PDA

View Full Version : Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes


Totenkopf
04-19-2010, 07:27 PM
This looked good for a laugh.....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F698N00&show_article=1

jrrtoken
04-19-2010, 07:44 PM
What is it with Iranian Shi'ite clerics? First it was acknowledging Khomeini as the Mahdi, then it was the Ayatollah's superimposed face on the moon.

swphreak
04-19-2010, 07:54 PM
And this is another reason why we don't want Iran to have nukes.

TKA-001
04-19-2010, 08:00 PM
Pirates and global warming, anyone?

Revan 411
04-19-2010, 08:05 PM
Referring to the violence that followed last June's disputed presidential election, he said, "The political earthquake that occurred was a reaction to some of the actions (that took place). And now, if a natural earthquake hits Tehran, no one will be able to confront such a calamity but God's power, only God's power. ... So let's not disappoint God."
And this is why I follow Agnosticism.

True_Avery
04-19-2010, 08:22 PM
I sometimes wonder why we are trying to "liberate" these people or that area in general. Just a little while ago, the Saudi's killed someone because they claimed they were a wizard and people seemed pretty cool with it.

Its amazing that area is the cradle of human civilization and has not taken a step forward in over 2,000 years.

Fredi
04-19-2010, 09:16 PM
haha funny.

Ping
04-19-2010, 10:53 PM
And this is why I follow Agnosticism.

Took the words out of my mouth.

urluckyday
04-19-2010, 11:50 PM
All I had to read was "Iranian" and I knew it would be pathetic...

Darth Avlectus
04-20-2010, 02:06 AM
Why don't we just turn it into a sheet of glass? Nobody will miss them. :devsmoke:

Sabretooth
04-20-2010, 02:12 AM
What is it with Iranian Shi'ite clerics? First it was acknowledging Khomeini as the Mahdi, then it was the Ayatollah's superimposed face on the moon.

If ever there was a CIA that was covertly spreading propaganda through Western media, this news article would fall into it. The headline sounds funny and illogical, but if you believe in God, it makes sense. The proper headline would be "Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women make God cause quakes", but that would sound less funny.

That said, this sort of stuff is about as common as any religious fundamentalist. Don't tell me there aren't Christians, Hindus or Jews who don't think that if they piously follow their religion's edicts, they won't have to suffer natural disasters. It's being said by someone important right now because Islamic fundamentalists happen have government in Iran. You won't hear a news report like that coming from progressive Muslim countries like Turkey or Pakistan (admittedly, this is a minority).

Jae Onasi
04-20-2010, 02:37 AM
Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes
If they're any good, they'd better cause quakes.

Drunkside
04-20-2010, 02:48 AM
I sometimes wonder why we are trying to "liberate" these people or that area in general. Just a little while ago, the Saudi's killed someone because they claimed they were a wizard and people seemed pretty cool with it.

Its amazing that area is the cradle of human civilization and has not taken a step forward in over 2,000 years.

Actually it did take steps forward... But since maybe 16th century they have been going downhill :P

And i cant think of anything more suitable to say about the article than

quarduple facepalm :xp:

Darth Avlectus
04-20-2010, 02:55 AM
If they're any good, they'd better cause quakes.
and leave their subjects sufficiently "shaken".:dev10:

Q
04-20-2010, 02:58 AM
This discovery will inevitably lead to weaponized sluts.

jrrtoken
04-20-2010, 07:30 AM
That said, this sort of stuff is about as common as any religious fundamentalist. Don't tell me there aren't Christians, Hindus or Jews who don't think that if they piously follow their religion's edicts, they won't have to suffer natural disasters. It's being said by someone important right now because Islamic fundamentalists happen have government in Iran. You won't hear a news report like that coming from progressive Muslim countries like Turkey or Pakistan (admittedly, this is a minority).Indeed, which is what particularly concerns me. While the citizenry of Iran is, I'd say, more sophisticated than say, Saudi Arabia, the fact that the Iranian government wishes to continue the propagation or myths of jinn, black magic, and God knows what else shows that it is particularly out of touch with the current generation, forecasting further troubles.

JediAthos
04-20-2010, 10:29 AM
Why don't we just turn it into a sheet of glass? Nobody will miss them. :devsmoke:

I've stated my belief in this philosophy...and people look at me like I'm crazy...I don't understand why :p

Ztalker
04-20-2010, 10:45 AM
And this is another reason why we don't want Iran to have nukes.

Make you wonder how they ever found out about those things when you read this....
You'd be a Charlie Eppes there if you finished kindergarten...:¨:

Sabretooth
04-20-2010, 11:10 AM
And this is another reason why we don't want Iran to have nukes.

Why? He was just a religious prayer leader. He didn't hold any power.

By comparison, the United States' previous war record is more than enough reason to not only strip the US of nukes, but curb their military like they did to Japan.

jonathan7
04-20-2010, 12:36 PM
All I had to read was "Iranian" and I knew it would be pathetic...

I wonder how you would respond to;

"All I had to read was "American" and knew it would be stupid" :xp:

Suffice to say we all know the current Iranian regime are despotic tyrants who believes some rather strange things, however every Iranian I have ever met, has always hated the current regime...

Totenkopf
04-20-2010, 01:21 PM
I think we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the humor lies in the fact that someone is peddling the idea that what a woman wears is of any concern to the globe, not their nationality of origin. Afterall, I'm sure many people snorted w/gales of derisive laughter when people like Pat Robertson suggested that 9/11 was God's answer to the moral quagmire America has sunk into. I'm pretty sure if God were using earthquakes to send messages to humanity for falling short of His will, there'd be too many to keep track of in the end. And the loss of life too numbing to want to contemplate.

@Saber-- :rolleyes: You're aware that all the major players were working on the bomb, with the intent to use it back then, right? If anything, America's record has shown why the bomb has been much safer in our hands than it would be in many others. There's been no use of one in over 60 years (beyond testing). Same goes for the Brits and France. Frankly, not so sure many of the 3rd world type nations acquiring the bomb would be so stabilizing if the situation were reversed.

Sabretooth
04-20-2010, 01:36 PM
Frankly, not so sure many of the 3rd world type nations acquiring the bomb would be so stabilizing if the situation were reversed.

Yeah, let's not twist this argument beyond what it's worth.

Most 3rd world type nations are not being ruled by men like this cleric in the article, and I'm sure that even the cleric wouldn't be so foolhardy as to consider nuclear weapons expendable. That Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is no stronger a case for argument than that America shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And this is overlooking the fact the US happens to be the only nation in the world to have actually used two nuclear devices against civilian populations.

Astrotoy7
04-20-2010, 02:32 PM
"Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil" -Plato

* * *

I sometimes wonder why we are trying to "liberate" these people or that area in general.

"these" people or "that" area in general. Amazing detail Avery. I'd wager to say the sum of what you know about Islam is not from interaction with persons from a particular region, or travel to a nation with an Islamic population.

Now, here's the MASSIVE surprise. Not all of us(read:Muslims) believe that such persons represent us in any way. I likely have more in common with you than with them(points at Banner).

Would you like me to think that the idiots depicted below represent "you people" and "your area in general" (US and its Citizens)?

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc288/Astrotoy7/KKKRally.jpg

I'm not even getting into the whole nuclear thing because Sabre has already summated it superbly. :thmbup1:

It's a sad fact of the world that the combination of poverty and poor education lead to beliefs and behaviour that does not further the interests of brotherhood and equality.

mtfbwya

Totenkopf
04-20-2010, 05:01 PM
Yeah, let's not twist this argument beyond what it's worth.

Most 3rd world type nations are not being ruled by men like this cleric in the article, and I'm sure that even the cleric wouldn't be so foolhardy as to consider nuclear weapons expendable. That Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is no stronger a case for argument than that America shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And this is overlooking the fact the US happens to be the only nation in the world to have actually used two nuclear devices against civilian populations.

I was merely responding to your overheated claims about America, not whether or not Iranians should have nuclear weapons (certainly not with this current regime in power, though). But your simplistic argument about America and the use of nuclear weapons vs population centers ignores context. However, that is also a subject for a different thread.

deathdisco
04-20-2010, 06:01 PM
If they're any good, they'd better cause quakes.
LMAO :naughty:

Det. Bart Lasiter
04-20-2010, 07:13 PM
if barry white said this you people wouldn't have a problem with it yall just hate muslims

Darth Avlectus
04-20-2010, 07:40 PM
And this is overlooking the fact the US happens to be the only nation in the world to have actually used two nuclear devices against civilian populations.

Nuclear based technology, yes--but Atomic Bomb isn't *quite* the same as a nuclear bomb. Just saying.


[CENTER]

Now, here's the MASSIVE surprise. Not all of us(read:Muslims) believe that such persons represent us in any way. I likely have more in common with you than with them(points at Banner).
As much I would hope. I'd condemn any actions so taken in the name of my faith*, and I'd hope all others of all other faiths would do the same.

*Just exactly what that faith be is in question b/c though I think I'm a christian it has been pointed out to me I have several things about it putting me in the camp of 'not so'.


Would you like me to think that the idiots depicted below represent "you people" and "your area in general" (US and its Citizens)?

*pic dashed for brevity*

Not at all. I would try to persuade you otherwise but you are allowed think and associate as you will.

Darth333
04-20-2010, 08:02 PM
All I had to read was "Iranian" and I knew it would be pathetic...

Then you know very little about the country, its history, culture and inhabitants to generalize in such a way...

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 12:20 AM
In the current context of contemporary events, I'd say that urluckyday's comment isn't beyond the pale, nor necessarily TA's either. While generalizing about cultures can lead to otherwise ignorant statements, it's pretty clear that there are some parts of the world that are still pretty backward. Does that mean that everyone in those countries are rubes......no. But then such observations are often not absolute either. The problem with many muslim countries today is not that they have no rich cultural past, but that they are often now ruled by theocrats or petty strongmen and the rapid spread of wahabist theology throughout the world. Suffice it to say, though, that to go into that any further would really constitute splitting this thread and putting it into KC.

Darth InSidious
04-21-2010, 01:23 AM
Because, you know, Western public figures never say ridiculously stupid things. And the cultural output of the West is so rich and fertile, building upon its great traditions.

Blah blah, US is a holy nation under gawd, blah blah, might makes right, blah blah backward johnny foreigner, blah blah gunboat diplomacy, blah blah.

I'm afraid I think I left my monocle and handlebar at home, so I shall have to simply kick the slaves - a cane just wouldn't be right when so underdressed, would it?

Jae Onasi
04-21-2010, 01:37 AM
We've officially strayed into Kavar's territory, so I moved the thread. Carry on.

Darth333
04-21-2010, 01:45 AM
In the current context of contemporary events, I'd say that urluckyday's comment isn't beyond the pale, nor necessarily TA's either. While generalizing about cultures can lead to otherwise ignorant statements, it's pretty clear that there are some parts of the world that are still pretty backward. I disagree. Despite that Iran is currently run by a theocratic (and secretive, manipulative) regime, merely saying that this part of the world is "pretty backwards" is rather simplistic. Perhaps reading about Iran's past 40-50 yrs history and diplomatic relations would help? no? Things are not as simple as they may seem.

But your simplistic argument about America and the use of nuclear weapons vs population centers ignores context. So do TA and urluckyday's statements.

Astrotoy7
04-21-2010, 01:50 AM
if barry white said this you people wouldn't have a problem with it yall just hate muslims

LMAO. Damnit jmac, that was awesome :thmbup1:

Now that I can't even tirade against you, there's nothing to do in this thread :D

*shuffles sand around aimlessly*

mtfbwya

Liverandbacon
04-21-2010, 02:12 AM
My opinion before reading this was that Iran is made up of a population of people as sane as most other nationalities, who are unfortunately ruled by a group of not-so-sane people. This is based on my own experiences with Iranians, and those of people I know.

My opinion hasn't changed. I think that the cleric's opinions are idiotic and hilarious, but I don't see him as a barometer of the country any more than I do the Westboro Baptist Church for the US.

As for the whole nuclear weapons argument, this cleric is not why we don't want Iran to have nukes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his buddies are. (As for the US' track record with nukes, the bombs dropped in Japan caused far fewer deaths both Japanese and American than the invasion that would otherwise be necessary, so they're nothing remotely near a black mark on the US's record. However, this thread isn't here to discuss nukes, so I'll leave it at that.)

Of course, as Iran continues what is almost certainly a nuclear weapons project, the entire world is standing around with their hands in their pockets, hoping that Israel will take care of the problem for them.

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 02:14 AM
Because, you know, Western public figures never say ridiculously stupid things. And the cultural output of the West is so rich and fertile, building upon its great traditions.

Blah blah, US is a holy nation under gawd, blah blah, might makes right, blah blah backward johnny foreigner, blah blah gunboat diplomacy, blah blah.

I'm afraid I think I left my monocle and handlebar at home, so I shall have to simply kick the slaves - a cane just wouldn't be right when so underdressed, would it?

Beyond your occasional anti-US rants, not quite sure where you're going with this. I'd agree that western public figures make stupid public statements, as do many others in the world. It's human. :giveup: Doesn't take away from the fact that such views as "God is punishing people for X..." are viewed (at best) as quaint. Part of the reason I included Pat Robertson as someone (western) making comments in a similiar vein. But, don't kick the wogs too hard....wouldn't want you to sprain your ankle. :xp:

@D333--I think that given how regressive some of these regimes have become (or at least how they've presented themselves to the world), it's not unfair to notice it. I also agree, as indicated, that I don't believe it to be the case that all the people in any one country are so monolithic as to ALL be crazy, backward and developmentally retarded. The problem sometimes is being able to discern how much of a govt's public pronouncements are truly for domestic consumption by their political base and how much is indicative of their world view. In the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad's selection by the ruling mullahs and his blatherings about the 12th Imam don't evoke much confidence in their judgement. Doesn't help that he goes on about obliterating Israel while seeking nukes.

True_Avery
04-21-2010, 02:26 AM
I realize I over generalized at the beginning of this thread and apologize for it. I explained myself to Astro in PMs, but as far as context goes I don't feel like pulling out a history book and recording 50 years of middle eastern history right now to back up why I don't think we should be occupying any part of that area right now. Suffice to say, I'll summarize that we're doing the same thing we did with Vietnam and it didn't work then, and it isn't working well now.

I apologize and did not mean to generalize all Muslims, or condemn the entire area, but suffice to say it is clear places like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and so on are in civil unrest and war because of political meddling in countries and did not want forced changed, and much of what has happened to that area in the past 30 years can be attributed to the meddling of the US and the UN, leading previously fairly westernized countries into a religious uprising by theocratic tyrants, giving people like these Clerics more power where they did not previously.

Right now places like Afghanistan are being run by American created faux Democracy with a leaders we put into power 30 years ago, and then now, which, behind the curtain, is still a theocratic regime doing exactly what it did before, and will continue to do once we eventually leave until actual reform takes place again and it is back to a state similar to that of about 40 years ago.

The area has to allow itself to change culturally, through time. It is a waste of time and money to force a country that publicly murders people for witchcraft to suddenly be "Western" and peace loving when it goes against what is norm for many tribes, cities, and areas of places like Pakistan, Israel, Iraq, and so on. What happens to many innocents is a tragedy, but by occupying we only give extremist groups more ammo to recruit, and are avoiding the inevitability of another theocratic takeover once we leave, based on what happened in Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan from both us and the Russians previously, and so on. I realize that most of, especially the younger generations, are against much of what is happening (based primarily on the very large middle eastern immigrant population in San Diego), but continued involvement, again, only gives more ammo to mold this youth to a bad path. Also, just to clarify, by "norm" I do not mean it is accepted or loved, but rather a part of the lives of many areas in the last 30 years.

So, I apologize for over generalizing previously and am open to thoughts, corrections, etc on my stance.

Sabretooth
04-21-2010, 02:29 AM
In the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad's selection by the ruling mullahs and his blatherings about the 12th Imam don't evoke much confidence in their judgement. Doesn't help that he goes on about obliterating Israel while seeking nukes.

In comparison, the United States is locked in a very vague "war on terror" which is essentially fighting amorphous guerilla outfits operating out of several dozens of nations. Not only that, but the previous American president has also made a faux pas by equating Iraqi insurgency with this war on terror.

In the last decade, the US has successfully invaded two Muslim nations, and considered invading at least two more (Iran and Pakistan). Plus, they're sitting on the world's largest nuclear stockpile. You're telling me that the people of Iran, whose last war was a successful resistance against the invasion of Iraq, have a lot of faith in the US not using nuclear weapons?

Iran's desire for personal safety is just as strong a case as any nation with nuclear weapons, including the Almighty Godnation US and its Divine Allies. Ahmadinejad may be a chest-beater, but it's the US that has been unpredictable in its war policy. If they can have nuclear weapons, then Iran can too.

True_Avery
04-21-2010, 02:35 AM
^ That sums it up rather well regarding nukes. A better move than trying to invade and overthrow an established and very somewhat accepted government would be to back the hell off and stop poking at that area. I don't agree with much of what the current Iranian government does, but threatening invasion and force upon Iran gives them plenty reason to seek military power like Nukes at a faster rate than they may have been going.

They feel justified in gaining these weapons, and despite their questionable judgment they have as much "right" to gain them as anyone that owns them, including the US and its questionable judgment to threaten Iran in the first place, and invade neighboring countries.

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 02:37 AM
Relax, Sabre, b/c now that Obama's in town, the US is likely going to do nothing to stop them. Still, probably a good thing AQ Khan gave Pakistan the bomb to protect them from India. ;) But frankly, yes, I believe the Iranians are counting on it (The US NOT using atomic weapons). Besides, if we'd wanted to do it and were as erratic, unstable and unpredictable as you seem to believe, we'd have done it already. The point, though, isn't whether Iranians have a right to self-protection, but whether the acqusition of nukes is desirable given the current people running that country. I'd say no.

Sabretooth
04-21-2010, 03:04 AM
Still, probably a good thing AQ Khan gave Pakistan the bomb to protect them from India. ;)
I actually think it's good that Pakistan has nuclear deterrence against its arch-rival, and despite the world's fears that Pakistan is a failing government on the verge of collapse, I think the Pakistani military is strong enough to safeguard their nukes.

The point, though, isn't whether Iranians have a right to self-protection, but whether the acqusition of nukes is desirable given the current people running that country. I'd say no.

And this is where the argument drives over a cliff and kills itself.

Desirable to whom? To an antagonistic nation, it's obviously undesirable. But that opinion has about as much weight as me desiring I could fly.

And believe me, nobody really has a problem with Iran's theocratic government other than Israel and the US. Israel has a valid reason to, because Iran actively opposes the nation, but why the US is so concerned about Iran's administration is beyond me. Theocratic or no, Iran has been a stable and prosperous democracy since the Islamic Revolution.

In contrast, post-invasion of Iraq has turned into a hellhole with a war raging for some 7 years now. This is a country right next to Iran. I'd rather Iran have nukes right now than be degenerated into what Iraq has become today, a hotbed of insurgency because of America's quest to liberate nations from their oppressive, tea-drinking tyrants.

Darth Avlectus
04-21-2010, 03:31 AM
I don't think the iranian people necessarily are bad. In fact I know a few good people who are from Iran. It's their regime atop their government I'm rather wary of. Their people are powerless against it. I foresee Iran's head regime not going along with the disarm treaty while we do disarm. I wouldn't call it self protection so much as a vie for leverage.

Even if their people want peace and democracy, do they even understand it enough to go and do it for themselves? It has to come from within them--I'm not seeing it. While some of what I seen gives me hope for that (outrage and protest toward their rigged elections), I am not sure it is enough. It seems forever doomed to failure under a pre 8th century minded dictatorial regime.

Again, I do not see their whole people this way--just an outcome condemned to repeat itself no matter what we do or don't do. Their people have to stand up to this, ultimately. Otherwise there is little that can be done and I do not believe passively watching it unfold is something that can safely be done. The biggest tragedy is that Iran's people are/will be casualties waiting to happen no matter what.

Call me a bitter American but I'm not convinced the regime will respond genuinely to open dialog. It looks to me like a clock counting down.

Far as U.S. having nukes: Hey, it doesn't look like we have anyone unhinged enough to dare use them nor have had anyone nearly as such. I'd put any US regimeadmin. within the past 50-60 years above the current Iranian regime.

Far as the recent wars...yes I do believe they could have been done better but I'm not out there fighting so I can't really say.

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 03:33 AM
I actually think it's good that Pakistan has nuclear deterrence against its arch-rival, and despite the world's fears that Pakistan is a failing government on the verge of collapse, I think the Pakistani military is strong enough to safeguard their nukes.

Hopefully that'll ultimately prove to be the case. But then again, I'm not having nighmares of the Pakistanis losing their weapons either. Afterall, that's their counterbalance to India.



And this is where the argument drives over a cliff and kills itself.
Desirable to whom? To an antagonistic nation, it's obviously undesirable. But that opinion has about as much weight as me desiring I could fly.
And believe me, nobody really has a problem with Iran's theocratic government other than Israel and the US. Israel has a valid reason to, because Iran actively opposes the nation, but why the US is so concerned about Iran's administration is beyond me. Theocratic or no, Iran has been a stable and prosperous democracy since the Islamic Revolution.

In contrast, post-invasion of Iraq has turned into a hellhole with a war raging for some 7 years now. This is a country right next to Iran. I'd rather Iran have nukes right now than be degenerated into what Iraq has become today, a hotbed of insurgency because of America's quest to liberate nations from their oppressive, tea-drinking tyrants.

One doesn't have to be antagonistic to Iran to have qualms about it becoming a member of the nuclear club. Same is true of N Korea. That's where your argument jumps the shark. As to Iraq, the Iranians had their hand in helping create the wreck it further degenerated into. Wasn't exactly much under Sadam to begin with (unless, I guess, you were a Baathist). If you don't understand why America, specifically, has a problem with Iran, you're probably not paying attention. As to claims of insurgency, that's overrated as many of the fighters were foreigners going there to wage jihad in someone else's country. Ce` le guerre, I s'ppose. Besides, like NK, Iran doesn't lend itself to "easy conquest" and the media here would love nothing more than to display plane after plane of war dead coming home, especially if the president were a republican. I think that if anything happens, it's Israel that Iran needs to be concerned about, not America. And this administration doesn't seem likely to have much pull there at the moment.

Sabretooth
04-21-2010, 03:49 AM
One doesn't have to be antagonistic to Iran to have qualms about it becoming a member of the nuclear club. Same is true of N Korea.

Again, I fail to see what shadows you're hinting at here without flat out saying why Iran's nuclear programme is a problem, but maybe I'm not paying attention.

As to claims of insurgency, that's overrated as many of the fighters were foreigners going there to wage jihad in someone else's country. Ce` le guerre, I s'ppose.

What, so the fact that insurgents are foreigners makes reports of insurgency overrated? The point is, that post-invasion Iraq is something Iran does not want to become - to prevent such an invasion, you need nuclear weapons for deterrence. The point of having nuclear weaponry has been, for many years, to prevent ground invasions along with nuclear invasion. The USA and USSR never fought a ground war despite hostilities - thanks to nuclear weapons. For all the nations the US has bombed in this century and the last, not one of them has had nuclear weapons (with the exception of drone strikes in Pakistan maybe, but that's a different matter). India and Pakistan, after going nuclear, have never fought a war on the same scale as they did before (the Kargil conflict was a limited war).

Nobody is stupid enough to actually throw a nuke on someone else - but most leaders are smart enough to know that nobody's going to touch you with a 10-foot pole if you have a nuke under your bed. North Korea needs security from South Korea, Japan and the US. Iran needs that security from the US and Israel.

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 05:19 AM
Again, I fail to see what shadows you're hinting at here without flat out saying why Iran's nuclear programme is a problem, but maybe I'm not paying attention.

Ground's already been covered. Suffice it to say that you've got no problem, not that there isn't one.


What, so the fact that insurgents are foreigners makes reports of insurgency overrated?

Foreigners aren't insurgents. They're invaders or meddlers, if you wish to be kind.


The point is, that post-invasion Iraq is something Iran does not want to become - *snipped for brevity* - North Korea needs security from South Korea, Japan and the US. Iran needs that security from the US and Israel.

Your first comment is merely your dearly hoped for opinion. Remind me, b/c maybe I wasn't paying attention, again why NK needs nukes? I don't recall SK attacking NK. Japan is not a threat given their constitution and lack of desire to invade anyone and the US ain't attacking NK either. There's already a regional deterrent called the PRC. So, no, a rogue nation like NK doesn't need nukes, except maybe to protect it from its leaders in Pyongyang. ;) As to Iran, NK clearly demonstrates you don't need nukes to "keep America out". Fact is, even in an era of "hyperpower", the US hasn't used its military to topple many regimes worldwide, even when they cause it a lot of problems like Cuba or VZ throughout Latin America or Iran for much of the last 30 years.

Sabretooth
04-21-2010, 05:38 AM
Remind me, b/c maybe I wasn't paying attention, again why NK needs nukes? I don't recall SK attacking NK. Japan is not a threat given their constitution and lack of desire to invade anyone and the US ain't attacking NK either. There's already a regional deterrent called the PRC.
South Korea and North Korea are still locked in a war even though they declared ceasefire long ago. North Korea has sworn not to end the war until the whole of the Korean peninsula is under their government. In a state of war, they need protection at any cost.

Next, North Korea does not trust the United States, and views Japan to be a pawn of the US. If the US were to launch a complete invasion of NK, it would be with Japan's assistance.

Further, North Korea would like to assert its independence from the PRC by having nukes that would ensure that it is its own protector, and not a pawn of the PRC to keep SK and Japan balanced.

Again, maybe the don't need nukes, but then, neither does the US or Russia.

Fact is, even in an era of "hyperpower", the US hasn't used its military to topple many regimes worldwide, even when they cause it a lot of problems like Cuba or VZ throughout Latin America or Iran for much of the last 30 years.
But they happen to be the only ones who can, and that is the whole point. You don't want Iran to have nukes because you fear they may launch them on someone - possibly the US. But that is also a possibility - we can't tell by Iran's previous record that they will launch their nukes either, because they've never launched nukes, or have even committed an offensive against a nation. In fact, Iran support the Northern Alliance over the Taliban regarding the Afghanistan situation, and look where America's support for Taliban got them. :rolleyes:

Boils down to this: Iran is afraid of the possibility of US invasion, much as US is afraid of Iran's nukes.

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 06:41 AM
South Korea and North Korea are still locked in a war even though they declared ceasefire long ago. North Korea has sworn not to end the war until the whole of the Korean peninsula is under their government. In a state of war, they need protection at any cost.

Next, North Korea does not trust the United States, and views Japan to be a pawn of the US. If the US were to launch a complete invasion of NK, it would be with Japan's assistance.

Further, North Korea would like to assert its independence from the PRC by having nukes that would ensure that it is its own protector, and not a pawn of the PRC to keep SK and Japan balanced.

Again, maybe the don't need nukes, but then, neither does the US or Russia.

Criminals want heavier weapons to protect themselves from the police or their potential victims. Doesn't mean they should have 'em. This is a rather fanciful scenario. NK is the aggressor in the 60 year old and counting war. So, who are they really protecting themselves from? NK couldn't assert it's independence from the PRC if it wanted. China has a much bigger military than NK ever will and many more nukes. KJI is mostly interested in acquiring nukes as a point of pride and a source of revenue. He already sells his version of Scud worldwide. Irony is, getting nukes for NK isn't going to change much of anything from a security viewpoint b/c the US has neither the will nor the logisitics train in place to be bothered invading them. Nor the desire to upset its relationship w/the PRC. Japan clearly doesn't have the military might and the SK is more interested in making a buck and probably hoping NK goes the way of East Germany. If anything, his getting nukes is more destabilizing b/c it's more likely to push the south to want to acquire their own. Ditto for Japan. Afterall, if America is in decline and unwilling/unable to use its nuke umbrella, they'll want insurance of their own.


But they happen to be the only ones who can, and that is the whole point. You don't want Iran to have nukes because you fear they may launch them on someone - possibly the US. But that is also a possibility - we can't tell by Iran's previous record that they will launch their nukes either, because they've never launched nukes, or have even committed an offensive against a nation. In fact, Iran support the Northern Alliance over the Taliban regarding the Afghanistan situation, and look where America's support for Taliban got them. :rolleyes:

Boils down to this: Iran is afraid of the possibility of US invasion, much as US is afraid of Iran's nukes.

Just b/c you think someone can do something doesn't mean they can or that they will want to. I don't fear an Iranian nuke strike on US territory. Besides, we can't say that they won't with any confidence either. So that argument is empty. There's always a first time for anything. What it all really boils down to is that Iran isn't actually afraid of a US land invasion (esp w/this current admin) regardless of whatever rhetoric it spews. Iran wants to be a regional hegemon and needs nukes to accomplish it. Given the lack of the world to act vs them in the face of their defiance, I'm pretty sure the last thing they even remotely fear is a US land invasion. The bigger concern is what their nuke intentions toward Israel actually are and whether or not the rulers and power brokers in Iran actually believe in the Madi in the way that Bush's detractors tried to argue he was attempting to elicit the 2nd Coming.

Sabretooth
04-21-2010, 07:07 AM
What it all really boils down to is that Iran isn't actually afraid of a US land invasion (esp w/this current admin) regardless of whatever rhetoric it spews. Iran wants to be a regional hegemon and needs nukes to accomplish it.
Does this work kind of like how the United States wants to be a global hegemon by having the world's largest nuclear stockpile, while stopping others from having them?

The bigger concern is what their nuke intentions toward Israel actually are and whether or not the rulers and power brokers in Iran actually believe in the Madi in the way that Bush's detractors tried to argue he was attempting to elicit the 2nd Coming.

Their nuke intentions toward Israel? If Iran fired a missile in the direction of Israel, it's going to earn the wrath of the entire United Nations, which would result in obliteration of the nation, either by nuclear war or a massive co-ordinated land invasion. Don't tell me that a leader as powerful and intelligent (I mean this word) as the Ayatollah wants to fling a nuke at Israel because it pisses him off. Like I said in a previous thread, as much as the West would like to believe, third world nations are not run by mindless megalomaniacs who want to be the next Genghis Khan.

Astor
04-21-2010, 07:28 AM
Their nuke intentions toward Israel? If Iran fired a missile in the direction of Israel, it's going to earn the wrath of the entire United Nations, which would result in obliteration of the nation, either by nuclear war or a massive co-ordinated land invasion. Don't tell me that a leader as powerful and intelligent (I mean this word) as the Ayatollah wants to fling a nuke at Israel because it pisses him off. Like I said in a previous thread, as much as the West would like to believe, third world nations are not run by mindless megalomaniacs who want to be the next Genghis Khan.

This.

I'd be far more concerned about Israel flinging nukes than Iran. As far as I can see, Iran likes to rattle the sabre (no pun intented :p) as far as Israel is concerned because their blade is blunt - I think they'd be more careful if it was sharp.

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 07:56 AM
Does this work kind of like how the United States wants to be a global hegemon by having the world's largest nuclear stockpile, while stopping others from having them?

Stopping whom? There have been quite a few powers that have joined the nuke club over the past two decades or so, including Pakistan and India. It's not only America's nukes that give it the influence it commands. Britain and France have nukes also, but not the same kind of reach. Ditto for China and Russia, post Soviet dissolution. Besides, as I recall, nuclear non-proliferation isn't just an American concern.


Their nuke intentions toward Israel? If Iran fired a missile in the direction of Israel, it's going to earn the wrath of the entire United Nations, which would result in obliteration of the nation, either by nuclear war or a massive co-ordinated land invasion. Don't tell me that a leader as powerful and intelligent (I mean this word) as the Ayatollah wants to fling a nuke at Israel because it pisses him off. Like I said in a previous thread, as much as the West would like to believe, third world nations are not run by mindless megalomaniacs who want to be the next Genghis Khan.

The wrath of the whole UN? :lol: What does that amount to these days....probably little more than yet another empty declaration of something or another. Seriously, a massive coordinated land invasion? By whom? More likely a counterstrike by Israel (the most likely target). Given that Israel is believed to have had bombs for several decades, and not yet fired any in anger, I'm less wary of them. :rolleyes: Frankly, I'm not aware of anyone claiming that all 3rd world countries are run by meglomaniacs w/delusions of adequacy. Just some of them. Let's just hope that if these people get they nuke they are as "rational" as the terrorist in the movie "Wrong is Right", where upon pulling off a coup, he was no longer interested in nuclear terror as he now had "skin in the game". To suggest that the Iranian leadership is merely "pissed off" at Israel is an understatement, possibly a complete mischaracterization. The problem is seperating how much of the rhetoric is merely that and how much is what they actually believe.

Sabretooth
04-21-2010, 08:44 AM
The wrath of the whole UN? :lol: What does that amount to these days....probably little more than yet another empty declaration of something or another.
After a nuclear strike has been committed by a power? It will amount to a third world war, although a much shorter one. I don't think anybody is going to just stand by if Iran, or anyone for that matter, used a nuclear weapon.

Given that Israel is believed to have had bombs for several decades, and not yet fired any in anger, I'm less wary of them.
Yes, unlike the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, China or... wait, none of those nations have every launched a nuke "in anger".

Just some of them. Let's just hope that if these people get they nuke they are as "rational" as the terrorist in the movie "Wrong is Right", where upon pulling off a coup, he was no longer interested in nuclear terror as he now had "skin in the game".
Yeah, I don't know that movie now, but securing a nuke is a way of international chest-beating and national power. If you can guarantee your nation to have a nuclear weapon, people are going to have much more trust in your power. Launch that nuke though, and you're going to lose all the power you have meticulous earned.

To suggest that the Iranian leadership is merely "pissed off" at Israel is an understatement, possibly a complete mischaracterization.
Ah yes, they are completely independent of the very nature of pissing offness, I see my mistake now.

BTW, here's a fun strip of SMBC I knew would be useful in countless debates:
http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100415.gif

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 09:47 AM
After a nuclear strike has been committed by a power? It will amount to a third world war, although a much shorter one. I don't think anybody is going to just stand by if Iran, or anyone for that matter, used a nuclear weapon.

Depends on the target/s. If they did launch at Israel, for instance, I doubt the PRC et al are going to unload nukes on them.


Yes, unlike the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, China or... wait, none of those nations have every launched a nuke "in anger".

No one has "launched" a nuke in anger. But, again, the charge laid w/o context.


Yeah, I don't know that movie now, but securing a nuke is a way of international chest-beating and national power. If you can guarantee your nation to have a nuclear weapon, people are going to have much more trust in your power. Launch that nuke though, and you're going to lose all the power you have meticulous earned.

Easy way around that is for a nuke to "go missing" (allegedly how Israel acquired it's early stockpile) and then be reported as having been stolen/etc. by the "victim" country. A bomb then goes off in a foreign city and a group (NOT nation) takes credit. Now......who gets nuked in response? Both the beauty and terror of asymetrical warfare.


Ah yes, they are completely independent of the very nature of pissing offness, I see my mistake now.

Not quite sure what you mean here. I'm saying that Iran's stated position vs Israel is "existential threat" territory....not merely being honked off at the zionists. Afterall, what's Israel actually done to Iran that would legitimately piss it off?




BTW, here's a fun strip of SMBC I knew would be useful in countless debates:
http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100415.gif

Cute. But I'm sure there's a certain amount of validity in that. ;) Afterall, it's probably the threat of annihilation that prevented a 3rd WW in the 20th century.

Sabretooth
04-21-2010, 10:10 AM
Depends on the target/s. If they did launch at Israel, for instance, I doubt the PRC et al are going to unload nukes on them.
Why not? Any nation that has first-used a nuclear weapon is a threat to every other nation. Using a nuke makes a whole lot more enemies than it destroys.

Easy way around that is for a nuke to "go missing" (allegedly how Israel acquired it's early stockpile) and then be reported as having been stolen/etc. by the "victim" country. A bomb then goes off in a foreign city and a group (NOT nation) takes credit. Now......who gets nuked in response? Both the beauty and terror of asymetrical warfare.
As quaint as such a plan would be, even assuming that it isn't stopped by the Mossad and CIA, two of the world's most pernicious intelligence agencies, the IAEA exists to keep a watch on this, and Iran has is a co-operative member of it. Iran is also a signatory of the NPT, but that probably has little meaning in this case.

Afterall, what's Israel actually done to Iran that would legitimately piss it off?
So you need a valid reason to be pissed off now? I wasn't aware how much pissing off has changed over the years.

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 02:54 PM
Why not? Any nation that has first-used a nuclear weapon is a threat to every other nation. Using a nuke makes a whole lot more enemies than it destroys.

You seem to assume a sort of solidarity that doesn't exist in the real world. The PRC isn't going to waste nukes on Iran just b/c it launched at Israel. Now, if Iran were to miscalculate in the future and attack PRC interests....


As quaint as such a plan would be, even assuming that it isn't stopped by the Mossad and CIA, two of the world's most pernicious intelligence agencies, the IAEA exists to keep a watch on this, and Iran has is a co-operative member of it. Iran is also a signatory of the NPT, but that probably has little meaning in this case.

The same IAEA that was flacking for Iran and miscalculated (intentionally, most likely) Iran's progress? That IAEA? Besides, you give Mossad and the CIA too much credit. The CIA has a history of underestimating the timeline of nuke capability of foreign nations. I agree, however, that Iran's having signed the NPT has absolutley little/no meaning.


So you need a valid reason to be pissed off now? I wasn't aware how much pissing off has changed over the years.

Guess I misunderstood you and figured you were implying that even if Iran had a "rational" reason to be pissed off at Israel, it wouldn't risk attacking them b/c they'd feel they had too much to lose in doing so.

Pavlos
04-21-2010, 03:43 PM
Cute. But I'm sure there's a certain amount of validity in that. ;) Afterall, it's probably the threat of annihilation that prevented a 3rd WW in the 20th century.
As usual, Yes (Prime) Minister has the answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90f9Qm60tU8

Totenkopf
04-21-2010, 04:02 PM
There were some funny bits in those pieces. "B/c we've only just met!".... "The Russians know it's not."

mimartin
04-21-2010, 04:24 PM
…but why the US is so concerned about Iran's administration is beyond me. Suggest you look at what happened on November the fourth nineteen hundred and seventy nine for some perspective. I have tried to somewhat understand the other side. American foreign policy helped fuel this hatred by installing and backing the Shah over the democratically elected government. And then to add insult to injury the U.S. allowed the then deposed Shah into the U.S. I understand Iran have no reason to trust the U.S. or our motivations. Still they attacked American soil and held our citizens hostage, which is not something many in this country will easily get over. Add to that Iran’s obsession with destroying Israel with American’s feeling of needing to protect Israel and you can begin to see why America feels it has a concern.

Sabretooth
04-22-2010, 12:55 AM
Suggest you look at what happened on November the fourth nineteen hundred and seventy nine for some perspective. I have tried to somewhat understand the other side. American foreign policy helped fuel this hatred by installing and backing the Shah over the democratically elected government. And then to add insult to injury the U.S. allowed the then deposed Shah into the U.S. I understand Iran have no reason to trust the U.S. or our motivations. Still they attacked American soil and held our citizens hostage, which is not something many in this country will easily get over. Add to that Iranís obsession with destroying Israel with Americanís feeling of needing to protect Israel and you can begin to see why America feels it has a concern.

While a valid reason, it still eludes me why America wants to protect Israel and meddle in Iranian politics. It was the Cold War and all, but it wasn't exactly a commie revolution in Iran.

Totenkopf
04-22-2010, 02:10 AM
While a valid reason, it still eludes me why America wants to protect Israel and meddle in Iranian politics. It was the Cold War and all, but it wasn't exactly a commie revolution in Iran.

Why does Iran feel the need to involve itself in Israeli politics by supporting terror groups that attack the Israelis? Not like Israel wants to invade Iran afterall. I mean, it's not as if the Palestinians are remotely relevant to Iran's security or prosperity....

Darth Avlectus
04-22-2010, 07:29 PM
Aaaaanyway, back to what this thread was originally about: Promiscuous women causing earthquakes. In any serious way (should such way exist), hardly at all directly. Unless we're not talking about very large earthquakes on the Richter scale. I'll leave the bedroom jokes for ahto. So no, easy gals do not cause metropolitan-devastating-earth-crust-breaking-tectonic-plate-shifting earthquakes.

mimartin
04-22-2010, 08:12 PM
While a valid reason, it still eludes me why America wants to protect Israel and meddle in Iranian politics. It was the Cold War and all, but it wasn't exactly a commie revolution in Iran.

Americans feel they must protect Israel because if they don't they will go to hell. At least I was told that over and over in church.

As for meddling in Iranian politics, I don't have a clue, but it seems we have been doing it since the end of WWII. Iíd also point out that Iran has meddle in U.S. politics too, they are the main reason we had a actor become President .

Totenkopf
04-23-2010, 07:19 AM
I’d also point out that Iran has meddle in U.S. politics too, they are the main reason we had a actor become President .

No, Jimmy's incompetence, both in foreign and economic policy, sealed his fate. Still, I think I'd prefer the actor to the street-organizer-in-chief we have today.

Revan 411
04-23-2010, 07:24 PM
I don't hate the people who live in Iran, their simply ordinary folks just like you and me, who simply want to live a better life, and I would welcome these folks in Canada with open hands. But what I do hate, is the current Government that's presently ruling Iran. They lack democracy, equal rights, gender equality, expanded health-care service, and Workers rights. Most of these issues are to blame on the current dictator; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If you ask me, I think he's an idiot. It's true that the U.S hasn't been going so well in recent times, and it's true that the Iraq Invasion is somewhat unjustifiable, but the way this guys acts is seriously inhuman. His disgusting insults to the Jewish holocaust, the genocidal murder of innocent protesters, and the lack of democratic care to the Iranian innocents gives me more, and more reasons to not only hate him, but to also think that religion (I'm an agnostic) is one of the main benefactors to what drove him to a powerful dictatorship. I also blame the U.S Government for even establishing him as President in the first place. (Remember that innocent with Shah?)

Israel and Palestine is something that I consider to be a thing of the past. Not all Israelis are bad people, and the same goes for Palestine's. It's the presentment, and provocative attitude of Hamas Government that resulted in the Gaza War, and I blame both sides; Israel for the mass-murder of civilians who are Palestine, and Hamas for launching a Qasam rocket at Israel. (Which started the conflict if I heard correctly.)

As for Iran having nukes, I think that's really an excuse the U.S Government is using to invade Iran. And as long as Iran doesn't use those nukes as bombs or anything, then I'm fine, but the U.S Government might not agree so much. You see, I have a feeling, which is support by real-life facts, that the U.S is provoking Iran into using those nukes as weapons, to attack a western country, so that the U.S Government will have an excuse to invade the country, and steal any natural resources that Iran might have. (The permanent military bases established in Iraq will be a launching point for the invasion.)

Case and Point 1, (http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm) Case and Point 2, (http://last-straw.net/the-us-invasion-of-iran-has-already-begun/) Case and Point 3, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo) and finally; Case and Point 4. (http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=107580)

Remember, it all boils down to three major factors: Human Nature, Religion Fanaticism, and Government Corruption.

Blix
04-24-2010, 12:59 AM
This looked good for a laugh.....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F698N00&show_article=1

This is true, also stepping on cracks WILL in fact break your mother's back so watch where you step from now on people.

Totenkopf
04-26-2010, 09:38 AM
Only if it's a crack in your mom's spine. ;)

Also:http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainmen...KytMaS8KtgLY1J

Jae Onasi
04-26-2010, 10:39 AM
And as long as Iran doesn't use those nukes as bombs or anything, then I'm fine,

(emphasis mine)
As someone who lives near a major metropolitan area that is on the terrorist hit list, and certainly within the region where my family and I would be severely affected if not obliterated by a nuclear bomb, can you guarantee me 100% that someone in Iran isn't going to use nukes?

Well, it's promiscuous Monday to prove that cleavage doesn't cause earthquakes. I think I'll sit around in my underwear today and see if it causes an earthquake.

Q
04-26-2010, 11:18 AM
^Agreed. I'd be worried about someone in Iran using nuclear weapons if they suddenly had access to them; not necessarily the Iranian government.

jrrtoken
04-26-2010, 04:35 PM
(emphasis mine)
As someone who lives near a major metropolitan area that is on the terrorist hit list, and certainly within the region where my family and I would be severely affected if not obliterated by a nuclear bomb, can you guarantee me 100% that someone in Iran isn't going to use nukes?I don't think that Iran has a large enough nuclear catapult to reach North America, so any fear of the US mainland being targeted by Iran is irrational, to say the least.

Web Rider
04-26-2010, 04:43 PM
By comparison, the United States' previous war record is more than enough reason to not only strip the US of nukes, but curb their military like they did to Japan.

Number of wars vs purported purpose of wars is an important discerning factor. If I go around saying "we should kill all the jews", then even if I have never been in or started a war, I will(and rightly so) be perceived as a greater threat than someone who goes around saying "if you try something stupid we'll beat you up."

Most 3rd world type nations are not being ruled by men like this cleric in the article, and I'm sure that even the cleric wouldn't be so foolhardy as to consider nuclear weapons expendable. That Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is no stronger a case for argument than that America shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And this is overlooking the fact the US happens to be the only nation in the world to have actually used two nuclear devices against civilian populations.

Oh boy, the, "they used them, they're bad!" argument. Really haven't we gotten over this one yet? Everyone who's ever built a nuclear weapon has "used" it. To demonstrate their power, to terrorize their enemy, to spread fear and ensure their power, even if they didn't use it directly upon people. Far worse things have been done with far smaller bombs, and even without bombs at all. Should we say that Germany shouldn't be allowed to have cars because they gassed Jews with them? Should we say that the Japanese shouldn't be able to have children because they taught them to sacrifice their lives for their country?

Of course not, you would find these quite silly arguments. Nuclear bombs are weapons, and they are the best weapons when used as a threat, not actually dropped. If we use the threat of nuclear warfare as our defining factor in who has "used" a nuclear weapon, then we should be looking as Israel, Iran, China, Russia, France, the UK, the US, and others.

The argument against the US having nukes is that they used them when people didn't know better. They used them when they were desperate to end an unforseeably long war faster.

The argument against Iran having them is their apparent propensity to use them against civilian targets when we DO know better.

Learning that something is wrong after doing it is great, even though you still did wrong. Doing something you know is wrong anyway, with no regard for it being wrong, is the sign of a psychopath.

Would you like me to think that the idiots depicted below represent "you people" and "your area in general" (US and its Citizens)?
*image of KKK crossburning*


Two things, obviously, should come to mind when making bad comparasons. 1: date. This cleric's announcement was new, in present day. Regardless of how far Islamic society has progressed or regressed since the 1600s, the kind of ignorance and social propaganda required to claim that promiscuious women cause earthquakes(both social and earthly), is just stupid. That image was taken sometime back in the 1960's. In 40 years we have curbed what was often rampant racism, to only minor aspects, while in Islam, rampant radicalism has only grown.

second is of course, scale. The KKK are not, and never(save maybe very early in their founding) have been an organization or group of persons held in high esteem. While clerics belong to a select group of trusted religious leaders. Few people look to the KKK for their moral compass. Lots of people look to what clerics say for their moral compass.

That said there is of course, plenty of stupidity to go around, many middle eastern nations simply seem to have excess amounts at present.

if barry white said this you people wouldn't have a problem with it yall just hate muslims
LMAO. Damnit jmac, that was awesome :thmbup1:
Now that I can't even tirade against you, there's nothing to do in this thread :D
*shuffles sand around aimlessly*

Thank you both for perpetuating the same bigotry and racism that you are arguing against.

AGH! there is so much bad logic to reply too.

Revan 411
04-26-2010, 07:12 PM
Two things, obviously, should come to mind... blah blah blah
I think Astrotoy7's original point was that not all Islamic followers are extremists, and don't think the same way as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the dictator driven Iranian Government do. Most followers of Islam are true to their religious ideals, and would like nothing more then to find peace with other members of different religions. I'm sure the Jews, and the Christians think the same way.

I think everyone needs to remember that in every religion, there will always be individual extremists who will always get the wrong idea. A perfect example of this, is the Christian Crusaders, and the Muslim Jihad.

Q
04-26-2010, 09:05 PM
I don't think that Iran has a large enough nuclear catapult to reach North America, so any fear of the US mainland being targeted by Iran is irrational, to say the least.
They do if the catapult happens to be a guy carrying a briefcase with a nuke in it.

Totenkopf
04-26-2010, 09:40 PM
They do if the catapult happens to be a guy carrying a briefcase with a nuke in it.

Don't forget the possibility of a well disguised nuke in a cargo container. You don't need ICBM's to attack another nation w/nukes. Besides, they don't need to fry the citizens of the US. Simply frying the electronic networks w/EMP would do extensive damage to America (and likely Canada too).

Liverandbacon
04-26-2010, 09:41 PM
They do if the catapult happens to be a guy carrying a briefcase with a nuke in it.

Exactly. For instance, a U-Haul truck with even a fairly small nuke in it, set off in DC at the right time and place, could do a ton of damage to both the civilian and military chain of command. Our borders are not nearly secure enough to make this sort of situation impossible. The government of Iran would most likely not attempt that sort of strike, but there are radical groups with members in a very wide variety of jobs in Iran. Frankly, I don't trust the ability or in some cases willingness of Iran's internal security forces to prevent the theft of lower-yield nuclear weapons.

Darth Avlectus
04-26-2010, 11:20 PM
Let's not forget our porous borders that are hardly enforced--you could be shipping what appears to be one thing in drums but in one of those drums is a tactical nuke--customs don't inspect *every* stinking container in non essentials. (Essentials being food, etc. --and even that hasn't been stellar lately :dozey:)

Let's see how else...through trash and junk, through e-waste, through insides of machinery imported that was manufactured overseas, in concrete, in construction supplies... I'm sure the list could go on and on.

Who needs a better catapulting than covert smuggling and a loyal foot-soldier? It's also cost effective as well.

urluckyday
04-27-2010, 12:49 AM
I just gotta say...I wish Promiscuous Monday's would come around more often :naughty:

Ctrl Alt Del
04-27-2010, 10:50 AM
Don't forget the possibility of a well disguised nuke in a cargo container. You don't need ICBM's to attack another nation w/nukes. Besides, they don't need to fry the citizens of the US. Simply frying the electronic networks w/EMP would do extensive damage to America (and likely Canada too).

Exactly. For instance, a U-Haul truck with even a fairly small nuke in it, set off in DC at the right time and place, could do a ton of damage to both the civilian and military chain of command. Our borders are not nearly secure enough to make this sort of situation impossible. The government of Iran would most likely not attempt that sort of strike, but there are radical groups with members in a very wide variety of jobs in Iran. Frankly, I don't trust the ability or in some cases willingness of Iran's internal security forces to prevent the theft of lower-yield nuclear weapons.

Let's not forget our porous borders that are hardly enforced--you could be shipping what appears to be one thing in drums but in one of those drums is a tactical nuke--customs don't inspect *every* stinking container in non essentials. (Essentials being food, etc. --and even that hasn't been stellar lately :dozey:)
Is that how deep fear has instilled on North America today?

Totenkopf
04-27-2010, 11:14 AM
Is that how deep fear has instilled on North America today?

More like a sober assessment of the possibilities than anything. To not even consider them is essentially to be in denial about the type of world we live in today.

Ctrl Alt Del
04-27-2010, 11:50 AM
I'm sure you're aware that much of it are fallacies, not much beside a classical instrument of control.

Liverandbacon
04-27-2010, 02:04 PM
I'm sure you're aware that much of it are fallacies, not much beside a classical instrument of control.

Care to explain exactly what these fallacies are, and what makes the scenario I described impossible?

Personally, I believe that there are a number of things more likely to happen than nuclear terrorism, but it really wouldn't be especially difficult to pull off, let alone impossible. I believe in preparation for such eventualities, which the US does have, albeit to a limited extent, as far as preserving COC both civilian and military goes.

Darth Avlectus
04-27-2010, 03:42 PM
Is that how deep fear has instilled on North America today?

Actually my sentiments are based upon studies how space satellites for intercepting nukes could be made ineffective by strategic undermining just for the sake of supporting their arguments. But hey, if you're making a case for why we should build more satellites for SDI, please be my guest.

Totenkopf
04-27-2010, 05:22 PM
I'm sure you're aware that much of it are fallacies, not much beside a classical instrument of control.
Care to explain exactly what these fallacies are, and what makes the scenario I described impossible?

I'd tend to agree. What fallacies are you talking about? Besides, you seem to fall into the trap of "past performance guarantess future results". We've only cited different possible scenarios for a potential attack, not stated unequivocally that one is going to take place. But it would be equally foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand or even to project one's values upon an adversary.

Ctrl Alt Del
04-28-2010, 02:27 PM
Actually my sentiments are based upon studies how space satellites for intercepting nukes could be made ineffective by strategic undermining just for the sake of supporting their arguments. But hey, if you're making a case for why we should build more satellites for SDI, please be my guest.My point is that a satellite defense system won't even be necessary on the likely event of no world nuclear war.

Care to explain exactly what these fallacies are, and what makes the scenario I described impossible?

Personally, I believe that there are a number of things more likely to happen than nuclear terrorism, but it really wouldn't be especially difficult to pull off, let alone impossible. I believe in preparation for such eventualities, which the US does have, albeit to a limited extent, as far as preserving COC both civilian and military goes.

I'd tend to agree. What fallacies are you talking about? Besides, you seem to fall into the trap of "past performance guarantess future results". We've only cited different possible scenarios for a potential attack, not stated unequivocally that one is going to take place. But it would be equally foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand or even to project one's values upon an adversary.The fallacies on this case equal to instruments of control of an Empire.

Social sciences have taught that a powerful state will eventually cross it's own borders and interfere with other independent and unrelated states. thus is an Empire born. And in that condition, it will want to expand in size, economy and influence. In a nutshell, the most primary tools of an Empire in order to sustain it's conditions are military might and economic coercion. This was named Hard Power by International Relations scholar Joseph Nye. With time, the Empire expects an opportunity to leave Hard Power aside and transcend into new forms of domination, those being attraction and emulation. Nye called this Soft Power.

For as long as the Hard Power is the governing policy of the Empire, then, unlike what you would be led to think, auxiliary forms of dominance to assist the main doctrine are required (this does not disappear at all when it transcends to Soft Power) to back it up. The media's generalization that propagates ideologies favorable to the Empire - including that regarding immenent external threats that endagers all that the Empire stands for and is conveniently represented as a bastion of good - is one such form.

I am, of course, explaining the situation with lens of my own, based on what I consider to be the most appropriate approach on this matter, if not the only one that I may be able to understand.

Totenkopf
04-28-2010, 04:21 PM
Well outside of the "palpable fear" that may have been present for much of the Cold War, I don't think that most Americans think to deeply about the topic. All the more likely so b/c of the boogeyman of "anthropogenic global warming". However, what you're really addressing are what you consider the probabilities of such an event(s) taking place, while we were looking at the different possibilities. Besides, not really a stretch to think that a culture that breeds suicide bombers wouldn't balk at the chance to do something like this. Real questions then becoming what types of access they'd have to pull it off down the road. But even if you brush off considering the how's as unduly pessimistic, remember the saying "..even paranoids have enemies". ;)

Darth Avlectus
04-28-2010, 07:28 PM
My point is that a satellite defense system won't even be necessary on the likely event of no world nuclear war.
Ok. Didn't think so. And my points are:
1) that of keeping vigilant watch as every nation ought to...not this vast imperial fear mongering you seem to think I'm peddling. I'm just simply saying keep on your guard.

2) poorer nations lacking funds to effectively "catapult" their weapon simply have other more feasible means to do so. This is not an unreasonable whacky-far-out possibility.

That was all I was saying.

The fallacies on this case equal to instruments of control of an Empire.
*looks around*
Uhh "empire". Okay.

*brevity*
For as long as the Hard Power is the governing policy of the Empire, then, unlike what you would be led to think, auxiliary forms of dominance to assist the main doctrine are required (this does not disappear at all when it transcends to Soft Power) to back it up. The media's generalization that propagates ideologies favorable to the Empire - including that regarding immenent external threats that endagers all that the Empire stands for and is conveniently represented as a bastion of good - is one such form.

So essentially what you're saying is that vigilance is imperialist and all its unwitting supporters blind; that nobody actually needs to defend themselves because everyone means well, and the idea of independence is merely a farce doctrine of this soft power empire.

Sounds naive like "if we got rid of all the nukes then nobody will have them". If we got rid of all the nukes, someone else would rediscover how to make them again. Furthermore getting rid of all weapons is about as likely as a massive natural disaster (short of the sun going supernova) wiping out all life forms on earth--some will always slip through the cracks. Someone will always get hold of some of the weapons--that's not a pipe dream, and barely fact.

I am, of course, explaining the situation with lens of my own, based on what I consider to be the most appropriate approach on this matter, if not the only one that I may be able to understand.

Likewise and thank you for your time.

While I see what you're saying w.r.t. "soft power remaining in power", this view makes assumptions about individuals' vigilance necessarily being blind to the machinations of the "powers that be" and inadvertently supporting them. We do not. If anything, the "powers that be" seem to want people to all disarm and just go along with it.

While it may or may not be likely there is no nuclear war ahead, and there is much misinformation out there, it's foolish to think everyone necessarily means well. I'm simply used to trusting that people won't "do the right thing".

Let's see...the majority of media has been more about disarming on all levels for reasons of safety and security of late, so you are incorrect about that "propaganda defending the empire" in this respect. In fact it seems more of a circus aimed at smearing and stigmatizing each other and opponents of differing political views. *shrugs*

Also a culture of a spirit of independence is originally what made America what it is. We may have fallen far form that, but the ideal still remains that if you're driven enough on your own, you can achieve great things. Self interest is not necessarily selfish or people would get all paranoid about being on the receiving end of charity and demonize generosity.

Liverandbacon
04-28-2010, 07:52 PM
For as long as the Hard Power is the governing policy of the Empire, then, unlike what you would be led to think, auxiliary forms of dominance to assist the main doctrine are required (this does not disappear at all when it transcends to Soft Power) to back it up. The media's generalization that propagates ideologies favorable to the Empire - including that regarding immenent external threats that endagers all that the Empire stands for and is conveniently represented as a bastion of good - is one such form.

Well, I can assure you that the media isn't representing our country as a bastion of good here in the US, nor is it even mentioning the possibility of such an attack.

My point was not one fed to me by some imperial propagandist, but from my own knowledge of the capabilities of nuclear weapons of various sizes, and the security of our borders, mots of which knowledge has come directly from people whose jobs revolve around one of those subjects.

On another note, with all due respect to Mr. Nye, I feel he is making a false dichotomy between the use of "Hard" and "Soft" power. While the ratio of which is being used more may change, I believe that a certain amount of both is needed to survive in a world where other countries use both.

True_Avery
04-29-2010, 02:32 AM
They are now arresting tan skinned women:

http://military.rightpundits.com/2010/04/28/sun-tanned-woman-arrested-for-looking-like-walking-mannequins-iran-islamic-law-crackdown/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/28/2010-04-28_tehran_police_chief_iran_to_crack_down_on_sunta nned_women.html

This is no longer just a single cleric talking; its the government arresting misbehaving women. Apparently these people do, actually, have power in Iran.

I doubt the people as a whole agree with this, but the government is just showing day by day how backwards it is. Hopefully if they keep pushing Iran will have an actual revolution. There is only so much the younger generations are going to take laying down.

Darth InSidious
04-29-2010, 03:32 AM
And there is no such thing as Camp Delta. And it has never imprisoned people on grounds of being suspicious-looking and Muslim. Ever.

True_Avery
04-29-2010, 04:08 AM
And there is no such thing as Camp Delta. And it has never imprisoned people on grounds of being suspicious-looking and Muslim. Ever.
And George Bush can go to hell for the patriot act and all the backwards BS he put us through for the past 8 years like Camp Delta.

I didn't support the camping of suspicious Muslims, the camping of the Japanese in WW2, and I don't support Iran's backwards attitude towards women. That doesn't sully my point that Iran's government is taking what these clerics say seriously and are imprisoning women for being tan. America doing the same BS as Iran hardly puts me in the position of being unable to criticize them when I've been criticizing my own government's backwards attitudes for years.

If you'd like me to punch myself as I punch them, sure:

Arizona just recently passed a set of laws that allows the police to pull over and arrest anybody not carrying a full set of proof they are United States citizens, meaning they can just about pull anyone to the side and arrest them with little suspicion. Considering most people don't carry a passport and all their ID, that means the police can pretty much arrest anyone and do a background check. It is suspected this will increase profiling of those that look Latino. Arizona, and namely the United States for allowing laws like this to pass, is showing how backwards it is by pulling out and brushing off laws that were deemed unconstitutional in the days of African American oppression.

And, on that note, that Iranian government, and namely the police force, is showing how backwards it is by arresting tanned women. I'm not going to be shamed into not taking a potshot at a country's government that would publicly arrest me, flog me, and most likely execute me. I spit on my state/country for less severe, but similar reasons.

If, however, I am missing something then I am open for being corrected. I'm guessing Sabre or D3 have something interesting to say, but at the moment it appears, at least to me, that perhaps the religious leaders like the cleric this thread started on have a fair amount of power in the government. Maybe not over the people, but the government.

Totenkopf
04-29-2010, 10:02 AM
Can you show the part of the state law that allows cops to do that? Given how high profile an act this is, I'd rather doubt it. You might claim that it might end up like that in practice.....but isn't that the kind of thing we're always told we have the courts for? Afterall, as it is, a policeman can pull you over for anything anywhere in the US and it comes down to your word vs the officer's in the courtroom. Now, perhaps if the feds would get off their high horse and actually enforce immigration law itself, rather than publically moan about the states, the states wouldn't have to do something themselves (beyond perhaps assist the feds).

True_Avery
04-29-2010, 08:05 PM
Can you show the part of the state law that allows cops to do that? Given how high profile an act this is, I'd rather doubt it. You might claim that it might end up like that in practice.....but isn't that the kind of thing we're always told we have the courts for? Afterall, as it is, a policeman can pull you over for anything anywhere in the US and it comes down to your word vs the officer's in the courtroom. Now, perhaps if the feds would get off their high horse and actually enforce immigration law itself, rather than publically moan about the states, the states wouldn't have to do something themselves (beyond perhaps assist the feds).
If you'd like to discuss further, make a thread on it so we don't pull the thread too off topic. It only extends so far in this thread for me to make a short point, not debate.

Totenkopf
04-30-2010, 04:42 PM
Your pre-amended post argued otherwise. However, given how off-track this thread has become, doubt anyone would have cared (esp me, the OP). ;)

True_Avery
04-30-2010, 05:52 PM
Your pre-amended post argued otherwise. However, given how off-track this thread has become, doubt anyone would have cared (esp me, the OP). ;)
I'm more interested in the original topic and would prefer to talk about it. I amended my post for that reason.

Totenkopf
04-30-2010, 09:05 PM
I'm more interested in the original topic and would prefer to talk about it. I amended my post for that reason.

I think that train derailed w/in about 6-7 posts and was why Jae moved it here. :p

Dr. Makaveli
05-27-2010, 04:17 AM
To be honest, I find radical Islamic clerics to be funnier than a lot of comedians.
Birthday cakes are un-islamic, and wearing baggy jeans will send you to hell.

My first reaction to this when it came out was to laugh. It's hard to take them seriously. In the words of Saturday Night Live-- Really??

Darth Avlectus
05-29-2010, 02:40 AM
Hey, long as promiscuous women don't cause the wrong kind of earthquakes, I don't think anybody else but them have any problems with it. :p

urluckyday
05-29-2010, 02:48 AM
Hey, long as promiscuous women don't cause the wrong kind of earthquakes, I don't think anybody else but them have any problems with it. :p

lol, I'll second that.

True_Avery
06-11-2010, 01:36 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37612692/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?GT1=43001

Another related topic

mimartin
06-11-2010, 10:01 AM
If the man got four months in prison and 90 lashes , the women will most likely get death.

ForeverNight
06-11-2010, 04:28 PM
Saudi religious police

Anybody else wondering why the hell they need Religious police? I wish that that region wasn't so screwed up so I wouldn't end up feeling as anti-Islam as that region makes me feel. :(

Damn the Middle East for being a bunch of wacko nutjobs. Well, mostly at any rate.

Web Rider
06-11-2010, 05:19 PM
And people wonder why it's so easy to be bigoted towards Islam and Muslims. If this was the exception, yeah, great, whatever, but nobody can argue that this kind of situation is pretty much the rule in many Islam-dominated countries.

Darth Avlectus
06-11-2010, 06:03 PM
...And I hear they want to have a Sharia law court in this country... :indif:

mimartin
06-11-2010, 06:22 PM
...And I hear they want to have a Sharia law court in this country... :indif:

Yea, and a Sharia court is going to magically override our entire constitution.

Haven’t really seen anything about these courts in America, but if they are the same as in England, then I really do not have a problem with them. 1. They are strictly civil cases. 2. All parties must agree to give the power to the court. Not all that different from using an arbitrator for an insurance claim in the U.S. system. Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Of course the radio and television talking heads believe this is the end of western civilization, but that is only because they are trying to get their ratings up and there is no way they are going to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of that.

Darth Avlectus
06-11-2010, 07:21 PM
Yea, and a Sharia court is going to magically override our entire constitution.

Havenít really seen anything about these courts in America, but if they are the same as in England, then I really do not have a problem with them. Big if.
1. They are strictly civil cases. 2. All parties must agree to give the power to the court. Not all that different from using an arbitrator for an insurance claim in the U.S. system.

Oh that's fine.

However, the moment another religiously affiliated court (EQUAL IN STATURE) of a different faith (christian ND, christian catholic, christian protestant, jewish/zionist, bhuddist, et. al.) tried to erect itself in this country, everyone else would be all over it like "You can't do that! Breach of separation of church and state! Unconstitutional!" and get their laughing boy lawyers and ACLU and all that parade out to stop it...

Of course the radio and television talking heads believe this is the end of western civilization, but that is only because they are trying to get their ratings up and there is no way they are going to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of that.

Yes, it's only the right that are the raving lunatics when this sort of thing in general happens--don't even mind the left getting up in arms at all when it is from another faith besides Islam. :rolleyes:

Sorry, EVERYONE in the media is guilty of special pleading, and not just the right. I'll only agree with you in that if everyone wasn't so two faced depending on whichever faith was in question, it wouldn't really even be a problem.

Schultz and Olbermann as well as the rest of the talking heads of the left would be throwing at least as much of conniption fit (maybe more) if it were a christian or jew affiliated court. That's not my opinion, that's what it would be.

mimartin
06-11-2010, 07:45 PM
I don't understand, what do you mean big if. I really don’t understand that. Do you really believe the constitution is so easily circumvented? Both sides of this country have been trying to circumvent the constitution for years by manipulating the appointments to Supreme Court and neither side has succeeded. Your really think Muslims will have a easier time of it?

However, the moment... Has nothing to do with anything. You can have an arbitrator of any religion now in America as long as both parties agree to that arbitrator. So your rant has nothing to do with it.

I seemed to have made a point not to say right or left when criticizing the media. Why do you think that was? Maybe because I know both sides are guilty of sensationalizing the news for ratings! They all don’t go to the same extreme as Savage, O’Reilly, Hanity, Rush and that other crazy, but almost all of them sensationalize the news to some extent.

jrrtoken
06-11-2010, 07:54 PM
And people wonder why it's so easy to be bigoted towards Islam and Muslims. If this was the exception, yeah, great, whatever, but nobody can argue that this kind of situation is pretty much the rule in many Islam-dominated countries.Not exactly. The Saudis prescribe to their own state-sanctioned form of Wahhabist Islam, which can be summed up as a revivalist movement to return to the values found in the era of first-generation Islam. That sounds fine on paper, but the Saudi royal family has applied it in fundamentalist way that goes beyond any universally-accepted Islamic jurisprudence, to the extent which they themselves violate several Qur'anic principles. The "religious police", for example, is of their own invention, and has no place in the Qur'an, nor is found in any hadith; it is simply a governmental arm.

Totenkopf
06-11-2010, 10:16 PM
I seemed to have made a point not to say right or left when criticizing the media. Why do you think that was? Maybe because I know both sides are guilty of sensationalizing the news for ratings! They all donít go to the same extreme as Savage, OíReilly, Hanity, Rush and that other crazy, but almost all of them sensationalize the news to some extent.

They all? Are you saying the left-wing wackjobs are LESS guilty of this than the right (or merely that the aforementioned go to the right extreme while the others go to the left extreme)? :raise:

mimartin
06-11-2010, 10:23 PM
Read what I wrote. Just as guilty, but go no where near as far as any of the talking heads I wrote about. Also name a left wackjob as famous as any of these right wackjobs. :rolleyes:

Totenkopf
06-11-2010, 11:36 PM
I DID read what you wrote and found it incorrect. It doesn't matter that idiots like Olberman, Maddow, Dowd et al may not be as well known, they're just as guilty of going to extremes in the other direction. :rolleyes: Maybe the fact that they're not as successful just means that fewer people read/listen to their garbage (or are willing to admit as much).

mimartin
06-11-2010, 11:46 PM
Other than Olberman (which I only know from ESPN) I never heard of any of them. Maybe the reason they are not as well know is because most from the left and center do not get their news from political talking heads.

I'm done with this as it is off topic, but I at least now I do know you did not understand what I wrote.

@below Well you are wrong - I never heard of a Liberal talking head being banned from a contry. While Savage is banned from from England and is proud of it because he advertises it almost every show.

Totenkopf
06-12-2010, 12:46 AM
Cute. I understood exactly what you said. Your claim was that both sides sensationalize the news, but that certain "right-wingers" were more egregious offenders than the rest. That last part was what I disputed. It's clear to me that you missed that as well. ce' le vie.

@above--you're still wrong, so why not just drop it like you said you were going to. Btw, do you even know why he was "banned"? The very liberal Brown regime didn't want to look anti-islamist, so they threw Savage to the wolves for political cover. Whether you like it or not, liberal pundits and media types are no less prone to oversensationalizing the news.