good standing in the world as well as their own people. This is probably the best course of action because they are very close to this point already.

Allowing unilateral diplomatic talks would be very much counter to this second goal. It would portray Iran as more of a fair dealer and allow sympathetic nations to deal with them openly. It would also remove a great deal of pressure and doubt in government from the Iranian people, which is tremendous currently.

Or rather, I should say talks will affect them this way, because they're apparently going to happen now.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 12-02-2008 at 09:23 PM.

All we did was rain misery on a neighbor. I suspect having somewhat normal relations with them probably would have lead to a natural transition and created at least a neutral neighbor.

It seems like that was a lot more successful with, for example, China.

We really should have used caravels and swordsmen to rush Iran before they were ready. Now we're going to have to tech-rush for the spaceship.

quote:

---

And now, we sprinkle Naimah liberally with Old Spice!
Because them attacking us when they have nukes is going to be the better option.

---

How are they going to hit us with nukes? Do they have any sort of ICBM or SLBM program? The best they could do is a nuclear-tipped cruise missile. Ooh, watch out. And then what? They have no heavy sealift capacity. Ohnose, a fleet of yachts, rowboats, and rubber rafts is going to cross two oceans to invade us!

Seriously, though, Iran is already fucked. Iraq is fucked. Kuwait is fucked. Saudi Arabia is completely fucked. All of OPEC is fucked, because we (oil-consuming countries) are sucking them dry every day. And when they no longer have oil, we no longer need to deal with them. By basing their relationship with us on this vital but ultimately finite resource, and not investing in a modern economy, they've doomed themselves. The minute they stop exporting oil or natural gas, they're no longer relevant to the world at large, because they no longer have anything it needs. They will be forced to either make themselves relevant again through modernization and liberalization, or toil in poverty and obscurity, having wasted the most coveted natural resource in history so far.

Just because they don't have ICBMs doesn't mean they can't be a threat. If they were to engage in non conventional warfare it would be done with the assumption that either they will be obliterated after giving us a black eye or that we won't be able to prove that it was them and they get to continue fucking with us.

quote:

---

Naimah thought about the meaning of life:
They blow up Israel. They stick one on a super tanker and cruise it into Houston.

Just because they don't have ICBMs doesn't mean they can't be a threat. If they were to engage in non conventional warfare it would be done with the assumption that either they will be obliterated after giving us a black eye or that we won't be able to prove that it was them and they get to continue fucking with us.

---

Here's where your analysis falls apart.

In the real world, "They blow up Israel" is followed immediately by "Everyone with nuclear capability turns Iran into sheet of irradiated glass."

You know why there've only been two nukes used in a military capacity in the history of warfare? It's because of two little theories called Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Escalation.

Nuclear deterence pretty much says "We have nukes. You wanna fuck with us? Go ahead and try. See how it works out for you."

Nuclear escalation says "You launch a nuke, we launch five at you. If we can't track it to you, we nuke everyone in panic." And then the world ends.

If Iran is so stupid as to USE a nuke once they develop it, everyone else who's been in the nuclear game longer will react the same way, even nations normally sympathetic to them. Thus, a lighter dose of nuclear escalation.

The reason Iran wants a nuke is so they can be taken seriously and viewed as a threat. Nuclear deterrence taken to a level akin to instant celebrity, which can then be leveraged towards furthering their extremism with the threat of a nuke looming over a negotiation table.

Or maybe everyone in power there really is so stupid as to think that their God wants them to blow up one generally insignificant nation and then will somehow miraculously protect them when retribution comes.

Mooj fucked around with this message on 12-03-2008 at 09:07 PM.

quote:

---

Mooj had this to say about (_|_):
Here's where your analysis falls apart.

In the real world, "They blow up Israel" is followed immediately by "Everyone with nuclear capability turns Iran into sheet of irradiated glass."

You know why there've only been two nukes used in a military capacity in the history of warfare? It's because of two little theories called Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Escalation.

Nuclear deterence pretty much says "We have nukes. You wanna fuck with us? Go ahead and try. See how it works out for you."

Nuclear escalation says "You launch a nuke, we launch five at you. If we can't track it to you, we nuke everyone in panic." And then the world ends.

If Iran is so stupid as to USE a nuke once they develop it, everyone else who's been in the nuclear game longer will react the same way, even nations normally sympathetic to them. Thus, a lighter dose of nuclear escalation.

The reason Iran wants a nuke is so they can be taken seriously and viewed as a threat. Nuclear deterrence taken to a level akin to instant celebrity, which can then be leveraged towards furthering their extremism with the threat of a nuke looming over a negotiation table.

Or maybe everyone in power there really is so stupid as to think that their God wants them to blow up one generally insignificant nation and then will somehow miraculously protect them when retribution comes.

---

You're right! No one would ever strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a market and blow it up. No one would ever get on a plane and fly it into a building! All these years we've been afraid of things that don't happen.

quote:

---

Blindy. stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Yes there is no difference between blowing up two buildings and blowing up an entire city like Manhattan.

---

The question is, does the person who has the 'nuke israel' button feel that way?

"If I strap some C4 to my chest and blow up a busload of infidels, then I get 47 virgins in heaven. So what kind of reward would I get if I wipe the entire goddamn country of infidels off the face of the world?"

The problem with deterrence is that it relies on people not wanting to be nuked into glass. It relies on knowing that both sides have no real desire to become rapidly expanding clouds of radioactive dust. When you've got some genuinely brain-sick son of a bitch who's been raised his entire life to the tenet of 'If you die while killing our enemies then this is a good thing' then deterrence is no longer an effective preventative measure. For those kinds of retards the only countermeasure becomes preventing them from getting their hands on anything really powerful.

Khyron fucked around with this message on 12-04-2008 at 01:15 PM.

Aside from this, suicide bombings and all other suicide terrorist activities are always based on the singular concept of allowing a handful of your people to die in order to take out a much larger group of the enemy. If any country were to use nuclear arms on another, that country would be instantly wiped off the map. And the United States is the country that has the nukes to make that happen. Iran or North Korea or whatever's crappy little nuclear program would never be able to match us, so if they were to ever attack us, it would mean the loss of maybe one of our cities compared to the complete destruction of their society. It is not a winning proposition. And as I've already established, the leaders of these groups DO NOT WANT TO DIE.

These are the reasons for which they will not use nuclear arms. They know that would mean an end to them much more than it would mean an end to us.

Blindy. fucked around with this message on 12-04-2008 at 01:43 PM.

quote:

---

Blindy. painfully thought these words up:
The people strapping C4 on their chest are not the same people who make decisions concerning nuclear weapons, or who are in any leadership role what-so-ever. They are the least educated, poorest, and generally orphaned or otherwise destitute people in their countries.

---

Debunked

quote:

---

This one time, at band camp, Vernaltemptress said:
Debunked

---

So the 8 guys they arrested where going to kill themselves?

But I'm speaking in generalities. I'm sure smart people kill themselves for Jihad too, I'm just saying that the leaders don't suicide themselves, because their motives are not nor were they ever purely religious.