Is Iran, by itself, a threat to the U.S and the West?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That's it? Blame the messenger?

What did I blame Zakaria for? Annoying me? I think I am allowed to be annoyed.

He doesn't claim Iran scaled their capacity to spite Bush, they did it because they had no reason not to. Had the deal been made it likely would have been different.

He said that Iran's scaling was a "result" of Bush's failure to give Iran what it wanted, not that it had no reason not to. If Iran's intention was never to develop the "bomb" as it has always claimed, then it never had a reason not to "scale" their capacity. Bush or no Bush.

Then he tries to make a seemingly irrefutable claim that if Bush had not vetoed Iran's offer things would be different today. That Iran would not be months away from making the bomb. Or wait, he did modify that with "likely."

How likely? Well, Zakaria doesn't mention what Obama's spokesmouth referred to in 2010 as "Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments" He doesn't mention deals made and broken after Bush was gone. Not the 2009 deal to have Russia enrich its stock which Iran backed out of. Not the 2010 similar deal with Turkey and Brazil which the Obama administration rejected. Not the timeline of Iran's consistently not complying with the IAEA's demands followed by the "international community" gradually caving in toward Iran's desires: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-world-powers/

And during it all, without any pressure by Bush, but by pressures and broken negotiations with everybody else, Iran, according to Zakaria, is months away from the bomb. But, somehow, we're supposed to believe that it was all Bush's fault for not agreeing to the 2002-05 deal. That if he had agreed, it would be "likely" that Iran would not be months away from the bomb.

Who is it, exactly, that is in never-never land?

What about the facts in the story? How about Netenyahu's repeated claims of impending doom?

What facts? The assertion of something being "likely"?

I can understand, very well, Netenyahu's concern over Iran's threat to annihilate Israel. And the reality of being able to achieve that threat with a nuclear weapon.

If Iran is telling the truth, that it wants nuclear power only for peaceful uses, not nuclear weapons, then there is no point to the incessant back and forth attempts at negotiations to restrict or allow Iran's capacities. Nor is there a need for Zakaria to be concerned about Iran's ability to have the bomb in a matter of months.

If Iran is not telling the truth, if it really does want the nuclear capability of building the bomb, and had that desire all along, AS MOST EVERYONE ELSE ASSUMES TO BE THE CASE . . . if Iran is lying, then asserting that if Bush, way back when, had agreed to some deal we would not "likely" be at a point where Iran was month's away from that bomb, is, as Zakaria puts it, never-never land

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What about the facts in the story? How about Netenyahu's repeated claims of impending doom?

Spence, the story by Zakaria was clearly a hit job against Bush, Netanyahu, and the West in general. Nuclear nonproliferation has been a U.N. policy since the 1960's. The IAEA was established by the U.N. in 1957 and specified in 1968 to ensure no expansion of nuclear programs designed to create nuclear weapons. This was all well Before Bush.

Iran, under the Shah, had started a nuclear program which was for energy purposes only. It hired outside Western contractors to build it. They operated under IAEA regulations. There was no secrecy, no attempt to build nuclear weapons, no hidden violations. After the revolution, under control of an Islamic State, the nuclear program, which had been discontinued during the war with Iraq, was restarted, but this time strictly under control of Iran, with Iranian contractors to design and build it. There were, very shortly, IAEA concerns about the ultimate purpose.

And the agents who came to Iran's aid this time were not from the West, but from Eurasia. Russia and China, mainly. And IAEA suspicions gradually heightened. For example, China agreed to prevent new cooperation and halt existing projects with Iran in the nuclear field, and to cancel a project to help Iran with a blueprint for the plant. But China continued its aid anyway. Iran, in Nov. 2003, entered into an agreement with Britain, France, and Germany to suspend enrichment, but it continued building the centrifuges anyway. And it has continually advanced enrichment, before, through, and past the Bush era to its present ability. Iran has refused to have its program of enrichment done by outside commercial sources with no political objective, as was done by the Shah, but maintains its own program, in constant secrecy, violation of agreements, and uncooperativeness with IAEA. Even Obama says that if there are no guarantees that Iran will not build nuclear weapons, we will walk away from the negotiation. Long after Bush, there are still no guarantees. If Iran simply wanted peaceful use of nuclear power, it could have gone about it the way the Shah did. Something else is obviously going on, and Bush didn't cause it. And at this point at which Iran is about to have the ability to build the bomb, any "agreement" would be highly suspect, and its "guarantee" by a regime which has continuously broken agreements may not be worth the paper it's written on.

Your query to me to talk about the facts of Zakaria's story is amusing. You often dismiss "stories," simply by sneering at the source, and avoid any further discussion. Which you did with the article that is the subject of this thread. You claimed to get "lost" by one of the initial sentences (which I pointed out was not relevant to the rest of the review), and that was that. No further discussion. No "what about the facts in the story?" At least I expanded my discussion of Zakaria's hit job.

I don't know if you actually did go ahead and read the rest of the article I posted. If you did, you might have seen and discussed what are and have been growing alliances that are not wholly, if at all, interested in alliance with what we call the "West." They, in varying degrees among its participants, actually tend to be anti-Western. And the alliances, including SOC and BRICS comprise half the population of the planet.

The article certainly sheds some light on what is actually happening in Ukraine. And why economic sanctions have had little effect. The alliances afford partners to ameliorate the effects of U.S. or European opposition and sanction. They want to neutralize the power of the West. And to replace the dollar as the go-to currency with their own currency. They see Israel as an extension of Western power into their Eurasian sphere, so tend to back Iran and care little for Israel's security. Iran wants to be part of their alliance, and they will eventually officially accept it, but will back it for the time being. Here's the Wiki entry for SOC and BRIC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangha...n_Organisation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

The SOC, Shanghai Cooperation Organization is strictly Eurasian and won't allow European countries or the U.S. entry. The U.S. had applied for observer status but was denied. Russia and China are the most important members.

The BRICS expands from Eurasia to include the African and South American sphere, but its main members, Russia, China, and India, are Eurasian.

There are many "observer" nations who attend SOC and BRICS conferences, most being potential members and will be wholeheartedly welcomed into the alliance. If numbers and statistics mean much, the combined alliances will have a much larger population than a U.S./Euro alliance.

Interesting how wagons are circling around the U.S./Euro zone, no? How Russia and China are quietly expanding their influence in the rest of the world? And they already have a powerful influence among our own alliances by being two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

[detbuch]

I transferred this out of the Hillary email thread to a more appropriate one:

Originally Posted by spence

There certainly is a mega shift in global power but I wouldn't have faith that a BRIC alliance is going to mean a dramatic reduction in US power. It's mostly economic and dependent on global consumption.

This is what I mean by not paying serious attention to the shifts in global alliances. The shift is occurring not just because of BRICS. The SOC is as or even more influential in the shift. For instance, from Wikipedia:

Iranian writer, Hamid Golpira, had this to say on the topic: "According to Zbigniew Brzezinski's theory, control of the Eurasian landmass is the key to global domination and control of Central Asia is the key to control of the Eurasian landmass....Russia and China have been paying attention to Brzezinski's theory, since they formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SOC] in 2001, ostensibly to curb extremism in the region and enhance border security, but most probably with the real objective of counterbalancing the activities of the United States and NATO in Central Asia".

But the counterbalancing involves more than Central Asia. It includes the Middle East, and altogether what Russian theorists call Eurasia. Turkey will probably become a member of SOC, and Iran will, when the lifting of sanctions allows it.

And BRICS is a channel for SOC nations, especially Russia and China, to create a counterbalance outside of Eurasia by incorporating "developing nations" outside the Eurasian zone, including South America and Africa.

An aim of both SOC And BRICS is to replace the dollar as the reserve currency in global trade finance. BRICS ministers supported Putin against any Western notion of banning Russia from the G20 because of the invasion and annexation of Crimea. BRICS and SOC establish a system of swaps allowing transfers of resources between member nations. These alliances will form a counterbalance to NATO and other strictly Western alliances, and as their membership increases, the probability that they can achieve dominance increases.

Consider, as well, that most of the SOC and BRICS members are members of the UN, and Russia and China are permanent members of the security council. So their influence goes well beyond SOC and BRICS. It is worldwide, including socialist minded fellow travelers inside Western countries.

There also doesn't seem to be agreement on what Iran really is doing. The former head of Mossad called Bibi's claims before Congress to be b*llsh*t. Even our own intel agencies haven't consistently said there's an active program to develop a bomb going on.

With aggressive inspection I'd say we're better prepared to know what's real even with attempts to deceive. Saddam 2.0.

Talk about b*llsh*t, if there is no active program to develop a bomb, what is the reason, or even the right, to impose anything on Iran. If we need aggressive inspection merely to know what appears to be the case, no active program, what is the probable cause for the agression?

With no deal they have no respite from sanctions, the natural response will be escalate and provoke to get the deal. This leads to a bomb.

Well then, Bibi's suposed b*llsh*t isn't so sh*tty. Without a deal, you say it leads to a bomb. I suppose it's the nature of the deal that concerns Bibi.

No, it simply follows the clear logic set forth above.

No, your logic is too loaded with contingencies and so more muddy than clear: "If the Senators don't want the deal and no deal is more likely to get them a bomb, then that could be a possible conclusion." And the extremely remote possibility is extremely improbable, and suggesting that the Senators want Iran to get the bomb is absurd on its face.

In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.

Actually it's a reasonable proposition, not a conclusion--"getting a deal could eventually make it easier for Iran to openly get the bomb. A deal could lift the sanctions and allow Iran to join the expanding Russia/China coalitions." Once it becomes a member of the alliance, it will have the backing of the members against foreign intrusions into its business, just as NATO is supposed to back its members.


Given the short-sighted behavior -- now being regretted by their own party -- I wonder why they would do such a silly thing. That it comes on the heels of Bibi's surreal appearance is even more strange.

Gosh, I guess you have to load your comment with defamatory insinuations, short-sighted, silly, surreal, strange, in order to give it the "appearance" of validity.

[detbuch]

"But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel."

Quote: Spence reply:
"I got sort of lost here."

Sure doesn't sound like Obama supports Israel in this Huffpost article:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...id=ansnewshp11

Is this sort of being an opponent of Israel?

[spence]

Sounds more like Obama acting as the wiser older brother.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds more like Obama acting as the wiser older brother.

So the "wiser older brother" got pissed when Netanyahu, in order to "scare" people into voting for him, is reported to have said that “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves . . . Left-wing NGOs are bringing them in buses.”

And so then, being pissed, Obama said that statement was "contrary to what is the best of Israel's traditions. That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly . . . And I think that that is what's best about Israeli democracy. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state, but it also I think starts to erode the name of democracy in the country."

If that is a danger to democracy in Israel, why is it not the same danger here in the U.S.? Don't our politicians, certainly Obama supporters do, try to "get out the vote" on election days? And don't they warn that the other side will win and bring about disaster for the country if their own side doesn't vote? In fact, there are "reports" (I know you like and often depend on "reports') that Obama actually sent some of his "expert" community election organizers (included in the Left-wing NGOs Netanyahu spoke of) to help defeat Netanyahu? It would seem, therefor, that what Netanyahu said, contrary to Obama's suggestion, would actually level the playing field and ensure "everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly" would happen.

Sounds more like the spiteful hypocrite sibling rival than the wiser older brother.

And then there's the pissy threat that now Obama would not block the Palestinians getting statehood by U. N. decree rather than what he always said was truly necessary--agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. All just because Netanyahu acted like an American politician instead of the idyllic "what's best about Israeli democracy"? Really? When those whom Netanyahu has to "negotiate" and come to some agreement with are not honest democratic angels and who represent those who don't want a two state solution, but one Palestinian state and no Israeli state? And these "negotiations" have been going on for almost 40 years?

So this supposed wiser older brother is so concerned with the well-being of his sibling that he must dictate how that brother acts and what he says? And then talk glowingly about democracy as if he had any significant inkling of what that word means?

And this wiser older brother would glow on about Israel's honorable, fair and democratic traditions and totally neglect to mention the spent blood and violence that was necessary to defend that founding and its traditions? And that it was and is under various assaults and threats, even by those with whom it must negotiate in order to appease the wiser older brother? And if it doesn't keep up the decades old charade of negotiations while under assault, the loving wiser older brother drops the chilling hint that if it doesn't toe the line "then I think that it [will] give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state". The wiser older brother, it would be assumed, would be among those "folks" since it all would have come about because little brother didn't do as he was told.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If that is a danger to democracy in Israel, why is it not the same danger here in the U.S.? Don't our politicians, certainly Obama supporters do, try to "get out the vote" on election days? And don't they warn that the other side will win and bring about disaster for the country if their own side doesn't vote? In fact, there are "reports" (I know you like and often depend on "reports') that Obama actually sent some of his "expert" community election organizers (included in the Left-wing NGOs Netanyahu spoke of) to help defeat Netanyahu? It would seem, therefor, that what Netanyahu said, contrary to Obama's suggestion, would actually level the playing field and ensure "everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly" would happen.

It sure fits the narrative doesn't it, Obama sending operatives to undermine the election because he (queue dark music) HATES NETANYAHU - - - - MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Imagine if Jeb called on the right to mobilize because the blacks were being bussed into the polls.

And then there's the pissy threat that now Obama would not block the Palestinians getting statehood by U. N. decree rather than what he always said was truly necessary--agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. All just because Netanyahu acted like an American politician instead of the idyllic "what's best about Israeli democracy"? Really? When those whom Netanyahu has to "negotiate" and come to some agreement with are not honest democratic angels and who represent those who don't want a two state solution, but one Palestinian state and no Israeli state? And these "negotiations" have been going on for almost 40 years

It's not a pissy threat, it's a real threat. For those 40 years the US has used the veto to protect Israel, sometimes more for their interest than ours. It's important because Bibi was elected largely by gathering right wing votes and now those parties will look for actions that only exacerbate tension in the area.

[buckman]

This Iran deal get more unbelievable and disturbing by the moment.
And now this administration has declassified information on the Israeli nuclear program???? Wtf
I can't help but feel that Israel and America are passengers on an airliner , Obama is the copilot, and the GOP and the prime minister of Israel represent the pilot locked out of the cockpit.
Everyone is screaming as the plane suddenly loses altitude but Spence and Paul are sitting there calmly explaining what a brilliant copilot we have.
I now truly don't know who's side Obama is on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Everyone is screaming as the plane suddenly loses altitude but Spence and Paul are sitting there calmly explaining what a brilliant copilot we have.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

destination Hale-Bopp

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

This Iran deal get more unbelievable and disturbing by the moment.
And now this administration has declassified information on the Israeli nuclear program???? Wtf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not actually true, but reading the usual tabloids you'd certainly get that opinion.

I did the digging for you buck.

It was an unclassified report from 1987 on NATO and Israeli technical capabilities. The document never said they had a bomb but did describe activities that were intended to produce one.

A researcher found mention of the document in multiple public reports and filed a FOIA request. His contention is that since Israel never signed the NPT, the 86 billion $ of taxpayer aid since 1987 along with tens of millions in tax free donations sent back to Israel are illegal under The Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The DoD refused so he sued the government. After a lot of heel dragging a federal judge ordered the requested parts of the document to be released. It was reported the DoD was going to review the document with the Israeli government but it's not clear if this happened.

Considering how close the P5+1 are to signing a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting an obvious double standard isn't exactly in Obama's interest. But it's sure fun to think so huh?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not actually true, but reading the usual tabloids you'd certainly get that opinion.

I did the digging for you buck.

It was an unclassified report from 1987 on NATO and Israeli technical capabilities. The document never said they had a bomb but did describe activities that were intended to produce one.

A researcher found mention of the document in multiple public reports and filed a FOIA request. His contention is that since Israel never signed the NPT, the 86 billion $ of taxpayer aid since 1987 along with tens of millions in tax free donations sent back to Israel are illegal under The Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The DoD refused so he sued the government. After a lot of heel dragging a federal judge ordered the requested parts of the document to be released. It was reported the DoD was going to review the document with the Israeli government but it's not clear if this happened.

Considering how close the P5+1 are to signing a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting an obvious double standard isn't exactly in Obama's interest. But it's sure fun to think so huh?

Did you research that while seated in first class or business ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Did you research that while seated in first class or business ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not flying today. I did it over coffee.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It sure fits the narrative doesn't it, Obama sending operatives to undermine the election because he (queue dark music) HATES NETANYAHU - - - - MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Imagine if Jeb called on the right to mobilize because the blacks were being bussed into the polls.

Your evil phony laugh fits your narrative. But it doesn't negate my contention that Netanyahu was politicking as Americans do. As in Democrat get out the vote narrations such as Republican wars on women, science, the poor, education, and so on, in order to scare their base to vote. And the focus to specifically get out the black voters by scaring them with inflammatory rhetoric, either by politicians, or their proxy NAACP droids who warn of white Republican racism, and attempts to return to Jim Crowe voting laws. And colorful but inflammatory remarks like Biden's back to chains remark. The Personal destruction/demonization ,such as painting Romney as cruel to his dog or being a teenage bully, goes on in both parties. It is a mark of American politics, which Obama is not averse to. And it makes him at least a hypocrite in accusing Netanyahu of it. And Netanyahu wasn't accusing the Arab voters of anything other than coming out to vote in droves, and "scaring" his own base to do likewise.

It's not a pissy threat, it's a real threat. For those 40 years the US has used the veto to protect Israel, sometimes more for their interest than ours. I

Good, and scary, to know that his threat is real. But that does not make it any less pissy.

It's important because Bibi was elected largely by gathering right wing votes and now those parties will look for actions that only exacerbate tension in the area.

This is a strange comment. So, only the "left wing" will erase tensions in the area? How have elections been gathered in the past 40 years? Have there been no tensions when left wingers were elected? Oh, that's right, the left wing kept giving away land . . . but, somehow, the tensions always remained and the left wing giveaways never satisfied the Palestinians. It seemed that the more they got, the more they wanted. And it never seemed to wash out from the Palestinian rhetoric the desire for the elimination of Israel.

The 40 years have been full of wars and never ending attacks even with multiple cease fires. I don't know how the Israeli right wingers are going to exacerbate this never ending tension--maybe a final war to end it? The "tension in the area" as you put it, does seem to be going in that direction. And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own. And the average Palestinian would, at least in Western terms, be much safer and healthier in an Israeli state than in the aftermath of a regional conflagration in which Israel no longer existed. Of course, the Palestinians, or Muslims in general, don't operate through Western perspective. They have their own views and desires none of which really have room for Israelis. And we're supposed to believe that Netanyahu is a racist right winger who wants to oppress, or maybe get rid of Palestinians.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The "tension in the area" as you put it, does seem to be going in that direction. And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own.

You forgot one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by buckman

You forgot one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, I forgot, he's not a Muslim. So he would not be included in the Muslim factions.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own. And the average Palestinian would, at least in Western terms, be much safer and healthier in an Israeli state than in the aftermath of a regional conflagration in which Israel no longer existed. Of course, the Palestinians, or Muslims in general, don't operate through Western perspective. They have their own views and desires none of which really have room for Israelis. And we're supposed to believe that Netanyahu is a racist right winger who wants to oppress, or maybe get rid of Palestinians.

I see, to the issue in Palestine is the complete responsibility of Muslims? That's perhaps the most short-sighted thing you've ever written...

Ironic you'd actually eclipse it with your posts on Taqiyya which take batchit to another level.

What's with all the hate?

[detbuch]

More on Islamic Taqiyya and when it is used, and how " Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong":

Raymond Ibrahim | Friday Mar 27, 2015 9:50 AM
Obama Trusts ‘Word’ of Ayatollahs in Nuclear Negotiations

As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons—a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel—U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less. In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”

This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles, described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”

Other administration officials—such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.

First, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of The_Murder_of_Kab_Ashraf”). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here:http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/ ), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia—the sect currently ruling Iran.

Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.

Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable—but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world—they are weak.” Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”

And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact? In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.

In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes—as Iran is today—but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.

Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations. An August 2007 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service said: “Ahmadinejad [previous president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th ‘Hidden’ Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e., “hiding”] would, according to Twelver Shi’ite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion.”

Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: “The Hour [Judgment Day] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O Servant of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!”

Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei—whose fatwa Obama is now citing—boasted about Iran’s uranium enrichment, even as his military commanders shouted, “Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel.”

Yet despite all this—despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia—Iran’s leadership—have perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear negotiations are a “jihad” against the infidel; despite the fact that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments suitable for nuclear warheads—here is Obama and his administration relying on the “word” of the ayatollah of Iran.

[scottw]

wow...sounds just like progressive doctrine..."Progressive Taqiyya"...splains' a lot


so in this negotiation...there's no one telling the truth

[detbuch]

I did not properly insert this link into the above article on taqiyya (which I have corrected). If you missed the correction, here is the link http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/ It is fundamental to understanding any negotiations with Shia or Sunni Muslims who correctly practice their faith.

It's a long but interesting article, and well worth reading, in terms of understanding an important tenet of Islam.

[detbuch]

Here is a very interesting tidbit from the above cited article which may shed some possible insight into the reported 10 year length of the nuclear agreement being negotiated with Iran:

"The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised."

The article is rich with insights into Islam's world view and its relation to non-Muslims. It can help penetrate some of the mysterious fog that masks the reason for Islamic true believers difficulty, from the Western perspective, of entering the modern world. Well worth the time to read it. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/

[scottw]

huh......soooo lying and deception are acceptable to promote an agenda/ideaology...and have over time become an acceptable part of the culture and even celebrated/elected to high office are those with the most forked of tongues....when weak or not in power play the victim card to deflect and move forward or preserve the agenda/ideaology and when strong or in power hammer the opposition and ignore their pleas for the same basic rights and that were claimed when weak all the while pushing an intolerant agenda creating even more victims in the region


yup....sounds familiar...was Saul Alynski a musilm extrmist?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, to the issue in Palestine is the complete responsibility of Muslims? That's perhaps the most short-sighted thing you've ever written...

Sorry that I didn't make clear that by the "regional conflagration" I meant the entire Middle East, not just Israel and the Palestinians. Certainly, Israel and the Palestinians are both a thorn in the side of the other Arab or non-Arab Musllim States. They are both used as wedge issues to unite various Muslims in one sort of Jihad or other. And it is ironic that Palestinians get more respect and freedom in the state of Israel than in the rest of the Middle East. If those other states, especially Iran with its Hezbollah, kept their noses out of Israeli and Palestinian disagreement, there might be a better chance for resolution of their problem. I don't know if that lengthens the sight of my "thing," but it is longer than your drive-by comment.

Ironic you'd actually eclipse it with your posts on Taqiyya which take batchit to another level.

That's truly a deep and overwhelming statement. Backed solely by the pre-eminent solipsist, the great and powerful Oz . . .er, I mean Spence. What happens, Spence, when the little dog pulls away the curtain? Perhaps you can pull out fake diplomas to back up your nowhere, relativistic opinions. Maybe a link to a Zakaria article, or point to the supposedly deep constitutional understanding of a Muslim negotiator (who no doubt knows more about Taqiyya than you do). Talk about batchit!

So go ahead, if you can, inform us all about the level of batchit in Ibrahim's articles on Taqiyya.

Maybe, if you truly have something relevant to say about it, it might inspire others to read the articles. Or, maybe your authoritative sneer and dismissal of them will suppress interest in them, since the great Spence has deemed them batchit.

What's with all the hate?

Indeed, what's with all the hate, Spence--batchit, shortsighted?

Oh, maybe your just pulling a Dangles.

[Nebe]

Quality reading material right here

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...t-warns-mccain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Quality reading material right here

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...t-warns-mccain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it's almost funny. Unfortunately, rather than poking fun at some actual absurdity, it first creates the absurdity. Then it spins a made-up narrative intending to destroy with phony ridicule. It's half-wit slapschtick, mixed with political straw man nastiness, in hope of swaying or bolstering opinion, rather than merely being made to evoke laughter. Jon Stewart fans will love it.

What makes it hard to bust out in a guffaw, unless you like anything that ridicules that which you don't like, true or not, is not only the total fabrication, but the actual seriousness of the matter. And what's even more ridiculous is a bunch of half-wits will actually think McCain said that stuff.

[Nebe]

Kinda like Fox News and msnbc watchers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Actually, it's just satire.

[Nebe]

No kidding ! It's in the humor section.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

So, Spence, we shouldn't be concerned about the concept of a Eurasia, headed by Russia and China, being a serious threat to Western economic power? Let's all play golf. Or play a fiddle.

Vladimir Putin's Deputy Rogozin bragged to a TV show that Russia would develop “our huge EurAsia.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/2119177/vla...nt-need-visas/

And we are "negotiating" with Iran, a Russian ally which is predicted to be a partner in the "Eurasian" project.

And we are shrinking our military power.

[spence]

I'm astounded that someone under US sanctions would lash out. Perhaps that says all it needs to right there.

As an aside, I was staring up in the Cologne Dom yesterday and might just have found God, or tourists. Not sure yet but it was pretty cool regardless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm astounded that someone under US sanctions would lash out. Perhaps that says all it needs to right there.

As an aside, I was staring up in the Cologne Dom yesterday and might just have found God, or tourists. Not sure yet but it was pretty cool regardless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Umm . . . I believe that "someone" lashed out before the imposition of sanctions--that's why, I would guess, the sanctions were imposed. Can't be "absolutely" sure. Never can tell . . . maybe the US just likes to dole out willy-nilly sanctions. Especially under the current administration.

And the Eurasian project had been under way well before the sanctions. And that includes the growth of military power by its two most important countries Russia and China, while the West depends more on diplomacy and economic "sanctions." That's why "someone" could brush off and laugh at the little bug bite "punishment" by a country and its European allies that he views as pusillanimous. He obviously didn't think there would be any military response to the invasion of Ukraine other than by the overmatched Ukrainians.

I'm guessing that "someone," might not fear much military resistance from the U.S or its European allies for the next two years after witnessing the near total reluctance of the current US administration to use troops for war. Suspect he doesn't fear drone attacks or air strikes since he has his own drones and plenty of air power as well.

Head in the sand may work for ostriches, but humans who try it usually get their butt kicked.

And, yeah, it's easier to find God in the beauty of ancient things (Cologne Dom being much older than the Constitution, BTW).

But it's more likely that a progressive would see tourists rather than God.

Were you there with family, or just business?