BANG!

Posted on

What do you get when you are led by this guy:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

And your country is operating one of these:

Bushehr Nuclear facility

And your opposition can’t even pronounce the word NUCLEAR:

George W. Bush Jr.

Would this be a farfetched outcome?

Nuclear Fireball sm

The question is not whether Iran, being sovereign nation, has the right to pursue a nuclear program, the question seems to be “give me an excuse to nuke their ass!”

The US has a grudge against Iran which it carried for quite a bit longer than the hostage situation at the American Embassy in Tehran, or even before Mossadegh.. it started in the 20s of the last century and the colour of that relationship has never been rosy.

That too doesn’t concern me. The questions I’m asking is simply this: Iran is a sovereign nation and has every right to pursue peaceful nuclear programs regardless of what we think. The US or anyone else in the world has absolutely no excuse to attack Iran taking this as a pretence.

Am I worried that the Iranians are embarking on this rather dangerous journey? Of course I am, Bushehr is not that far from Bahrain and being on the Arasian (Arabian/Persian!) Gulf fills me with dread. Add to that the various earthquakes that beleaguere the area and that doubles the amount of worry. The Iranian inexperience with this technology and their corralling by the international community with the prospect of them going into the nuclear thing just to spite the others and will most definitely get them to cut corners just to throw the switch on quadruples my worry.

But what can be done about this? India had Russia help it in its nuclear ambitions, the US helped Pakistan to gain theirs and what did both do with declared peaceful nuclear programs? Build a bomb and start an arms race. Will Iran take that route too? Most probably if it is continued to be harassed unnecessarily, and threats and counter threats are bandied about and we’re literally stuck in the middle.

… and I can just hear the super-stealth jets screaming overhead.

Shall we pack our bags now, or wait for another year when the whole region is incinerated because of two very deranged men?

signature
253 Comments
  • jasra jedi
    13 April 2006

    the US havent done anything about South Korea .. why should they do anything about ahmednijad?? unless, of course, the tentacles of Iran’s nuclear ambitions can reach Israel and alo, maybe even more significantly, control the flow of oil in the region … Interesting times, to be sure. Except, I am not sure that the US public are going to support another war in the ME .. too expensive and not noble enough ..

  • Chanad
    13 April 2006

    speaking of north korea, i still find this article from the onion quite funny:
    N. Korea Wondering What It Has To Do To Attract U.S. Military Attention

    and this follow up:
    North Korea Nukes Self In Desperate Plea For Attention

    it still applies

  • Aliandra
    13 April 2006

    True enough Jasra. The US isn’t going to get involved in any shooting war with Iran. The only thing is, if Iran has nukes, it’s neighbors will want them too. In that case, there’s something to be said for Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD) No one is going to be lobbing nukes at their neighbors if they know they’ll get some lobbed back in return. It kept the US and the USSR respectful of each other for quite a long time.

  • Ibn
    13 April 2006

    What worries me about US-talk of using tactical nukes on those nuke facilities is the fall out it will cause the Gulf countries. Budding liberal states that are beginning to get it right, only to have doomsday bombs going off ala-US a couple hundred miles away. Short tern and long term. Although I am not too entirely familiar with how dirty those tactical nukes are, Im sure none of them are clean enough.

    I dont understand why a deal cant be brokered where the UN says “Ok Iran, you can develop civilian nuke materials, etc, but WE WILL HAVE LIKE 50 dudes from the UN at every site constantly monitoring the entire facility!”

    Eitherway, it seems the US will do just about anything to help its ally Israel. I wonder why. Then again, if war comes, I would rather the US handle it than Israel.

    Its a mixed bag o’nuts.

    -Ibn

  • Steve The American
    13 April 2006

    Jasra Jedi: “the US havent done anything about South Korea .. why should they do anything about ahmednijad??

    North Korea is a messier problem because it has 10,000 artillery tubes aimed at Seoul, which sits on the border. Any attack on North Korea would trigger immediate retaliation on Seoul at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

    My job at one time was to fly to South Korea, load up a nuke, and then deliver it by F-4E Phantom to a deserving place in North Korea. However, all of our plans assumed that we would be fighting on the defensive, turning around a North Korean invasion. I never heard of an offensive plan nor was briefed on one. I don’t believe we ever seriously considered invading North Korea nor striking its nuclear infrastructure.

    I think the US grand strategy for North Korea is to allow it to commit slow suicide, as it is doing, through incompetent governance and moribund economic management. The problem is manage its decline, so that it doesn’t lash out in its death throes.

    Jasra Jedi: “unless, of course, the tentacles of Iran’s nuclear ambitions can reach Israel and alo, maybe even more significantly, control the flow of oil in the region … Interesting times, to be sure. Except, I am not sure that the US public are going to support another war in the ME .. too expensive and not noble enough ..

    Surprisingly, US polls show rather large support for hitting Iraq. That support may evaporate when it ceases to be an abstract proposition but the public and both parties in the US consider a nuclear Iran to be a threat. There is no debate about it. That’s rather ominous.

    The only debate about the Iranian nuclear threat is whether there is some way to deal with it short of war. Nobody is coming up with any good ideas. It looks like there are no good options, only bad and worse options.

    Defending the only true democracy in the region, Israel, seems like a pretty good reason to deploy against Iran. We have a history of defending allies in the Middle East, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, deserving or not. Stopping the mad mullahs of Iran from dominating the source of oil is also a pretty good reason to stop their nuclear bombmaking.

    There is also another reason that is more abstract. Americans are beginning to realize that the Muslim world is fundamentally hostile to them and will make war on them to the extent of their capability. They realize that Muslims have no moral boundary in the violence they will do to non-Muslims. They will knife flight attendants to death, crash jets full of innocent passengers into buildings full of innocent office workers, bomb churches and synagogues, shoot critics in the street, take schools hostage and shoot fleeing children in the back, behead innocent people for the video cameras to show to jubilant Muslim kids, and so on, ad infinitum. There is no moral restraint for the religious nuts in Iran in using a nuke against America.

    The last couple weeks only a few miles from my home they have been hearing witnesses against Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the participants of the Sep 11 attacks. A sad parade of witnesses appeared to tell of the loved ones they lost due to the Muslim atrocities. Yesterday, they played the tape of United Airlines Flight 93. The transcript, interspersed with frequent “Allah akbars”, shows when they killed a stewardess in the cockpit and the desperate struggle to breach the cockpit to stop the Muslim invaders. “Allah is the greatest” screamed the Muslim scumbags as they took the jet into the ground. Moussaoui mocked the witnesses and when he was being led out, yelled, “GOD CURSE YOU ALL!”

    Moussaoui is the face of Islam for us: Evil, unrepentantly cruel, inhumanly hostile, unreformable, barbarous. If Moussaoui had an atom bomb, there is no doubt he would use it on Americans. There is no doubt his radical Muslim pals would use it. There is no doubt that Muslims throughout the world would celebrate such an atomic attack.

    Ahmadinejad looks like he’s made from the same radical material as Moussaoui. If you get a taste of Moussaoui’s murderous mindset, you know Ahmadinejad, who thinks that a nuclear war might hasten the return of the hidden imam and conquer the world for Islam. He’s a dangerous religious nut who is charge of a nation.

    Iran has made it clear it rejects international law. It took the US embassy in Teheran, though such territory is considered inviolate, and keeps it. It has launched terrorist attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina, even though it has no grievances with Argentina. Iran just liked the idea of slaughtering its religious enemies en masse. Iran has been engaged in a decades long war against America, waged through terrorism, even attempting bombings in America and assassinating its political rivals here. Iran is killing Americans now in Iran with hundreds of agents and a steady supply of explosives and weapons. I’m convinced that if it had an atom bomb, there is a very high probability that they would smuggle it into an American city and detonate it.

    Although I would be happy to be proven wrong, I don’t see any viable courses that avoid war with Iran. We either trash their nuclear program in its infancy or deal with it after it has matured. Attacking Iran is a bad option, but letting Iran attack us and our allies with nukes is worse.

    My prediction is that negotiations with Iran will continue for months and fail. Iran has no intention of negotiating in good faith but only to buy time to finish its nukes. Next spring, about a year from now, there will probably be a massive air attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. To do that, it will be necessary to take out its air defense system, air force, and other obstacles. I suspect that there will also be attacks on the mullahcracy itself, taking out its headquarters and prisons, in an attempt to give the anti-mullah opposition an advantage, perhaps even take over.

    The Iranians will probably make reprisals in America. Almost certainly, that will include suicide attacks on Washington, particularly government buildings and the Metro. Considering what a frightening effect that two snipers had a few years ago on DC, a terror campaign will shut the city down.

    But such a terror campaign will prompt a wave of unstoppable outrage among Americans from coast to coast, washing Democrats and Republicans along in a mighty tsunami of popular will against Iran, and empowering them to do whatever it takes to crush Iran.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    13 April 2006

    Mahmood: “The questions I’m asking is simply this: Iran is a sovereign nation and has every right to pursue peaceful nuclear programs regardless of what we think. The US or anyone else in the world has absolutely no excuse to attack Iran taking this as a pretence.”

    Mahmood, do you really believe that Iran, afloat in oil, requires nuclear energy to power it? Do you REALLY believe that Iran’s program is peaceful, that it is not making nuclear weapons, when there is so much evidence to the contrary?

    When Iran is covertly developing nukes while overtly making wild threats, you don’t need a pretence to deal with those threats. Just a willingness to see the obvious.

    IMahmood “India had Russia help it in its nuclear ambitions, the US helped Pakistan to gain theirs and what did both do with declared peaceful nuclear programs? Build a bomb and start an arms race.

    Not true, Mahmood. The only country that the US has ever cooperated with on atomic bombs is Great Britain. Pakistan got no help from America with its nuke program. Dr. Khan stole the centrifuge technology from his job in the Netherlands and got help from China and North Korea. Not the US.

    In fact, after the US discovered that Pakistan was working on a nuke, it ceased delivery of US F-16s that could be used to deliver it. They released those jets later after negotiations with Pakistan, but Pakistan’s nuke bomb work was never well received by America and certainly not supported.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    13 April 2006

    Ibn: “What worries me about US-talk of using tactical nukes on those nuke facilities is the fall out it will cause the Gulf countries. Budding liberal states that are beginning to get it right, only to have doomsday bombs going off ala-US a couple hundred miles away. Short tern and long term. Although I am not too entirely familiar with how dirty those tactical nukes are, Im sure none of them are clean enough.”

    Ibn, you only get fall out from air bursts, which kick up radioactive dirt and send it flying. The tactical nukes being talked about are low yield bombs that burrow into the ground and detonate to send a shock wave through the ground that crushes deep bunkers. What little fallout there is from a subterranean explosion is contained at the site.

    If you are worrying about fall out, you have far more to worry about the Iranians perpetrating a Chernobyl through incompetence.

    Ibn: “I dont understand why a deal cant be brokered where the UN says “Ok Iran, you can develop civilian nuke materials, etc, but WE WILL HAVE LIKE 50 dudes from the UN at every site constantly monitoring the entire facility!”

    The Iranians reject such deals because the UN dudes would discover that they are making nuclear bombs. The mullahs want those nukes to stay in power.

    Ibn: “Eitherway, it seems the US will do just about anything to help its ally Israel. I wonder why. Then again, if war comes, I would rather the US handle it than Israel.”

    Defending an ally like Israel is a minor reason. You might also consider that if Iran nuked Israel without any repercussions, what would stop it from nuking its Arab neighbors? Good will?

    Keeping the Middle East stable and the oil flowing is a major reason to stop Iran from getting nukes.

    But the paramount reason is to stop an Iranian nuke from detonating on a truck in Washington, DC.

    Steve

  • Ibn
    13 April 2006

    Ahh, Steve is back.

    To all, I will not engage in discussions with this particular individual, since I do not wish to distract him from gathering his evidence on why my grandma is responsible for the 3000 murdered on Sep 11th…just because she is a Muslim. I certainly would want anything to come between the case Steve is building against war criminals like my grandma. (See “Told you so!” thread on mahmood.tv) I have asked him to show evidence to support his claim, or unconditionally RETRACT his statement: “Yes, I do hold all billion plus Muslims responsible to greater or lesser degree for the terrorist atrocities perpetrated to propagate Islam.”

    Steve said:
    “what would stop it from nuking its Arab neighbors? Good will?”

    Here, we can see that Steve has nicely nestled himself into a lovely contradiction. On the one hand, he plays the “nuking of its Arab neighbours” as a BAD thing, whilst on the other, he holds those same potential nukees “more or less responsible for the 3000+ dead on Sep11″…meaning he would greet their demise as a GOOD thing.

    One would ask Steve of course, why would he care if those alleged “Sep11-reponsibles” got nuked anyway? Presumably he doesnt. Afterall, no one likes a bully. Then the question becomes, why would he paint that as a “bad” thing in a question against Iran? Surely Steve would be simply giddy should the Ayatollah decide to nuke fellow Muslims in an effort to build a Muslim army…wait…..

    -Ibn

  • Anonymous
    13 April 2006

    “”India had Russia help it in its nuclear ambitions, the US helped Pakistan””

    It’s Americans, who helped both to get nuclear weapon, as well as they helped Israel.
    As about their interest to Iran, thei just need it’s resorses under their control or at least under no1’s control. And they don’t need real excuse. Any1 seen WMD in Iraq? No. And only totally mentally deranged can believ in shit about democrasy that Americans bring and respect (just remember HAMAS’s democratic victory). They only bring death and chaos to the countries they invade.

  • Anonymous
    13 April 2006

    just to add to previous post.
    Lets none forget that the United States of America is the only country in the world which used nuclear weapon to kill people. And it wasn’t even during the war. They bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER the full capitulation of Japan

  • Aliandra
    13 April 2006

    Anon;

    America has no intention of removing the democratically elected Hamas government. However, America is not obligated to fund it.

  • CerebralWaste
    13 April 2006

    “They bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER the full capitulation of Japan”

    I think you need a history lesson pal. Japan did not capitulate until AFTER the bombs had been dropped.

  • Sadek
    13 April 2006

    Anonymous: your historical facts are wrong. Japan only surrendered after the two bombs were dropped on Japan.
    Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, 1945, Nagasaki three days later and Japan surrendered on August 15.

  • Steve The American
    13 April 2006

    Ibn: “Here, we can see that Steve has nicely nestled himself into a lovely contradiction. On the one hand, he plays the “nuking of its Arab neighbours” as a BAD thing, whilst on the other, he holds those same potential nukees “more or less responsible for the 3000+ dead on Sep11″…meaning he would greet their demise as a GOOD thing.”

    I’m happy to answer your question, Ibn.

    Yes, Iran nuking its Arab neighbors would be a BAD thing. Anybody in the house disagree with me on that? Anyone? You in the back? Any disagreement? None? OK, then, we can all agree on that.

    However, the second part of your argument that holds that since I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep 11 (which I do) then I must think that their demise is a good thing (which I don’t). Let me point out at this time that this is Ibn’s conclusion, not mine.

    Ibn: “One would ask Steve of course, why would he care if those alleged “Sep11-reponsibles” got nuked anyway? Presumably he doesnt. Afterall, no one likes a bully. Then the question becomes, why would he paint that as a “bad” thing in a question against Iran? Surely Steve would be simply giddy should the Ayatollah decide to nuke fellow Muslims in an effort to build a Muslim army…wait…..”

    I do admit that I savor the rather delicious irony of the Iranian mullahs nuking the very Muslim neighbors who defended their right to make nukes. It follows a rather old Arab tradition of wildly supporting revolutionary leaders who repay their support by throwing them in prison or worse.

    However, setting aside my childish schadenfreude, its not good for people to be mass-murdered with nukes, in general, when you can possibly avoid it and in lieu of some severe provocation. The current Muslim war against the world has as its goal the conquest of the planet and subjugation or death of the non-Muslim population. My goals in this war are much more modest: Muslims end their aggression and modify their behavior to live and let live with their neighbors. My plans for worldwide conquest extend no further than persuading foreign populations to buy Happy Meals from McDonald’s with a cold Coke.

    Every Muslim is responsible for the terror done in their name if they do not publicly oppose it. That makes for a very tiny number of Muslims. You could probably fit them all in a banquet room.

    Of course, the terrorists who actually perpetrate the crimes in the name of Islam are responsible, as are the support structure who provides the logistics. Beyond that, the people who cook their meals and make their beds are responsible as are the people who know about them and just keep quiet. The many Muslims who make their contributions at the mosque to support terrorism in the name of Islam, they’re responsible.

    The Muslims who refuse to condemn any Muslim for any crime, no matter how bloody, are also responsible. Those Muslims who have a moral sense, who object to such bloodletting, but who are intimidated into keeping quiet are also to blame. They are no different than the Good Germans who allowed their Jewish neighbors to be spirited off to the death camps and pretend to not know what happenned to them as they sit in the dead Jew’s homes on a sofa stuffed with Jewish hair with money in their pocket from the sale of Jewish property. And the nice old Muslim grannies who bounce their grandkids on the knee and pamper them and carefully whisper to them that all non-Muslims are their enemy and the world must be all Muslim, they too are to blame.

    While virtually all Muslims are to blame for Islamic terror, obviously they have different degrees of blame. Those with blood on their hands must be hunted down and killed without relent. The rest of the Muslim population, though blameworthy to a lesser degree, came by their hostility through ignorance of the world and indoctrination by dishonest clerics preaching a faith built of lies. They can hardly help being stupid.

    The cure for that is engagment with the world, mostly through commerce. Islam in its most venomous form exists mostly in isolation from the world. The worst thing we can do to it is set it on a collision course with reality. Get some trade going and let more Muslims take a few business trips to the West to match their indoctrination to reality. I don’t think Islam can hold up in a world full of competing ideas. It has a poor record of success and rich record of bloody excess.

    Steve

  • Mark Leisher
    13 April 2006

    I’ve been lurking in Mahmood’s world for quite a while now. Time to contribute.

    Steve’s initial response is typical among a fair number of people in the US, though I don’t think a majority. In my opinion, one of the central problems with this viewpoint is that Ahmadinejad is somehow not under the control of the Expediency Council and will be allowed to do something insane, like detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel. He is a “useful idiot” that distracts Western powers while Iran does what they think they need to do.

    The Expediency Council isn’t stupid. They know full well that a nuclear strike linked to them, anywhere in the world, will bring a crushing response from just about everyone. A state like that is just too irrational to allow to continue. That is why the world will probably never see an Israeli first strike with nuclear weapons. The consequences would be catastrophic and permanent for them. They know that.

    Another problem with the “crazed nuclear-capable Islamist Iran” viewpoint is the unspoken fear that nuclear weapons developed in Iran would end up in the hands of people actually insane enough to use them. This I think is also unlikely because the groups crazy enough to detonate a nuclear weapon do not have any serious high-level connection to Iran, at least not that I can tell.

    As for the US plans to bomb Iran, the US has contingency plans for military action just about everywhere in the world. It is a foolish state that does not prepare for everything it can think of. But it is ridiculous to assume the US would actually bomb Iran. All we need to do is wait until the mullahs grow old, retire, and die. The younger Iranian population has little stomach for their current leaders, and they represent 75% of the population. Besides, the American population has little stomach for another expensive intervention overseas.

    For reasons expressed above, and several others, the nuclear weapon issue is simply not enough to cause the US to bomb Iran. All this tough talk is to put more pressure on Iran to change their form of government.

    Nobody rational disagrees with the notion that any sovereign nation should be allowed to purchase/develop nuclear power for peaceful uses. But if that sovereign nation makes public threats of violence against other nations, of course Western powers got nervous. Put yourself in American shoes and consider two things:

    1. Iran declined offers of very cheap nuclear energy in negotiations. Several times. If they were only enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, these offers would be sufficient for energy production and scientific research. But it would also mean a bunch of Westerners hanging around to make sure nuclear materials don’t get stolen and sold to radical militant groups.

    2. Iran has a huge supply of oil. Why would they need nuclear energy too? It is much more expensive and complicated to develop than oil.

    Clearly, they are developing nuclear weapons. My personal opinion is that Iran is trying to close a technological gap and want to gain more respect from their neighbors by doing this. The way they are doing it is making a lot of Western nations very nervous, and nervous people make mistakes.

  • Steve The American
    13 April 2006

    Anon: “It’s Americans, who helped both to get nuclear weapon, as well as they helped Israel.”

    Wrong again. Israel built their nukes by their own. America has no access to them. In fact, Israel has fired surface to air missiles at American SR-71s overflying their nuclear sites, taking photos.

    Anon: “As about their interest to Iran, thei just need it’s resorses under their control or at least under no1’s control. And they don’t need real excuse. Any1 seen WMD in Iraq? No. And only totally mentally deranged can believ in shit about democrasy that Americans bring and respect (just remember HAMAS’s democratic victory). They only bring death and chaos to the countries they invade.”

    America doesn’t need to invade Iran to get its oil. We can just buy it on the open market. It costs more to invade and take it than to just buy it. And Iran can hardly afford to stop selling its oil. It desperately needs the cash.

    As for Hamas, we don’t support them while we do support the democratic process that brought them to power. It’s pretty arrogant and obtuse for Muslims like you to demand that America support an enemy like Hamas dedicated to opposing America. How many of your enemies do you support? Would you consider it stupid if somebody demanded that you support an enemy who wanted to kill you?

    As for only bringing death and chaos to countries we invade, you might check on Japan and Germany. They are remarkably death- and chaos-free even after our invasions. The people causing most of the death and chaos in Iraq are Iraq’s Muslim neighbors who want to stop it from having a democracy.

    Steve

  • Alfie
    13 April 2006

    Mahmood, do you really believe that Iran, afloat in oil, requires nuclear energy to power it?

    Then why did US provide Shah with nuclear reactors in the first place?

    “By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled “U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation,” which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program

  • Steve The American
    13 April 2006

    My guess is that the Shah would want them as a trophy of technological progress. I might point out that not all nuclear reactors are capable of producing nuclear weapon fuel. My guess is those sold to the Shah were not capable. The reactors built by Iran now are capable.

    I’m sure America would sell to any country any silly white elephant they wanted as long as it wasn’t dangerous.

    Steve

  • Ibn
    14 April 2006

    Hi all,

    The real beauty of logic is that it often forces those who would dare defy it into tight little corners of illogical absurdities, akin to Godel’s and Bach’s “stairwell” painting. The added bonus however is that human pride usually keeps them in those corners, creating an all too laughable moving picture…or “movie”, if you will. Today, our comedian, is Steve. Let’s find out why:

    Steve said:
    … that since I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep 11 (which I do) then I must think that their demise is a good thing (which I don’t).

    Not killing those who are responsible for Sep11?…Did..heh…did Steve just nullify the war on terror? I venture to say, the odds of Steve having a peace-sign tatooed on his forehead are just as small as King Abdullah becoming the next Spice girl.

    No, Steve has made it amply clear in previous posts, that he would absolutely delight in killing those “people-responsible-for-Sep11”, or “Muslims” for short, as he calls them.
    One such person who is geographically close to Steve would be Zacarias Moussawi. A jury recently found him “responsible for at least part of the deaths on Sep11.” Another person-responsible-for-Sep11, (aka “Muslim”) also resides quite close to Steve. Her name is Khadeeja, and she works at a Starbucks off Route-66, close to DC. She makes a delectable skim-latte. Also an accomplise to murdering 3000+ people apparently.

    You see all, now Steve is in a dilemna: He holds all Muslims responsible for Sep11, meaning he holds them all responsible for murdering 3000+ people. We also know he wants to destroy all those who are responsible for Sep11. Yet his above quote belies him altogether – he doesnt think those responsible for Sep11 need to be killed at all. This is whats known as a “contradiction”. Lets see what logical choice Steve picks to oust him from this pickle:

    1) Either he wants to destroy (or at VERY least lock up) every last accomplise to murder on Sep11 (aka “Muslims”) indiscriminantly.
    2) Or he doesnt want any harm whatsoever to become of people-responsible-for-Sep11. (aka “Muslims”). (As his statement above calls out), thereby effectively nullifying the war on terror.

    The fact that Steve is unwilling (or incapable) of differentiating between what type of Muslims do what, forces him into an all-or-nothing choice of exactly what to do to Muslims. Its as simple as if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

    —————————–

    Steve said:
    Every Muslim is responsible for the terror done in their name if they do not publicly oppose it.

    In effect, Steve’s statement says: “If you happen to believe in the same diety as someone else who just so happens to have murdered, you are responsible for his actions if you do not come out and publically speak against him, because you believe in the same diety.”

    So spoke Nick Berg’s killer.

    What we see here, is Steve effectively placing blame of a crime, effectively in the lap of another individual who also happens to share the criminal’s faith. One wonders if someone were to quickly convert to another faith, and then quickly revert back, if the charges would still hold. In the interest of consistency, and my motive here is pure, I would recommend Steve change his alias to “Steve The Confederate”, since such stances are more in tune with the collectivist and bigoted laws of the ol’ south, and not the laws of the Union, which hold that individuals are responsible for their own actions, and no one else’s.

    —————————–

    Which finally brings us back to the original points at hand: Iran nuking Muslims, (or people-responsible-for-Sep11). Unless Steve is going to redefine the word “responsible” for us, he cannot (as pointed out above) have his cake and eat it too.

    Therefore his quote of:

    its not good for people to be mass-murdered with nukes, in general, when you can possibly avoid it and in lieu of some severe provocation.

    holds no water, because you cannot “murder” people who are responsible for other murders. Since Muslims are “responsible” for Sep11, then they effectively murdered 3000+ people. Killing killers is not murder. It is called Justice. Thus, when Steve calls on “no mass murder of people responsible for Sep11”, he is really saying “No to justice”. by his OWN logic. tsk tsk. How unjust of him.

    Once again, Steve is caught in his own web of contradictions which he has sowed for himself. He holds all Muslims responsible for Sep11, he wants those caught in court like Moussawi killed, but doesnt wants others killed…it sounds like he is almost….and I repeat…ALMOST discriminating against those who DID SOMETHING and those who didnt…yet he holds them ALL responsible. Hmmm….

    —————————–

    Addendum:

    In its entirety, Steve’s schadenfreude isnt the only thing that is childish here. Steve after all, is after the effect and “umph” of sticking it to all Muslims, taking it to the point where we even find him levelling murder charges against all those in the faith, while scurrily backing down from those charges when reality is brought forth to him. (The Iran nuke issue). It is almost as if Steve The Confederate resents Muslims in general for Sep11, and every last one of them to be sure.

    He makes no distinction afterall, between the Muslim who weilded the box cutter on United 93, and the Muslim who poured my latte at Starbucks with a smile today.

    They were both murderers.

    -Ibn

  • 50%
    14 April 2006

    “Israel built their nukes by their own”

    Funniest April fools ever

  • CoPJB
    14 April 2006

    this subject reminds me of this:

    [after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]
    Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.
    Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
    Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

    from “War Games” 1983

  • CerebralWaste
    14 April 2006

    50% Do you have proof that says otherwise that Israel had help from the US? If so lay it on the table for all to see. And please let the “proof” be from a credible source. I am curious to know myself if the US helped or not for I don’t know. I wouldn’t be surprised either way.

  • Sadferret
    14 April 2006

    Heavens, nothing worse than a blonde moment clashing with a senior moment (!) but can someone remind me who said “You’re either with us or against us” and “God told me to invade Iraq”. I’m sure it must have been some crazy Muslim, I just can’t remember his name.

  • CoPJB
    14 April 2006

    read this for all the horrid things that are sick and repulsive goping on in Iran.

    http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/

    just one, of the many many examples:

    Thursday, April 13, 2006
    Islam, the cruel and Iran is the worst
    Iran : A 17 year old girl is sentenced to death by hanging.
    Faithfreedom
    2006/01/08

    Nazanin, 17, was sentenced to death by hanging for defending herself against three rapists.

    A young girl who defended herself and her chastity against three male assailants who intended to kidnap and rape her causing injury to one of them who later died in hospital was condemned to death by hanging in an Islamic court in Iran. Nazanin who has seen no more than 17 Springs, all of which under the tyrannical rule of the Mullahs is now facing execution for trying to defend herself and her honor…

  • Steve The American
    14 April 2006

    Ibn: “Not killing those who are responsible for Sep11?…Did..heh…did Steve just nullify the war on terror? I venture to say, the odds of Steve having a peace-sign tatooed on his forehead are just as small as King Abdullah becoming the next Spice girl.”

    For those who actually read my post, allow me to repeat what I said to remind those who didn’t:

    “While virtually all Muslims are to blame for Islamic terror, obviously they have different degrees of blame. Those with blood on their hands must be hunted down and killed without relent.”

    That pretty clearly spells out killing the perpetrators of Sep 11. I don’t see how you can get any other meaning out of it. I’m going to be generous and just assume that Ibn neglected to read my post before writing his response, rather than misrepresenting what I said to make his case.

    Ibn: “No, Steve has made it amply clear in previous posts, that he would absolutely delight in killing those “people-responsible-for-Sep11″, or “Muslims” for short, as he calls them.

    One such person who is geographically close to Steve would be Zacarias Moussawi. A jury recently found him “responsible for at least part of the deaths on Sep11.” Another person-responsible-for-Sep11, (aka “Muslim”) also resides quite close to Steve. Her name is Khadeeja, and she works at a Starbucks off Route-66, close to DC.”

    Again, for those who read my post, which apparently excludes Ibn, let me repeat what I actually said about the remainder of the Muslim population who do not have blood on their hands:

    “The rest of the Muslim population, though blameworthy to a lesser degree, came by their hostility through ignorance of the world and indoctrination by dishonest clerics preaching a faith built of lies. They can hardly help being stupid. The cure for that is engagment with the world, mostly through commerce.”

    Ibn, how can you get “killing all the Muslims” out of “commerce”? Again, I’m just going to assume you are sloppy in your reading rather than willfully misrepresenting me to make my case.

    Since Khadeeja is already part of that commerce and has voyaged to the Western world and has skyjacked no jumbo jets, I think she should be spared. However, if she is not actively rejecting the Muslim jihad against the world, some small part of the blame for it falls in her lap.

    However, Moussaoui has blood on his hands and must die. Today, on the witness stand, he testified that he had no regrets about his part in the Sep 11 attack, expressed disgust for those who showed grief for the loss of their loved ones in the attacks, and explained why he supported the Sep 11 attacks:

    Moussaoui’s lawyer, Gerald Zerkin, asked his client why “you hate America and Americans?”

    “This is going to be long,” Moussaoui said. He said the Koran instructs Muslims to fight against those who don’t acknowledge Islam. “So from the Islamic point of view, we have to be the superpower. We have to be above you.”

    Islam’s goal is to force the U.S. and other non-Islamic countries to “pay tribute” to avoid being invaded by Muslims, he said. “Otherwise, we invade you. Otherwise, jihad.”

    That pretty neatly explains what Islam is all about. It also justifies Moussaoui’s execution.

    Ibn, you need to more carefully read my posts before you reply. Otherwise, I’m going to start calling you Malik.

    Ibn: “It is almost as if Steve The Confederate resents Muslims in general for Sep11, and every last one of them to be sure. He makes no distinction afterall, between the Muslim who weilded the box cutter on United 93, and the Muslim who poured my latte at Starbucks with a smile today. They were both murderers.”

    Actually, I did make a distinction, as I noted above. You just didn’t get it or didn’t read it or really wanted me to say something else. So let me run you through this again. Who knows. If I repeat my position enough, maybe you’ll grasp it:

    The Muslim who cut pilot’s throats with a box-cutter is a murderer. The Muslim who celebrates that murder is a supporter of murder. The Muslim who does not reject such murder also supports it passively. These are different degrees of blame. What Muslims don’t do tells you as much about them as what they do. And what Muslims don’t do is oppose terrorism for Islam.

    Steve

  • Sadferret
    14 April 2006

    The rest of the Muslim population, though blameworthy to a lesser degree, came by their hostility through ignorance of the world and indoctrination by dishonest clerics preaching a faith built of lies.

    plus plus a kneejerk reaction to US arrogance. I wouldn’t wish to attack the Christian religion simply because of crass remarks by some dishonest Western leaders.

  • Mark Leisher
    14 April 2006

    Blaming all Muslims for September 11, 2001 is silly for one simple reason: not all Muslims condoned that criminal act. The first counterexample invalidated the theory.

    Decry the lack of Muslim voices speaking against criminal acts done in the name of Islam, but don’t blame all Muslims. Pray for the Muslim voices that will be silenced by criminal acts done in the name of Islam, but don’t blame all Muslims. Expose and denounce those that encourage criminal acts in the name of Islam, but don’t blame all Muslims. And demand justice be served on criminals acting in the name of Islam, but don’t blame all Muslims. All Muslims are not criminals.

    Islam is being used to drive what is really a simple, basic struggle by a few to gain power over many. It isn’t the first or last religion to be used this way.

  • Ashley Klein
    14 April 2006

    Steve,

    I agree with most of your comments and I am also pissed off that many Muslims (and other people) are not denouncing the acts of terrorism by either supporting them or ignoring them. That is not to say that all Muslims are to blame though, my brother just got back recently from his tour in Iraq (serving with the 3rd Infantry Division) and the Iraqis he worked with were grateful to be liberated from Saddam, the tyrant who mass-murdered his own people, invaded Kuwait and ravaged the country, and for years had the world engulfed by fear of whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi police and army are just as brave as our coalition troops in providing security and helping to rebuild Iraq and its people. I’ll never forget when my brother told me that he had found out that one of his good friends there, an Iraqi translator, was murdered by some terrorist shit-hole. Here is a man who is so honorable as to be working for the betterment of his country and he is killed, and the world stays silent, but when some cartoons are released, the Muslim community is in an uproar. Where are all these Muslims when Iraqi citizens are being blown up by suicide bombers? Oh yes, I forgot, those Iraqi citizens are either traitors for working with America or they are seen as martyrs along with the terrorist.

    Iraq has a long way to go and there will be many obstacles, but it doesn’t mean we all just give up. The world can’t just leave those people to the mercy of terrorists, nor can we allow terrorists to take control of a country, gain more power and influence, and continue their extreme religious views and carry-out more terrorist attacks. Numerous countries seem to think that being isolationists takes them off the jihad-radar of terrorism, which may work for a time, but the terrorists have already made their plans clear, kill all infidels. We can’t continue living in fear of these religious fanatics. The world must stand up to them or else they will keep on spreading terrorism.

    We must never forget 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks committed by despotic regimes, groups or individuals; we must never forget the 2,067 Iraqi people killed this year by terrorists, or all the other people killed in terrorist attacks; we must never forget that freedom isn’t free and give the coalition forces, Iraqi people, and Afghani people the support they deserve!

    “The tree of liberty has to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”-Thomas Jefferson

    In response to your post, Mahmood, about Iran’s nuclear program and the comment that “Iran is a sovereign nation and has every right to pursue peaceful nuclear programs regardless of what we think” I can only shake my head and say “Sure, and Ahmadinejad is friendly towards Jews and thinks that the Holocaust was one of the most terrible acts in modern history.” Though I don’t know if he would be that much of an idiot to actually bomb another country, he most definitely isn’t funding nuclear programs with peace in mind.

    -Ash

  • Citizen Quasar
    14 April 2006

    I’m with you all the way, Steve The American.

  • Will
    14 April 2006

    I agree with Mark “Clearly, they are developing nuclear weapons. My personal opinion is that Iran is trying to close a technological gap and want to gain more respect from their neighbors by doing this. The way they are doing it is making a lot of Western nations very nervous, and nervous people make mistakes.”

    If Irans intentions are peaceful why are they so set against UN monitoring? No one is saying they cant have nuclear power.

    I hope if it comes to a shooting war that all of the ‘peace in our time’ countries get their heads out of the sand and get on board. That said, I dont think that the US is the only country that opposes nukes in Iran.

  • Ibn
    14 April 2006

    Ahh, beautiful. I like side by side comparisons. First, Steve The Confederate said:

    “Every Muslim is responsible for the terror done in their name if they do not publicly oppose it.”

    Then he said,

    “… that since I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep 11 …(which I do)”

    Let there be no mistake of course. “Responsible”, in English means one has a direct hand in an act. In other words, Steve The Confederate is claiming that “All Muslims had a direct hand in Sep 11”, meaning, they caused it in some way, automatically meaning they had prior knowledge, etc etc, the whole nine yards. This is what responsible means. Steve of course knows this already – he knows what “responsible” means – afterall, he seems to know what more complicated words like “Islam”, and “Muslim” mean, although no, is sources arent the encyclopedia Brittanica, it is a court transcript from a raving madman.

    No matter, now let us see what ELSE Steve has said:

    While virtually all Muslims are to blame for Islamic terror, obviously they have different degrees of blame. Those with blood on their hands must be hunted down and killed without relent.

    …but he just said:

    “… that since I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep 11”

    Ahh! Ladies and gentlemen, this is what is commonly referred to as “backpeddling”, or “evading”. Is Steve going soft? From holding every last Muslim on the planet RESPONSIBLE for 3000+ murders to “actually…lets just go after the booboo Muslims…” Steve has actually managed to single handedly contradict himself…and on the same posting too!

    This is precisely what I wanted. I wanted Steve himself to be the one to go around in circular conflabulations before the contradiction eventually caught up with him, and it has. To put his generalized rantings to their death-bed, let us try, what I like to call, “The Police Test:”

    The Police Test:
    ——————-

    We will eventually all be walking away from my computers today, fresh in spirit, and confident in our wills, with the gems that Steve The Confederate has so readily given us today. As we walk down our local beulevards, the sound of Steve chanting: “…all Muslims are responsible for Sep 11…” will echo in our minds – there will be no ambiguity because we KNOW Steve has said so verbatim.

    We would thus be doing our respective societies a favour by going to our local police man, and with heavy breath, saying:

    One of us: “Officer….officer….*cough* …*cough*…..I…..I..”
    Cop: “What is it son? You ok? What is it? Is someone robbing you? A car jacking? A confederate rally? What?? ”
    One of us: “Officer..no..worse…..I …I know someone who is responsible for Sep 11th…”
    Officer: “WHAT?! oh lord! 10-4, yeah we have a situation critical…ppsshhhttt….homeland-security code R7…..so tell me…where is this person? Who is he??? Are you sure?”
    One of us: “Yes officer…I am completely sure – if you go into that starbucks, its that young lady wearing a hijab, and a green starbucks apron …green for Islam, you know, like Saudi Arabia’s flag…shes responsible for Sep 11th..”
    Officer: “But….”
    One of us: “Dude! Shes MUSLIM!! So shes responsible for Sep 11th!”

    Ohhh…how I would SO cash in my fresh out of college $1000 strong 401K plan to see the Union patriot Steve The Confederate do his duty in pointing out those responsible for Sep 11th to our local law enforement officers, and the ensueing libel and defamation of character law suits that follow!

    This is the insanity of Steve’s as of yet un-retracted statements. Holding “all responsible for murder” is quite the contrary to saying “only the violent ones should be punished”. Yet Steve has said both, and maintained both.

    Iregardless, once Steve starts to tell the police about how saw a woman with a hijab and thus she is responsible for Sep11th, I would hope to be privy to the information of his court date. It would make for great entertainment.

    ———————–
    Addendum:

    When I was a waiter in college, I would always mop up after some unfortunate child regurgitated unwanted food. His mom mustve stuffed him, and the poor child must’ve really been full of it. 😉 It is with that same sense of duty that I feel I must also mop up just a little more here:

    The Muslim who does not reject such murder also supports it passively.

    Perhaps here it would be incumbent on Steve to let us know how exactly one such Muslim could “prove” his innocence… could he fill out a form and fax it over to the DHS perhaps? Perhaps variants of the ones given to Japaneese American prisoners asking them to whom they were loyal to after they placed them in open desert camps?

    But wait! Why even prove his innocence? Arent we all innocent until proven guil….oh oh….right…its Steve the CONFEDERATE. My bad.

    What Muslims don’t do tells you as much about them as what they do

    Yes yes. But he will mention that to the cops anyway when he sees them.

    ——————-
    Thank you all! And goodnight!

    🙂

    -Ibn

  • mahmood
    14 April 2006

    While virtually all Muslims are to blame for Islamic terror, obviously they have different degrees of blame. Those with blood on their hands must be hunted down and killed without relent.

    Damn, my mission is accomplished.

    Steve sees in shades of grey now!

  • mahmood
    14 April 2006

    In response to your post, Mahmood, about Iran’s nuclear program and the comment that “Iran is a sovereign nation and has every right to pursue peaceful nuclear programs regardless of what we think” I can only shake my head and say “Sure, and Ahmadinejad is friendly towards Jews and thinks that the Holocaust was one of the most terrible acts in modern history.” Though I don’t know if he would be that much of an idiot to actually bomb another country, he most definitely isn’t funding nuclear programs with peace in mind.

    Ash, I’m glad and thankful that your brother has come back home fine, give him my thanks for helping, even if in a minute way, in setting Iraq on the path of peace and democracy.

    As to your comment above, you assume that Ahmadinejad does actually have the power to do what he preaches. He doesn’t. There is a whole council above him that pulls the strings and without which he cannot move.

    He does of course can talk though. But talk is cheap.

    My premise; however, is that any country has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. Regardless of oil wealth.

    I fully support the condition that should a country want to do so, the IAEA and other UN agencies should be fully involved in monitoring those facilities fully, without any hindrance whatsoever.

    Do I suspect that Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapon for political gain? Yes.
    Do I support them in doing so? No.

  • mahmood
    14 April 2006

    Mark, welcome aboard anew and thanks for sharing!

    Ibn, where the hell have you been hiding?

  • Ibn
    14 April 2006

    Mahmood said:

    Damn, my mission is accomplished.

    Steve sees in shades of grey now!

    And I dont even get a lousy thank you?? *sniff*. 🙂 hehe

    -Ibn

  • mahmood
    14 April 2006

    oh allll right.

    THANK YOU IBN (if I kiss your cheek they might say that I’ve got repressed homosexual tendencies, rather than just a cultural thing, so I’ll refrain if you don’t mind. :))

  • Brain Fart
    14 April 2006

    I don’t trust no stinking Persian turban. They don’t believe in mutually assured destruction. They love death more than life. At least with the Ruskies, you knew there were enough rational minds in the building. Iran is just too bi-polar to know what’s going on.

    It’s kinda like giving the “bomb” to the Mormons. A few “Praise the Lord’s”, or in this case, “Allahu Akbars”, and the world goes to hell in a handbasket.

    Nope, it’s a zero-sum game. Winner takes all. No second place. King o’ the Hill. Black and White. Good and Evil. Up, down.

    I don’t trust any county that puts a 9-year old in prison for speaking their mind. It speaks volumes about where their values are.

  • zay
    14 April 2006

    Steve I didnt waste my time reading all your long posts. If you can say all muslims are responsible for september 11th attacks, then all americans are responsible for the state terrorism of their government. Actually western state terrorism today and in the past is mostly the cause of muslims terrorism.
    Steve, brain fart and others – you are making no attempt to hide how blatently racist you are.
    As for using the evils of the Iranian government as a reason to invade the country, they did the same thing with iraq when WMDs didnt convince everyone, this is propaganda. What about the evils of the American government?
    What right has america got to invade countries because they dont like the way they are run? Or because of the weapon they are afraid these countries are going to have? Well they dont, and anyway these reasons are just excuses for their imperialism.
    How can america say iran has no right to these weapons while america can have them and use them?

  • mahmood
    14 April 2006

    Zay, I wouldn’t like Iran – in its current theopolitical makeup of government – come even close to having nuclear weapons. I don’t have a problem with them using nuclear energy under international monitoring, but having weapons? No, thanks very much.

  • CerebralWaste
    14 April 2006

    Does it not concern you ZAY that the “President’ of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel? Does that not raise a call for alarm with you Zay that a nation named Iran is openly calling for the deaths of millions of innocent people in Israel? Plus the inevitable fallout that will kill hundreds of thousands if not millions in neighboring states in the short and long term. Now why would the US or any sane nation sit by and allow this to happen? Is that what you would want. Do you subscribe to the mantra that it is only “Jews” being killed and any Muslims that happen to die as a result are “collateral damage” and will go to heaven? Set aside your wholesale hate for the evil Americans and look at the situation in a logical manner and you can only conclude that Iran can not be allowed to harness the power of the atom. At least not in the unstable state the country is in now.

    BTW Zay you should read Steve’s long postS. You might learn something.

  • CerebralWaste
    14 April 2006

    PS Happy GOOD FRIDAY and EASTER to EVERYONE!

  • MoClippa
    14 April 2006

    Mahmood, great post, hehe funny. I agree with you about a lot of it but there are some discrepencies. True the relationship between the U.S. and Iran has been shaky since the 1920’s but was drastically different then it is today. The U.S. replaced Russia and Britan post WWII as semi-colonial powers. They were trying to secure it as
    1. a regional watchdog
    2. Russias watchdog (during the cold war, there are some parts of Iran that directly overlooked Russian military opperations) It wasn’t a proxy war territory but was used in a politically similar way as the U.S. was trying to increase its foothold, oversee Russian opperations and stop a potential spread of communisim regionally
    With parts of the administration atleast (the most articulate and capable parts) its policy decisions had a tremendous say. Currently the most articulate parts are in direct opposition to Anything the U.S. wants that does not agree with their agenda, its not a matter of consensus but rather male posturing.

    I discussed this with someone who his put perspectives on the situation nicely (from a non-political perspective)… “not in my backyard”
    What he meant was aside from the political concerns of potential war (soverignty aside), he didn’t want to have cheranoble-like incidents happening close by because of Iran’s inexperience, its lack of will for international support and regulation and the shady technologies they are using.

    From a political standpoint as far as I’m concerned, its horrifying to imagine two meglomaniacs with possesions of nuclear capability having a pissing contest all over the region.

  • MoClippa
    14 April 2006

    Just read through some posts, Cerebralwaste I understand Ahmedinejad (sp?) has declared the destruction of Israel on his agenda but historically Iran’s stance with Israel has been a lot different, and actions must always speak louder then words. They DO NOT share the same grievences with the Israeli state as Hamas, the Lebanese state, or Saudi Arabia for that matter. This dialogue coming from its president calling for the destruction of the Israeli state is, I believe, an attempt to garner regional support from muslim states (or the peoples of local sunni muslim states) which have issues directly implicit in the Israeli Palestinian issue. This is not to say that the people want the massacre of millions of jews to be undertaken, but rather a lot of them may be akin to wanting a power as significant as Iran to be in their barganing deck of cards, because up untill now its been a relatively one sided dialogue (for example I think the best solutions the the Israeli-Palestinian issue are only going to occur if there is a significant shift in Israeli public attitude to it, if that does not occur there is going to continue to be a regional deadlock, because Arab states are simply incapable or unwilling to add leverage to discussions.

    Its all dirty politics on both ends, even dirty poltics in the subconsious of people, its sad that to get support you have to resolve to hate mongering but its a sad fact that is applicable to political institutions all over the world!

  • Steve The American
    14 April 2006

    Mahmood: “Damn, my mission is accomplished. Steve sees in shades of grey now!”

    Mahmood, that’s what I’ve been saying all along but if you want to take credit for it, I’m happy to let ya. Hey, it’s Friday. Time to close this week down and get to the weekend.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    14 April 2006

    Mark Leisher: “Blaming all Muslims for September 11, 2001 is silly for one simple reason: not all Muslims condoned that criminal act.”

    Mark, you have a terrible education lying in front of you. I suspect that you have taking what few Muslim objections to Sep 11 at face value and reading into them what you would prefer. You need to read them more closely and understand how they use ambiguity to say one thing to their non-Muslim audience that is understood differently by the Muslim audience. Once you start peeling back the Muslim onion, you will find that the moderates are not so moderate at all. And most Muslims will make a token objection to Sep 11 only to follow it with a big BUT where they justify it. Here is the bottom line: Most Muslims support Sep 11.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    14 April 2006

    Zay: “Steve I didnt waste my time reading all your long posts. If you can say all muslims are responsible for september 11th attacks, then all americans are responsible for the state terrorism of their government. Actually western state terrorism today and in the past is mostly the cause of muslims terrorism.”

    If you don’t read my posts, it’s likely your response to them won’t make much sense, huh?

    Yes, Americans are responsible for what our government does because we vote for the leadership. Calling our defense against Muslim terrorists “state terrorism” is a weak attempt at moral equivalency which rings false.

    Zay: “Steve, brain fart and others – you are making no attempt to hide how blatently racist you are.
    As for using the evils of the Iranian government as a reason to invade the country, they did the same thing with iraq when WMDs didnt convince everyone, this is propaganda. What about the evils of the American government?”

    Ah yes, the bogus charge of racism. You Arab radicals are very fond of that, aren’t you? It’s so much easier than reading the posts or finding the facts or making an intelligent argument. Yawn.

    Nobody is talking about invading Iran, just taking out their nuke bombmaking infrastructure. That’s the disadvantage of not reading people’s posts, Zay. Your rebuttals will not make sense.

    And by the way, we did find WMDs in Iraq. Dozens, not the thousands we expected. And we found the covert labs to make them and the plans to use them in terrorist attacks.

    Zay: “What right has america got to invade countries because they dont like the way they are run? Or because of the weapon they are afraid these countries are going to have? Well they dont, and anyway these reasons are just excuses for their imperialism.”

    America has the right to self-defense against any country that means to do it harm. You are hanging imperialism on the wrong party. This is all about Iran wanting to dominate its region, imperialism in other words. It is also about Muslim religious imperialism through violence. The President of Iran thinks starting a nuclear war will hasten the return of the hidden imam so that Shia Muslims will rule the world. In short, he thinks nukes will bring on an Iranian Shia empire.

    Zay: “How can america say iran has no right to these weapons while america can have them and use them?

    Just like this: Iran has no right to nukes because it seeks to start a religious war with them. America has the right to nukes because it is responsible with them. Iran has no right to nukes because it will be completely irresponsible with them. American nukes will likely not be used because sane men control them. Iranian nukes will be used because religious nuts control them. America is not going to drop a nuke on an Iranian city but Iran is likely to smuggle a nuke into an American city. That can never be allowed to happen.

    Steve

  • Ibn
    14 April 2006

    Zay Zay Zay…

    …I disagree with you on a MULTITUDE of issues here – America is going to defend itself from Iran, (one reason being to secure its oil interests as Steve The Confederate would like us to believe as mentioned earlier). …

    But the point I would like to make is here is on a grander scheme:

    Although Steve’s posts are long, I would invite you to read them fully in fact. You see, it is pretty easy to see the myriad contradictions in them, and point them out as I have taken the time to do so, only to have him…ignore the issue altogether. 🙂 If you notice, he has not responded to the criticisms of his stances I have levelled on him, and I would not be surprised if he doesnt. He’s cornered. The trick is to continue to ask him to answer up, otherwise you will get lost in this issue, and that issue. He’s just being evasive.

    But I cant blame him really… Evasion works wonders in the animal kingdom.

    -Ibn

  • Steve The American
    14 April 2006

    Ibn,

    I haven’t answered your last post because it’s the same flawed argument over again which I have already answered. You seem to be willfully misinterpreting my post to make your case.

    Let me go through this again. Virtually all Muslims are are responsible for Sep 11 because virtually none of them actively oppose it. There are varying degrees of responsibility from individual Muslims, ranging from those who directly participated to those who helped to those who publicly sympathize with it to those who privately sympathize with it to those who don’t sympathize but say nothing. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. You are part of the problem if you support Islamic terror through action or inaction. You are part of the solution if you actively and publicly reject terror in the name of your religion. There are few Muslims who are part of the solution.

    Ibn’s wrongheaded misinterpretation relies on a strained definition of “responsible”:

    Ibn: “Let there be no mistake of course. “Responsible”, in English means one has a direct hand in an act. In other words, Steve The Confederate is claiming that “All Muslims had a direct hand in Sep 11″, meaning, they caused it in some way, automatically meaning they had prior knowledge, etc etc, the whole nine yards. This is what responsible means.”

    Of course, you can be responsible for something if you have a direct hand in it. You can be responsible if you have no direct hand in it, but let it happen. You can be morally responsible for something if you had nothing to do with it, but support it, actively or passively. Ibn’s argument only works if you grant him his own dictionary with only his definitions.

    Ibn, you might try responding to what I actually post instead of trying to reshape it into a scarecrow you can beat up on.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    14 April 2006

    Steve: that’s what I’ve been saying all along

    Hardly Steve. If you look back at hundreds of your comments you will find that you were saying the complete opposite. You were always generalising that punishment should be meted equally to all Muslims and Islam – and saying to the effect that – you will not rest or be happy until that comes to pass.

    I don’t want to take credit for anything, but am gratified to find a seismic shift in your position; that to me is enough, as this site might have been the vehicle for that change, and I am glad.

    You are a decent human being Steve, I do regard you as a friend, however obtuse your stances are, you are more of a friend now as I realise that you can recognise fault and correct it, even if marginally!

  • Citizen Quasar
    14 April 2006

    Zay: “How can america say iran has no right to these weapons while america can have them and use them?

    Iran is nothing but a terror sponsoring state. No one may claim a right to enslave or terrorize. For that matter, if you are going to speak of “rights,” then define what you mean by a “right.” Islam is the ideology that fuels Iran’s terror.

    I am NOT a faithist. Faith kills. Faith is the basis for all religions.

    I put up with enough Christian kooks here in OKC. I also have to be (even more) wary of hordes of self-flagellating Muslims who seek death for everyone and can dish it out but cannot take it. These are such pathetic and dangerous sub-humans. All they do is terrorize and enslave and all in the name of “Allah” which, as best I can tell, does not even exist. They cannot even accept their women as part of their society.

    That narrows it down to Muslim men. Yet Muslim men, as a general rule, are not man enough to stand up and accept responsibility for their faith. Instead, they want to blame their hatred of the good for being the good on the United States of America…the only beacon of hope for humanity in this world.

    There is no reasoning with ANY religion, especially the backwards and cowardly Islam. There is no reasoning with the psychopaths in Iran. The day will come when military action is necessary. And I for one don’t care if the entire Middle East is turned to glass because Islam needs to go away at all costs in order for humanity to survive.

  • mahmood
    14 April 2006

    Citizen Quasar: There is no reasoning with ANY religion, especially the backwards and cowardly Islam. There is no reasoning with the psychopaths in Iran. The day will come when military action is necessary. And I for one don’t care if the entire Middle East is turned to glass because Islam needs to go away at all costs in order for humanity to survive.

    Switch that TV off CQ and go out get some fresh air. Get off the internet if you have to, because you seriously need some reality check.

    There is no way even the mighty US of A can make Islam go away, not now, not ever, regardless of whatever weapon declared or secret is used to attempt to “wipe out” not only the more than 1.2 BILLION human beings who take Islam as their chosen religion, but probably double that number that will sympathise with them.

    The US (and to a much lesser extent, you) need to realise that you need to work with Islam and Muslims to reach an equilibrium and common ground, rather than spend the infinite amount of money and people’s lives in order to eradicate it.

    We DO have problems. Huge ones. But surmountable if one would put their mind to it. Let’s start with friendship and stop the talk of annihilation to start with shall we?

  • billT
    14 April 2006

    Anon: “It’s Americans, who helped both to get nuclear weapon, as well as they helped Israel.”

    The British supplied the heavy water.

    The French built the plant at Dimona in 1958 with 3 times the cooling capacity needed. They also built a chemical processing plant at the site during the same time. The contract for the plant was signed in 1957 before the Suez war. Its also interesting that both Britain and France were supposed to fight with Israel but renigged on their part in their plot to get the canal back from Egypt.

    Can you spell bribe anon 🙂

  • Steve The American
    14 April 2006

    Mahmood: “Hardly Steve. If you look back at hundreds of your comments you will find that you were saying the complete opposite. You were always generalising that punishment should be meted equally to all Muslims and Islam – and saying to the effect that – you will not rest or be happy until that comes to pass.”

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I’ve never believed that all Muslims should be done away with, though Malik kept distorting my positions to “nuke all the Muslims.” I believe that where I have changed my mind is where the centers of radical gravity are located. The more I’ve learned about Islam, the more I’ve become convinced that it is an essentially warlike and evil doctrine. At the same time, I’ve come to realize that most Muslims have been taught a sugar-coated version of Islam that does not match the Koran, or history or reality. They haven’t been taught the radical parts and are blindsided by quoting such violent verses.

    Steve

  • billT
    14 April 2006

    Mahmood: “The US (and to a much lesser extent, you) need to realise that you need to work with Islam and Muslims to reach an equilibrium and common ground, rather than spend the infinite amount of money and people’s lives in order to eradicate it.”

    Such a simple statement that would have a great impact if implemented. Unfortunately there is no trust left between the two sides and without trust its hard to live togeather.

  • Ibn
    14 April 2006

    Mahmood,

    If a Muslim terrorist starting posting apocalyptic and blood-filled rants on “Death to America” on here, I trust neither you or I or anyone else with a sane head on their shoulders would really BOTHER saying anything, since he is obviously a loon. Most probably we would roll our eyes, chuckle, and pass him off as a madman. When someone comes out for mass-murder, frothing at the mouth, he is not really going to be conducive for reason and logic.

    In the same vain, when we hear such blood-apathetic rants from Citizen Quazar, no need to bother. He isnt making any points, that would be even WORTH debunking. Turning a blind eye to mass murder by both CQ and our hypothetical Muslim terrorist poster automatically puts them into a different bin. You cant reason with them, but you can take the opportunity to chuckle at them a bit, raise some eyebrows, and hope that the both of them find themselves on an episode of “survivor” gone wrong.

    ———————————–

    Some unfinished business we have however is burying Steve’s insane logic, whose latest mutation has centered on what the definition of “responsible” is.

    To all,

    Definitions are important. The make or break phrases, stances, and ideologies. Without definitions, we would all be talking in very neboulous terms, without ever coming to conclusions about anything – sort of like communication in a dream state.

    Steve has said:
    Ibn’s argument only works if you grant him his own dictionary with only his definitions.

    He has said this because I have indirectly asked him to answer for his statement:

    “I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep11”.

    Let’s see what “my dictionary” definition of responsible is:

    “My” dictionary by the way, is the:
    “American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, 2000:”
    …Maybe Steve The Confederate’s Confederate Dictionary 4th Edition has different meanings…anyway – Lets open up the American one:

    SYLLABICATION: re·spon·si·ble
    PRONUNCIATION: r-spns-bl

    1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one’s actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.

    (So by Steve’s statement – the one he has NOT retracted yet, he is saying:
    “I hold every Muslim liable to be required to give account for Sep 11”) (Implying all Muslims had prior knowledge of the attack).

    2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority:

    (So by Steve again, he means to say: “I hold every Muslim personally accountable for the murder of 3000 people”)

    3. Being a source or cause.

    (heh..wow: So “I hold every Muslim on the planet as being a source or CAUSE for Sep 11” (!) ) (ROFL) (i.e. Every Muslim caused Sep11)

    4. Able to make moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behavior.

    (Which becomes: “Every Muslim can make moral or rational decisions on one’s own, and therefore is answerable for their behaviour, (their behaviour in this case, causing Sep 11th to happen))

    5. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.

    (Not relevant)

    6 and 7 are also irrelevant, as they pertain to journalism and finance, but number 8 is very relevant:

    8. Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.
    (So this becomes: “Every Muslim is required to render account, and is ANSWERABLE, for the actions taken by other Muslims on Sep 11th”) (!)
    (So Starbucks Khadeeja is ANSWERABLE for Bin Laden!)

    And finally, (and here’s the kicker), “Responsible” as an adjective, and its synonyms:

    SYNONYMS:

    responsible
    answerable
    liable
    accountable
    amenable

    “These adjectives share the meaning obliged to answer, as for one’s actions, to an authority that may impose a penalty for failure. ” (bold mine – extra emphasis on “one’s actions”).

    Whew! So! Essentially, Steve has levelled the (as of yet, UNRETRACTED charge) that EVERY Muslim on the planet – those in 7-11s, those that are doctors in the ER, in fact, even those in the Armed forces, are, yes, in fact,

    responsible,
    answerable,
    liable,
    and accountable,

    for-the-actions-of-flying-planes-into-the-WTC and killing 3000+ people on Sep 11th.

    ———————–

    Addendum:

    As outlined earlier, Steve said:
    Ibn’s argument only works if you grant him his own dictionary with only his definitions.

    Therefore by Steve’s OWN admittance, my argument WORKS, if you “grant me my own dictionary, with my own definitions”. Heh. Well in that case splendid! 🙂 As you all saw, my dictionary was the
    “American Heritage Dictionary (R)of the English Language, Fourth Edition”, and “my” definitions were the words outlined just prior.

    Thus, Steve no longer has an argument with me. His opponent now is the English Language. (Tag team!) Therefore by Steve’s OWN admittance, he is wrong, unless you trump the English language. It is a shame I have a policy of not communicating directly with this individual, since I wanted to congragulate him on swallowing his own tongue. Alas, I cannot. I can merely stand at the altar of logic and laugh as she has made yet another man a fool of himself using nothing more than his own arrogant pride.

    And so, Steve now is in a corner – an illogical paradoxum equivalent of a pigeonhole if you will. It is only later that he has tried to wiggle out of it however, with earth-shattering shifts of positions such as : “Well, the Muslims with blood on their hands, X, and ones who do commerce, Y, etc”. They are in direct contradiction with his original, (and many times re-itterated stance) of “All Muslims are responsible for Sep11”.

    In essense,
    While virtually all Muslims are to blame for Islamic terror, obviously they have different degrees of blame. Those with blood on their hands must be hunted down and killed without relent.

    (which he made much later, under much pressure) flat out contradicts his many times repeated:

    …since I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep 11 (which I do)

    in light of the definitions and meanings outlined above. I might also add one thing: Not only does he fail in light of this post, but his stance STILL fails the “Police Test” I have given him, where we all collectively wonder why Steve isnt cutting off police cruisers on highways and telling them he knows many more people “responsible for Sep11th”. (Scroll up to my last post).

    Keep in mind people, Steve has only LATER attempted to add varying degrees of grayness into this issue of “responsibility”. But his original statement, is not a gray issue. It is absolute. He cannot have it both ways.
    Will Steve The Confederate come clean? Will he pick up the testicular fortitude of great men before him and admit he made a silly innocent mistake in the heat of bashing all Muslims? We shall see!

    And with that ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. 🙂

    Thank you!

    -Ibn

  • Steve The American
    14 April 2006

    Ibn/Son of Malik,

    I have already stated my argument and you bring nothing new to it. I leave it to the readers to decide if what I said is what I said or if what you say is what I’m saying.

    As for this logical box you seem to think I’m in, I think it resides only in your head and its full of squirrels.

    Steve

  • Will
    14 April 2006

    So anyway… is there anyone in here defending Irans right to have an unmonitored nuclear program of any type?

  • Ibn
    14 April 2006

    I have already stated my argument and you bring nothing new to it.

    Steve is wondering what to do. He cannot understand how it is that once he has made an argument, he has to do anything else.

    The answer to “you bring nothing new to it”, is a simple:
    “What is Steve’s response to what Ibn has brought up to him?”

    Past posts are ABOUND with questions and statements – would Steve the Confederate be so inclined as to face them?

    -Ibn

  • Ibn
    14 April 2006

    Will said:

    So anyway… is there anyone in here defending Irans right to have an unmonitored nuclear program of any type?

    Well Will, maybe, maybe not. I do not, thats for sure. I do not trust the regime, but if its monitored, I have no problem with it. A more interesting question however was the question as to “why should Iran not have the right to develop nuclear weapons” and this was raised earlier, to which Steve The Confederate said:

    Defending an ally like Israel is a minor reason. You might also consider that if Iran nuked Israel without any repercussions, what would stop it from nuking its Arab neighbors? Good will?

    However Steve also continues to stand by another prior statement:

    I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep11

    Thus he has effectively lobbed all Muslims into the same lot as Zacarias Moussawi, who no one complains will probably get killed for his responsibility for Sep 11. But is Zacarias who is responsible for Sep 11 is getting killed with no tears, then why should we shed tears if Iran does nuke millions of Muslims who according to Steve are also responsible for Sep 11? It would seem that it wouldnt be such a bad idea! Meaning Iran probably SHOULD get the bomb!

    In light of this innocent contradiction however, Steve has not retracted his earlier statement of “All Muslims are responsible for Sep11”, but he is now squeeling pretty loudly that no no, Muslims should not be nuked, and commerse opened up with them instead…even though they are all responsible.

    -Ibn

  • Laura(southernxyl)
    15 April 2006

    “There is no way even the mighty US of A can make Islam go away, not now, not ever, regardless of whatever weapon declared or secret is used to attempt to “wipe out” not only the more than 1.2 BILLION human beings who take Islam as their chosen religion, but probably double that number that will sympathise with them.

    “The US (and to a much lesser extent, you) need to realise that you need to work with Islam and Muslims to reach an equilibrium and common ground, rather than spend the infinite amount of money and people’s lives in order to eradicate it.”

    Mahmood, I hope you realize that despite the rhetoric you are responding to here, the US does not want to make Islam go away, now or ever, does not want to wipe out 1.2 billion humans (we could have nuked the entire ME long ago if we wanted to) and that we know we have to share the planet. If you can get past your personal dislike of the man, please glance over these remarks by Pres. Bush that are on the official White House website.

  • Mark Leisher
    15 April 2006

    “Steve: Mark, you have a terrible education lying in front of you. I suspect that you have taking what few Muslim objections to Sep 11 at face value and reading into them what you would prefer. You need to read them more closely and understand how they use ambiguity to say one thing to their non-Muslim audience that is understood differently by the Muslim audience. Once you start peeling back the Muslim onion, you will find that the moderates are not so moderate at all. And most Muslims will make a token objection to Sep 11 only to follow it with a big BUT where they justify it. Here is the bottom line: Most Muslims support Sep 11.”

    Steve, my father has told me the same thing several times. Almost word for word at times. Except he was talking about the Koreans and Japanese. The Korean War left it’s mark on him. It took over 40 years before he changed his mind. I suspect the same will be true of you.

    I’m no apologist for crimes committed in the name of Islam, I’m not a fan of the way Islam is taught or practiced in general, and I’m no “I Hate America” Liberal. I have some Arabic and Persian, and anyone I talk with about Middle Eastern politics gets pointed to http://www.memri.org, so I am very aware of the difference between what is said inside and outside the mosque. And yes, I read Spencer, Pipes, and Johnson among others. I even agree with them more often than I would like.

    The major difference between you and me appears to be that I seem to know a lot more Muslims than you do. There is an old saying that goes something like “10 s, 11 opinions.” You’ll find that is as true of Muslims as it is of any other religion.

  • Mark Leisher
    15 April 2006

    The old saying I referred to is “10 <insert religion here>s, 11 opinions.”

  • mahmood
    15 April 2006

    Laura I have absolutely nothing against the man, what I do have a problem with is his blanket statement which I addressed.

  • Anonymous
    15 April 2006

    Hey guys.. read this article that just came out in IHT:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/14/news/bahrain.php

  • mahmood
    15 April 2006

    Steve: I leave it to the readers to decide if what I said is what I said or if what you say is what I’m saying.

    So to put this issue to bed Steve, unambiguously answer the following question with a simple Yes or No:

    Do you hold all Muslims responsible for the 9/11 atrocities?

  • sleepyinsaudi
    15 April 2006

    I’m frightened. Nuclear fallout does not respect borders. It will be neighbor against neighbor. No one will escape suspicion or blame. This will only serve to divide nations further within themselves. Mahmood, do you have a cellar my family can hide in?

  • mahmood
    15 April 2006

    Not at the moment, but I guess I have to save enough to build one!

  • jasra jedi
    15 April 2006

    What a post! Mahmood, we have war between Ibn and Steve! Although, I think that Ibn is winning. And Steve, not sure it is fair to call Ibn the son of Malik, Ibn is much more logical and systematic in his thinking.

    The thing is, I am not sure why everyone is up in arms against Ahmednijad. I dont think the Iranians are saying ANYTHING different now than they have in the past 30 odd years. Be it the Great Satan of the US or the Great Infidel the Zionest or the Great Peasants the Arabs. I think the drums of war are beating, and my gut tells me that Israel will determine what happens, if anything, in Iran.

    And, the response to Iran will be dictated by the strategic positioning of Oil flows. As well as what is happeneing in Iraq. So, watch this space methinks.

    And worse case scenario, the Japanese got their act together after Hiroshima/ Nagazaki and the Marshall Plan. Ditto for Germany. And are both very respectful and decent economies today. Whose to say that something cannot be beneffited from war? Maybe it will give Saudi Arabia the exact shake up that it needs. (Devil’s advocate point)

  • mahmood
    15 April 2006

    I know! Very enlightening though isn’t it? I agree that Ibn is no Malik, the logic and the way with words is totally different.

  • Anonymous
    15 April 2006

    As for only bringing death and chaos to countries we invade, you might check on Japan and Germany. They are remarkably death- and chaos-free even after our invasions. The people causing most of the death and chaos in Iraq are Iraq’s Muslim neighbors who want to stop it from having a democracy.
    Germany was captured not by USA. USA played only a minor role in WW2 in Europe. Germany was beaten by USSR. Need i remind u who captured Berlin? You covards only got into fighting in Europe after it was sure that Hitler’d been loosing, and you feared that Communists will take the Germany. And even after division of Germany Europe played important part in rebuilding of Germany. It has nothing to do with care about democracy.

    as for Japan, it made a success, but due to people of Japan (it’s even called “Japanese Miracle”). But America only cared for it’s interests, not for people of Japan.

    Anyway it all happenned long ago. Now we have Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We all very well see how u care about human rights and democracy. We all remember Guantanamo Bay, Abu-Ghraib, those secret prisons in Europe – no need to go further.

    US is a country which made hypocrisy its lifistyle in politics. When they wanna base in Middle Asia (close to China, Iran and Russia – all try to play their own game in the world), they invade Afghanistan and for many years hunt for Bin Laden (ex-CIA agent, and one of the investors in the first company of Bush jr.). results? Production of heroin in Afghanistan rose 5 times since American invasion (why not sell some shit knowing that it will not go to US). Democrasy? Human rights? Become any better? No.

    Iraq had huge oil reserves which were not under US control and absolutely no WMD of any kind – that’s only why americans dared to invade. You all know what happened and how democratic Iraq now.

    Iran has huge oil reserves…. Time to build democrasy there. Or may be Venesuella first (their president does not seem to like US, and there are lots of good oil). I guess Iran is better, cause they can obtain Nuke. And the modern history of Iraq and North Korea teaches us that only having a good nuke in posession can guarantee your independance. Iraq did not have WMD – bad luck, Saddam, u r looser.
    Recently US wanted to build democracy in North Corea (for second time in the century), but those guys managed to have a descent Nuke. So, “fuck off” they told to America, and it did fuck off. Media now seem to have forgotten about Korean dictatorship regime, as well as your politically correct monkey-minister and mentally-deranged president.
    But what about Democrasy and Human Rights, Steeve? Can a weak Nuke change America’s principles? Or is it lack of natural resourses in Korea? Anyway, how people in The Most Advanced Democracy in the World can sleep, eat, copulate knowing that in North Korea people’s rights are abused 65 times per minute? How can u tolerate such an undemocratic country? The answer is FEAR, because Korea has WMD.
    All the world understood the lesson. That’s why it’s only natural that Iran also wants its own WMD (I personally do not like it, but I can understand). But it’s not Iran, it’s America we should blame for making a world such a dangerous place to live, where only nuclear bomb can guarantee at least some of your rights.

    P.S. And i’m not a muslim, I’m a christian.

  • Anon Counsel
    15 April 2006

    Steve, I support many things you said in your post, however I believe that your conclusion from one of your generalisations is a little absurd.

    You say that:

    “Virtually all Muslims are are responsible for Sep 11 because virtually none of them actively oppose it.”

    Firstly, I deplore the what the terrorists did on that day, and believe that there is no justification to take innocent lives. None whatsover. I am sure, that if asked, the vast majority of the world (be it Muslims or whatever) would also deplore that act.

    However, I am confused by what you mean by “actively opposing” such attacks.

    What does “actively opposing” it mean anyway? Does every person have to write an opinion piece or go on Fox News and condemn it? Do we all have to go outside and protest against the bombings? Do we have to create vigilante groups and go and hunt downt the terrorists ourselves?

    Does that also mean that all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews who did not “actively oppose it” also bear responsibility for Sep 11?

  • Anon Counsel
    15 April 2006

    Ibn said:

    “And I dont even get a lousy thank you?? *sniff*. hehe

    -Ibn”

    Seriously…..

    I thought the purpose of this is to discuss ideas and issues. Not just try to belittle eachother in the hope of receiving praise from fellow writers. “Look at me I’m winning”

    IBN, Some of your tactics of debating are straight from the “O’Reilly Report”. Very flawed and self serving.

    P.S
    I am a Persian who doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I also am really sick and tired of the tribalism that we are seeing around the world. This “with us or against us attitude”.

    West v. East
    Christian v. Muslim
    Americans v. Arabs
    Shia v. Sunni

    Lets leave tribalism to sports where it really belongs.

  • billT
    15 April 2006

    Anon:“Germany was captured not by USA. USA played only a minor role in WW2 in Europe. Germany was beaten by USSR. Need i remind u who captured Berlin? You covards only got into fighting in Europe after it was sure that Hitler’d been loosing, and you feared that Communists will take the Germany. And even after division of Germany Europe played important part in rebuilding of Germany. It has nothing to do with care about democracy.”

    We could have captured Berlin first easily. Most of the remaining German troops were on the east side of Berlin fighting the Russians who by the way were raping thousands of women and children and killing German civilians. Eisenhower made a decision not to take it in order to make sure we didnt end up fighting the Russians.

    Heres a partial list of what we supplied the Russians all verifiable if you want to look around the internet.

    Aircraft………………………..14,795
    Tanks……………………………7,056
    Jeeps…………………………..51,503
    Trucks…………………………375,883
    Motorcycles……………………..35,170
    Tractors…………………………8,071
    Guns…………………………….8,218
    Machine guns……………………131,633
    Explosives……………………..345,735 tons
    Building equipment valued…….$10,910,000
    Railroad freight cars…………….11,155
    Locomotives………………………1,981
    Cargo ships…………………………90
    Submarine hunters…………………..105
    Torpedo boats………………………197
    Ship engines……………………..7,784
    Food supplies…………………4,478,000 tons
    Machines and equipment…….$1,078,965,000
    Noniron metals………………….802,000 tons
    Petroleum products…………….2,670,000 tons
    Chemicals………………………842,000 tons
    Cotton……………………..106,893,000 tons
    Leather…………………………49,860 tons
    Tires………………………..3,786,000
    Army boots…………………..15,417,000 pairs

    Seems like we did quite a bit to help the Russians. I will say that we let them down by not opening a second front sooner.

    Anon:“as well as your politically correct monkey-minister and mentally-deranged president.”

    Little racist there with the monkey-minister remark. Sounds like you need to quit shaving your head and stick it in an oven instead.

  • Anonymous
    16 April 2006

    Hello Anon Counsel,

    I thought the purpose of this is to discuss ideas and issues. Not just try to belittle eachother in the hope of receiving praise from fellow writers. “Look at me I’m winning”

    Well yes, you are right in stating that the purpose of “this” is to discuss ideas and issues. As far as the “look im winning”, well thats a strawman. Mahmood was happy that Steve “finally sees shades of gray”. This was due to me debating him. As a result, I do not shy for taking credit where my credit is due, just as I do not shy for accepting liability for my errors, or giving someone else credit for something they have done.

    IBN, Some of your tactics of debating are straight from the “O’Reilly Report”. Very flawed and self serving.

    Bah! Come now! 🙂 If you have an issue with my style of debate…. then what is it? I invite you to tell me what exactly you take issue with – I will be glad to discuss.

    So far, I have merely taken Steve’s words to their logical conclusion, fed them back to him, and watched a winced look on his face form, akin to him sucking straight out of a salty lemon. I would much rather him make counter points to mine, but some people are into self-torture.

    Speaking of giving credit, you raise a good point when you state:

    What does “actively opposing” it mean anyway? Does every person have to write an opinion piece or go on Fox News and condemn it? Do we all have to go outside and protest against the bombings? Do we have to create vigilante groups and go and hunt downt the terrorists ourselves?

    I actually raised the same point to Steve in an earlier post. In fact I recommended that he write up a form on MS Word, which the department of homeland security can then distribute to all Muslims, asking them to write a 500 word essay (in Times New Roman font), declaring why they oppose terrorism. Nevermind that terrorism is a military tactic, but nonetheless. I also suggested that Steve might use the forms the US government gave to the immorally detained Japaneese Americans in WWII as a template, in case he couldnt think of a nice outline for the “Muslim-Loyalty” form.

    -Ibn

  • Ibn
    16 April 2006

    (Sorry, top is me, Ibn)

    Hello Anon Counsel,

    I thought the purpose of this is to discuss ideas and issues. Not just try to belittle eachother in the hope of receiving praise from fellow writers. “Look at me I’m winning”

    Well yes, you are right in stating that the purpose of “this” is to discuss ideas and issues. As far as the “look im winning”, well thats a strawman. Mahmood was happy that Steve “finally sees shades of gray”. This was due to me debating him. As a result, I do not shy for taking credit where my credit is due, just as I do not shy for accepting liability for my errors, or giving someone else credit for something they have done.

    IBN, Some of your tactics of debating are straight from the “O’Reilly Report”. Very flawed and self serving.

    Bah! Come now! 🙂 If you have an issue with my style of debate…. then what is it? I invite you to tell me what exactly you take issue with – I will be glad to discuss.

    So far, I have merely taken Steve’s words to their logical conclusion, fed them back to him, and watched a winced look on his face form, akin to him sucking straight out of a salty lemon. I would much rather him make counter points to mine, but some people are into self-torture.

    Speaking of giving credit, you raise a good point when you state:

    What does “actively opposing” it mean anyway? Does every person have to write an opinion piece or go on Fox News and condemn it? Do we all have to go outside and protest against the bombings? Do we have to create vigilante groups and go and hunt downt the terrorists ourselves?

    I actually raised the same point to Steve in an earlier post. In fact I recommended that he write up a form on MS Word, which the department of homeland security can then distribute to all Muslims, asking them to write a 500 word essay (in Times New Roman font), declaring why they oppose terrorism. Nevermind that terrorism is a military tactic, but nonetheless. I also suggested that Steve might use the forms the US government gave to the immorally detained Japaneese Americans in WWII as a template, in case he couldnt think of a nice outline for the “Muslim-Loyalty” form.

    -Ibn

  • Anonymous
    16 April 2006

    I’m glad, BilliT, that you didn’t find to say anything ’bout Human Rights violations in NC. Glad u admit that US’ve been screwed up by fear of a probably-non-existent-Corean-Nuke.

    As for american supplies to USSR it’s drop in the sea. Compare that with what USSR spent on this war. ANd of course it’s people who win the war not 15 million of boots. And USSR paid about 20000000 (5 or 6 times Holocaust) lives to save the world from nazies. I don’t like Communists but they saved the world from Hitler, and then helped Americans finish Japan.

    And I also tell u, I don’t care about political correctness which smells hypocricy. I call black black and white white. It’s objective reality. If your Foreign minister looks like monkey (just compare couple of fotos) why can’t I tell it, even if she’s black the fact you’re afraid even to think of? As for IQ of a man you chose to be your leader – try search Google using “failure” – don’t miss the first result. Also u can find many interesting things ’bout Bush mental level in http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm http://www.bushnews.com/bushiq.htm and so on.

    Sounds like you need to quit shaving your head and stick it in an oven instead
    LOL. Where’s your tolerance towards MY RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH? U seem to have lost it. What a good example you – a citizen of The-Most-Democratic-Country-In-The-World – show to us all. Shame on you. Show you tolerance and political correctness.

  • mahmood
    16 April 2006

    Anon of April 16th, 2006 at 3:59 pm: Calm down please, and refrain from being too insulting or go into personal attacks. The discussion so far has been constructive and courteous and I would like to keep it like that without resorting to deleting comments or banning people.

  • CerebralWaste
    16 April 2006

    Mahmood,

    This comment:

    “If your Foreign minister looks like monkey (just compare couple of fotos) why can’t I tell it, even if she’s black the fact you’re afraid even to think of?”

    Smacks of not only insult but of racism. Comparing someone to a monkey based on the color of ones skin is hate speech in my book. If someone wants to disagree with US foreign policy that is fair and debateble this comment does neither. Thanks for nipping this shit in the bud.

  • Steve The American
    16 April 2006

    Mahmood: “So to put this issue to bed Steve, unambiguously answer the following question with a simple Yes or No: Do you hold all Muslims responsible for the 9/11 atrocities?”

    No. There are some Muslims who oppose Islam terror publicly. So in strict terms I do not hold every single Muslim responsible. I can not hold Irshad Manji, a Muslim, responsible for the Sep 11 attacks when she strongly condemns them and the conditions that led to them. However, the number of these Muslims is so small as to be negligible. It might as well be all Muslims for practical purposes.

    To restate my position, I generally hold Muslims responsible for the Sep 11 attacks if they do not actively and publicly oppose them. I blame the Muslims who actually perpetrated them or directly supported them and propose they should be killed.

    I also blame the Muslims who have no direct connection to the crimes, yet support them actively or passively. For that portion of the Muslim population, I propose more contact, specifically commerce, so as to bring their false assumptions in collision with reality.

    The bigotry prevalent among Muslims leads them to believe the most outlandish slander about America. If they had any knowledge about America, they would not believe Saudi state TV when it says Western women marry dogs and donkeys, Turkish movies that claim Americans are harvesting organs for transplant from Iraqis, or Pakistani madrassas that teach their students that Americans created dinosaurs to eat Muslims. This vast tissue of lies can only survive in isolation from reality.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    16 April 2006

    Jasra Jedi: “The thing is, I am not sure why everyone is up in arms against Ahmednijad. I dont think the Iranians are saying ANYTHING different now than they have in the past 30 odd years. Be it the Great Satan of the US or the Great Infidel the Zionest or the Great Peasants the Arabs. I think the drums of war are beating, and my gut tells me that Israel will determine what happens, if anything, in Iran.”

    If there were no Israel, the problem would remain acute. Instead of the Iranian nutcase mullahs threating their religious enemies in Israel, they’d be threatening their religious enemies in Saudi Arabia. The KSA is probably next on Iran’s list.

    If you think internal US opposition to the war in Iraq is big, wait until Iran attacks Saudi Arabia and the US President is trying to find political support for sending American boys to defend Saudi Arabia again. Let me tell you, the Left and Right in America will oppose any defense of Saudi Arabia, the land that launched the Sep 11 attacks. The Saudis can have Al Qaeda defend them. I’ll be home watching the fireworks on TV with a bowl of popcorn.

    Jasra Jedi: “And, the response to Iran will be dictated by the strategic positioning of Oil flows. As well as what is happeneing in Iraq. So, watch this space methinks.”

    I agree. It’s crazy for the mullahs to threaten to cut off the oil supply when that’s their main export. It’s like threatening to shoot yourself if you don’t get your way.

    Jasra Jedi: “And worse case scenario, the Japanese got their act together after Hiroshima/ Nagazaki and the Marshall Plan. Ditto for Germany. And are both very respectful and decent economies today. Whose to say that something cannot be beneffited from war? Maybe it will give Saudi Arabia the exact shake up that it needs. (Devil’s advocate point)”

    That would be a terrible price to pay. However, I don’t believe that the US is going to use nukes on Iran. My reading is that any air attack can be done with conventional weapons.

    A new Marshall Plan would not work in Iran. It worked in Western Europe because the Europeans already had the skills, laws, and social structure to rebuild their economies. They just lacked the capital to replace their tools and factories, which is the easiest thing to replace. The Iranians do not have the skills, laws, and social structure to rebound to a European level.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    16 April 2006

    Anon: “Germany was captured not by USA. USA played only a minor role in WW2 in Europe.”

    America lost about 600,000 killed in WWII, of which probably two thirds were lost in Europe. That’s not minor, except to the ignorant.

    Perhaps in Arab propaganda history, the US and its allies did not capture Germany, but in the real world, they most certainly did capture West Germany.

    Anon: “Germany was beaten by USSR. Need i remind u who captured Berlin? You covards only got into fighting in Europe after it was sure that Hitler’d been loosing, and you feared that Communists will take the Germany. And even after division of Germany Europe played important part in rebuilding of Germany. It has nothing to do with care about democracy..”

    Hitler was hardly losing when the US and its allies invaded at Normandy.

    You are living in quite a glass house when you lob charges of cowardice at others. Arabs have not exactly covered themselves with military glory. Israel has kicked their ass quite a few times. And the Iraqi army has taken to its heels and ran both times when faced with the US military.

    Europe was trashed after WWII and had no interest in rebuilding Germany, which was rebuilt with the Marshall Plan. The installation of democracy in Germany was the key to Germany becoming an economic superpower in the 1960s.

    Anon: “as for Japan, it made a success, but due to people of Japan (it’s even called “Japanese Miracle”). But America only cared for it’s interests, not for people of Japan. “

    If America only cared for its own interests, it would not have allowed Japan to rebuild itself and make itself an economic superpower. Had we been a barbarian nation like Japan, or the typical Arab nation, we would have made Japan a slave nation. Instead, MacArthur reformed the country in an enlightened fashion, breaking up the feudal landowning system and bringing the best of US industry over to teach the best practices.

    Anon: “Anyway it all happenned long ago. Now we have Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We all very well see how u care about human rights and democracy. We all remember Guantanamo Bay, Abu-Ghraib, those secret prisons in Europe – no need to go further.

    Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated better than the average prisoner in Europe, far better than those in France, and are in heaven compared to prisoners in the Middle East. Gitmo prisoners being transferred back to prisons back in the Middle East beg to stay.

    While abuse in Abu Ghraib is the exception, abuse in the typical Middle Eastern prison is the rule. Such abuse is prosecuted in America while it is policy in the Middle East.

    And the murdering Al Qaeda scum who are kept in secret prisons deserve their fate.

    The rest of your rant is a confused mishmash of anti-American propaganda. Your mind is crippled with dishonest nonsense. We can not debate on equal terms because you have no access to the facts.

    Steve

  • CerebralWaste
    16 April 2006

    “We can not debate on equal terms because you have no access to the facts.”

    Err wrong Steve…. This jackass has access to the facts he just chooses to ignore them or is too damn lazy to google them.

  • Steve The American
    16 April 2006

    Anon Counsel: “Firstly, I deplore the what the terrorists did on that day, and believe that there is no justification to take innocent lives. None whatsover. I am sure, that if asked, the vast majority of the world (be it Muslims or whatever) would also deplore that act.”

    I disagree that the majority of the Muslim world deplore the Sep 11 terrorism. That is a facile assumption by the politically correct multi-culti crowd. There is no evidence to support it and much evidence against it. If the vast majority of Muslims opposed such terror, terrorists would become as scarce as women drivers in Saudi Arabia.

    Anon Counsel: “However, I am confused by what you mean by “actively opposing” such attacks. What does “actively opposing” it mean anyway? Does every person have to write an opinion piece or go on Fox News and condemn it? Do we all have to go outside and protest against the bombings? Do we have to create vigilante groups and go and hunt downt the terrorists ourselves?.”

    What I mean by actively opposing terrorism is that Muslims in their daily lives register their opposition to terror. If they’re having a tea with a friend who expresses support for the Sep 11 terror, they can simply say that they do not support terror, that it is counter to their understanding of Islam, and that they consider such violence to be evil. If they are in their mosque and their imam expresses support for terror, they should rebut that support and form a group to stop it. If Wahhabi groups attempt to take over their mosque, they should stop it rather than give in to it. If a cleric issues a fatwa supporting terror, other clerics should issue fatwas condemning terror. If a Muslim figure publicly supports terror, other Muslims must step forward to publicly reject terror. Each expression of support for terror by Muslims must be batted down with multiple rejections of terror by Muslims.

    This is not happenning now because Muslims, in general, support terror done in the name of Islam. Aside from the many Muslims who support bloodletting, there are Muslims who don’t object to terrorism because they are afraid of repercussions, don’t want to get involved, don’t want to rock the boat, don’t want to criticize another Muslim. These are all low levels of support for Islamic terror which must end.

    Anon Counsel: “Does that also mean that all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews who did not “actively oppose it” also bear responsibility for Sep 11? .”

    Islamic terrorists are not fighting to make Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews superior, but Muslims. The Muslims use terrorism to create a world where worshippers of other religions either convert to Islam, agree to subjugation by Muslims, or die.

    Muslims are culpable for not opposing Islamic terror, while non-Muslims are simply foolish for not opposing it because Muslims benefit from it while non-Muslims suffer from it.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    16 April 2006

    Anon Counsel: “I am a Persian who doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I also am really sick and tired of the tribalism that we are seeing around the world. This “with us or against us attitude”. “

    And I am an American who really does not want to go to war with Iran. I would much rather let the Iranians reform their own country and boot the mullahs out themselves. It would be much better to be on good terms with Iran so that Iranians could come and go between Iran and the US, could return to our universities.

    But I think your madmen leaders are going to drag us into another war. We already have one can of worms open. I’m not eager to open another. But we will do whatever we need to do to stop a nuke from reaching America.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    17 April 2006

    Ibn: “As far as the “look im winning”, well thats a strawman. Mahmood was happy that Steve “finally sees shades of gray”. This was due to me debating him. As a result, I do not shy for taking credit where my credit is due, just as I do not shy for accepting liability for my errors, or giving someone else credit for something they have done. “

    My position has not changed. You are not debating me because you are not replying to my actual arguments, but arguments you are inventing and attributing falsely to me. You are debating yourself.

    Ibn: “So far, I have merely taken Steve’s words to their logical conclusion, fed them back to him, and watched a winced look on his face form, akin to him sucking straight out of a salty lemon. I would much rather him make counter points to mine, but some people are into self-torture.”

    I disagree. Your strategy seems to be to ignore what I say, create a straw man argument that you falsely claim is mine, beat it up, and then declare victory.

    Ibn: “Nevermind that terrorism is a military tactic, but nonetheless. I also suggested that Steve might use the forms the US government gave to the immorally detained Japaneese Americans in WWII as a template, in case he couldnt think of a nice outline for the “Muslim-Loyalty” form. “

    Terrorism is not a military tactic but rather a war crime under the Geneva Convention as it is perpetrated without a declaration of war, is waged by persons who do not identify themselves as combatants, and targets civilians, among other reasons.

    Ibn, you are full of misinformation about the Japanese in America in WWII.

    About 30,000 Japanese citizens in America were interned during WWII as aliens of a warring power. Around 100,000 people with dual American and Japanese citizenship were ordered out of the West Coast area which could not be defended from espionage. Those who had no where to go were house in relocation camps, from which they could come and go to local towns to shop and run errands. About 5000 kids went to college from these camps. They could also leave if they found a job in middle America.

    The reason they were relocated was that they had Japanese citizenship. It was the practice of Japanese immigrants to have their newborns registered with the Japanese embassy as Japanese citizens so as to maintain their ties to Japan. As part Japanese citizens, that put them in a difficult situation when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war. Thousands of them returned to Japan to join the army and fight America.

    So the situation was more complicated than you present it. However, I’m sure that in the Middle East, it is impossible to find an unbiased account of anything Western, let alone American.

    Steve

  • Joe
    17 April 2006

    Ibn and Mahmood,

    The rhetorical trick of taking once sentence making a statement about a subject out of context to subsequent sentences making clarifications to the original statement, in my view doesn’t take away from Steve’s The American’s argument. I thought his argument saw the shades of gray in the level of responsibility he was assigning.

  • Steve The American
    17 April 2006

    Ibn/Anon: “If your Foreign minister looks like monkey (just compare couple of fotos) why can’t I tell it, even if she’s black the fact you’re afraid even to think of?”

    Jasra, this is your boy. Do you still back him? Or are you beginning to back away nervously now?

    Just because I’m a generous guy and we’ve known each other for years and heck, I like ya, I’m going to let you come crawling back to Team Steve. I’ll leave the side door unlocked and you can slip back into Steve The American’s International Headquarters and we’ll forget all about this bad company you’ve been keeping.

    Magnaminously,

    Steve

  • billT
    17 April 2006

    Joe: “The rhetorical trick of taking once sentence making a statement about a subject out of context to subsequent sentences making clarifications to the original statement, in my view doesn’t take away from Steve’s The American’s argument. I thought his argument saw the shades of gray in the level of responsibility he was assigning.”

    Joe. Steve must be on the wagon. Any bets on when he will fall off 🙂
    Seriously though I agree with Mahmood that there is a new gentler kinder Stere out there. When he says something nice about liberals we will know there is hope for the world.

    billT

  • billT
    17 April 2006

    Anon:“LOL. Where’s your tolerance towards MY RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH? U seem to have lost it. What a good example you – a citizen of The-Most-Democratic-Country-In-The-World – show to us all. Shame on you. Show you tolerance and political correctness.”

    Nobody here but Mahmood can restrict your right of free speech and I wouldnt want to. If you understood free speech you would realize I was just exersizing my right of free speech and was being politically uncorrect in reguards to the death penalty.

  • billT
    17 April 2006

    Dang Steve. I believe I’ve been accused of electing GW what ever will I do.

    billT

  • Ibn
    17 April 2006

    Hi all,

    WoW! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury! Steve has retracted and modified his statements! Lets have a look see:

    Steve had originally said, (many times over):

    I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep 11.

    I took the effort to show him what the implications of “being responsible” mean, in my post: (April 14th, 2006 at 9:43 pm, Ibn). Now, Steve has done the unimaginable, and say, “ok, well not ALL Muslims…”.

    In essence, Steve has changed his position from:

    I hold all Muslims responsible for Sep 11.

    to:

    To restate my position, I generally hold Muslims responsible for the Sep 11 attacks if they do not actively and publicly oppose them.

    Excellent! To his credit, Steve is now gradually taking baby steps in the RIGHT direction, by adding the “if” caveat. The learning process is a long and arduous one, just as any baby will tell you. But we cant expect him to get it right from the very beginning, just as we cant blame a baby for soiling itself.

    Essentially, Steve’s updated position is now this:

    I also blame the Muslims who have no direct connection to the crimes, yet support them actively or passively.

    Interesting. Let me open up my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition 2000, and look up “blame”. Ahh, here we are:

    PRONUNCIATION: blm
    TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: blamed, blam·ing, blames
    1. To hold responsible.

    :O hahaha! Are..are you KIDDING me? LOL. I am beside myself!

    Lets see what the other 2 definitions say:

    2. To find fault with; censure. 3. To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning.

    In essense, Steve BLAMES Sep11 on Muslims who have not publicaly denounced it. And as we see from the definition, that is the same as saying that he holds all Muslims who didnt publicaly denounce Sep11th as responsible FOR Sep11th. Furthermore, as we saw from my previous post, that is the equivalent of saying that:

    All Muslims who have not yet come out to publically denounce Sep11th, are RESPONSIBLE for Sep11th

    Meaning they are:

    accountable,
    liable,
    blameworthy,

    and most damning of all, (definition of responsible #3: “To cause”)

    They CAUSED Sep11th.

    Lets be clear here folks: By what Steve has said himself, he holds Muslims who have not come out to publically denounces Sep11th as personally, totally, RESPONSIBLE, and having in some way CAUSED, the murder of 3000+ people. What does this means? The charge Steve has effectively levelled against those people is that they have blood on their hands.

    * You cannot be “responsible” for a murder, without having blood on your hands. *

    What does this mean? This means that by Steve’s logic, any Muslim who hasnt verbalized to the “public” that he/she denounces Sep11th, has blood on their hands. This is the INESCAPABLE logic that follows, should someone attribute “blame” and “responsibility” to something. Does Steve mean to say this? If not, they he simply cannot use “…they are responsible”, and we would expect him to RETRACT that statement, and come up with a more accurate one.

    What will Steve do? Will he have yet another earth-shattering shift of position? Lets wait and see! 🙂

    ————————————-

    Now let us deal with the remaining issues, specifically ones not dealing with how 1.2 billion people apparantly have blood on their hands in murdering 3000 other people on Sep11 because they didnt write letters to the editor. The source of those less charged yet equally entertaining muses, are, as usual, Steve:

    Terrorism is not a military tactic

    Terrorism is nothing new in our day and age – it is a tactic used by less powerfull fighters against more powerfull ones. The insinuation that it is a “war crime” because it targets civilians is a false one, since regular military tactics can also intentionally target civilians as in many cases throughout history, such as the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. They may both be war crimes, but that is not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is yet another coercive means of achieving political/ideological goals. It is a tactic.

    On the issue of the Japaneese Internment camps:
    So the situation was more complicated than you present it.

    My only presentation to Steve on this topic was that they were for the most part immoral. It was to help inspire him to create a Muslim-loyalty form, which can be emailed to Muslims all over the world, to acertain their loyalties.

    If that werent enough however, Steve is now also trying to mis-attribute quotes by me, when he stated:
    Ibn/Anon: “If your Foreign minister looks like monkey (just compare couple of fotos) why can’t I tell it, even if she’s black the fact you’re afraid even to think of?”

    Even though I never said that, Steve attributes that racist comment to me, in his first even ad hominum attack. Mahmood can probably ascertain the IP addresses of the individual who made that racist comment, and cross check it with mine, and see that I did not say it. Steve had no proof that I did say this, but he did not hesitate to slander me. I WAS surprised, but bigots usually attribute things to you which arent true anyway.

    and finally:

    However, I’m sure that in the Middle East, it is impossible to find an unbiased account of anything Western, let alone American.

    Umm…I live in Washington DC.

    But of course! I oppose Steve the Confederate’s contradictory and bigoted stances, so of course! I MUST be a Muslim residing in the Middle East! (Who is by the way directly responsible for Sep11 since I never publically condemned it). There is no way I could be, for example an Arab who is an athiest of Muslim background who lives in Washington DC.

    We eagerly await Steve’s responses (and other earth-shattering shifts of positions).

    -Ibn

  • FUBAR
    17 April 2006

    I am another lurker in the World of Mahmood, it is now time to come forward and take my boiling pan of water off the gas before it explodes.
    So many times I have been enthralled by the posts on this site, in particular those posts that follow this format above. Mahmood introduces a topic relating to terrorism/foreign policies/religion etc and the rest of the bloggers feed their opinions into the murky water now and again and Steve starts a shit fight with someone. Excellent reading, great opinions from all sides, good entertainment, educating and informative, downright garbage at times, racism, bigots, very interactive and quite possibly the best reason for the invention of the Internet. Well done guys, it is great to see an open forum where views can be expressed in an intelligent and mostly mature format.
    So here I feel I must add to the argument, to enter into the spirit of things and add my two penny worth. I have to join Team Steve, although being British I do not support most of the pro-American crap. However I have to agree in general with his overall point of view, sorry Ibn and those from Team Ibn.
    I lived in Bahrain for 5 years during which Sept 11th happened. I was teaching at a Training Institute in Isa Town at the time and vividly remember the days after 9/11. Speaking to my class about 9/11, it was evident that a vast majority of the students found the attack quite amusing, one lad even started chanting “Osama Bin Laden” to my utter disbelief and raised laughter from the rest of the class. I walked out of the class, that kind of attitude made me decide I had no interest in improving the education of these students.
    I firmly believe that the region’s clerics and religious leaders should have made a serious effort in condoning these attacks, with the same vigour that they use to increase hatred towards Israel or to the coalition efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq or to Westerners drawing silly cartoons.
    So just take a look at the furore over the Danish cartoons. That showed to me the absolutely stunted viewpoint of Muslims the world over. So someone drew a silly cartoon, get over it. In the same way that Westerners don’t take offence to pictures in the Arab press of Bush acting like a tyrant or to blasphemous films like Monty Python’s The Life of Brain or to, or to, or to, or to…., in fact Westerners are pretty well mature enough to understand that silly cartoons or films are just a way of expressing ourselves and if you are secure in your beliefs then other peoples opinions are for themselves and should not impact your belief in any way. However the attitude of the Muslim world is typical, a majority of people taking offence to a silly cartoon that was just a mask to show the world how much hatred the Muslim world has to non-believers. It is really worrying, and in many ways not condoning an attack like 9/11 does make you “responsible”, obviously to a much lesser degree but responsibility is yours to do with what you want. Sit back on it and do nothing or stand up and defend your religion which was what was needed. Had all of the top religious clerics publicly condoned the attacks, I would not feel the need to write any of this and would be mocking Steve for being a loon. But that did not happen, a few clerics expressed their condolences etc, but it was business as usual at the mosque the following Friday. More emphasis is placed on condoning a bloody cartoon than was ever placed on defending the religion that these scumbags used as the principle reason for the attacks.
    Ibn, if you are one of the minority of Muslims that openly condone terrorist attacks on Western interests then good on you. If not I place you “responsible” and ask you to turn yourself in to the nearest US Embassy for immediate incarceration at Guatanamo Bay.
    -FUBAR-

  • Ibn
    17 April 2006

    Fubar,

    Thank you for your post. Fortunately for me, you nicely summarized your opinion in the end with:

    Ibn, if you are one of the minority of Muslims that openly condone terrorist attacks on Western interests then good on you. If not I place you “responsible” and ask you to turn yourself in to the nearest US Embassy for immediate incarceration at Guatanamo Bay.

    (I think you mean to say condemn, not condone). Anyway:

    You say you read the posts, but you apparently missed the fact that im an Athiest. Eitherway, I wonder why you even assumed I was Muslim to begin with. Hmmm…

    But the reason I like your summary is because you nicely do all the dirty work for me, and call yourself a Fascist. I dont easily throw that word around – but here’s why:

    If you are really willing to incarcerate someone on their opinion, no matter how disgusting, then you are a fascist in my book. Sorry. Thats how it is. So if you are saying that someone who glorifies terrorism must be incarcerated for holding that (disgusting) opinion, then yes, you sir, are a fascist. My goals are not alligned with yours.

    I personally go by Ben Franklin’s motto: “I may disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it.” That man was a genius.

    I will fight for the RIGHT of Nazis to preach their hate.
    I will fight to the RIGHT of future Jewish Baruch Goldsteins to preach their love for extermination of Palestinians, even though I am an Arab myself.
    and yes, I will fight for the RIGHT of Muslim terrorists to glorify terrorism.

    I do not subscribe to ANY of the messages above – but I will fight for the RIGHT to say it.

    It is ironic how I am doing what little I can to fight against fascism in Arab countries – where you can be held liable for holding the “wrong” opinion, and here you are espousing just the opposite of that ideal.

    At least your alias FUBAR does you justice. 🙂

    -Ibn

  • mahmood
    17 April 2006

    I personally go by Ben Franklin’s motto: “I may disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it.” That man was a genius.

    It was Voltaire who said it, actually. But Franklin was a good man too!

    But “glorifying” terrorism IS terrorism and is NOT freedom of speech. Not in my book anyway… would shouting FIRE in a crowded cinema or any other restricted assembly point freedom of speech? Even if that “innocent” shout would lead to the deaths of human beings in droves?

    That would just be stupidity I think.

  • mahmood
    17 April 2006

    Steve: No. There are some Muslims who oppose Islam terror publicly. So in strict terms I do not hold every single Muslim responsible.

    Excellent, we have progress and this (without qualifications) is good enough to me.

  • mahmood
    17 April 2006

    Not so, Joe. Steve has not yet made a conclusive statement that he does not hold ALL Muslims responsible for the 9/11 atrocities, even after I entered my comment above, I realised reading on in his subsequent comments that he using the word that he blames all Muslim apologists in using, which is a big, fat “BUT” to lessen the impact of his belief or apology.

    I’m not into conspiracy theories, nor do I take a middle road when I condemn terrorism in all its kind, including those which Fubar highlighted which is a completely disgusting and reprehensible situation.

    Steve should also comprehensively recognise that not all Muslims condone these acts of terror. Sure a huge number do, due to their own myopic view of what Islam is, but as long as a single Muslim condemns terrorism done in Islam’s name, then he should unequivocally come out and correct his stance from “ALL” to “SOME”. I would even settle for “MOST”.

    We have a huge problem and bandying out unqualified blame is akin to throwing manure at a running fan.

  • mahmood
    17 April 2006

    Steve: Ibn/Anon: “If your Foreign minister looks like monkey

    different IP addresses Steve, and different countries not gained from proxies leads me to believe that the writers are actually not the same person.

    Steve, are you feeling so cornered that you have to fall into this silly assumption?

  • mahmood
    17 April 2006

    FUBAR welcome on-board (officially!) 😉

  • FUBAR
    17 April 2006

    Ibn,
    Well spotted with the “condone/condemn” mistake. I accept full responsibility!!
    You have a nack of taking a person’s comments out of context and ranting like a deranged bull until everyone kneels before you and praises your being.

    You say; “But the reason I like your summary is because you nicely do all the dirty work for me, and call yourself a Fascist”

    I did not call myself a Fascist, where did you get that from? I merely finished my post with some light humor that you have taken out of context. Let me explain;
    Referring to those that really were “responsible” (i.e. were directly involved with the planning, I wont include those that flew the planes as they served their own justice, or reward if that was the case!) it is the case that they should be punished (in prison, by death or exile to your house whichever you prefer). Those that openly glorify terrorism should be sent to a remote island inhabited with like-minded freaks where they can preach their demented beliefs away from the younger generations that are susceptible to their opinions. No actually they should be sent to bloody prison or burned at the steak, they are evil. If that is fascism, then so be it, I will be known as Fubar the Facist. Just sounds like common sense to me.

    Anyway I finished my post with some light hearted banter in the hope of raising a smile from you. I did not expect to be branded a Facist in such a venomous manner so I will have to much more careful when posting near you in the future. I think I will just lurk in posts about Mahmood’s garden to be safe.
    I appreciate if humor was surgically removed from you at birth, but you should try and understand what people have to say rather than slander them in your posts.

  • Ibn
    17 April 2006

    Fubar,

    “I will be known as Fubar the Facist. “

    You said it, not me. 🙂

    You have a nack of taking a person’s comments out of context and ranting like a deranged bull until everyone kneels before you and praises your being.

    Yes yes, and there’s intelligent life on Mars.

    but you should try and understand what people have to say rather than slander them in your posts.

    Come now Mr Fubar. I have not slandered you. I have not gone on a tirade calling you a “poopy head”. You said you wanted to incarcerate people based on their opinions, because those opinions are disgusting. I said, if you really believe that, you are a fascist. Subsequently, you pretty much said, sure, if that makes a facsict, so be it. If Fubar the Facsict is good for you, (as you stated), then by golly its good for me! 🙂

    Furthermore I have not taken what you have said out of context – if I have, then show me where please.

    ——————————

    I can actually respect alot of what you said on your first post. I have had smimilar arguments with like-minded Muslims of the type you are referring to, and have had mixed results. (Yes, I had to act like a deranged bull and hold them to their words, as I debated them!) In fact if you hadnt placed that little booboo at the very end of your post, I would have probably not even said anything.

    I hope for you to realise that incarcerating people for the “wrong” opinion is EXACTLY what PLENTY of Arab regimes do, and I do NOT stand for it. So if someone comes along espousing such a stance, I take it to heart, and will protest. Besides that, you sound pretty kosher to me.

    -Ibn

  • Jared in NYC
    17 April 2006

    I was on the 39th floor of the WTC north tower when the first plane hit my building, and got out safely with all but one of my coworkers. I walked to midtown to stay with friends there until I could get home.

    On my walk, I passed a mosque on 2nd avenue where many people were loudly celebrating – They must have assumed, correctly, what had happened, though it wasn’t common knowledge yet.

    As you can imagine, I was livid. I had murder in my heart, and it took my a long time to excise it. It’s not a good feeling. It’s like an abstract cancer.

    However, I don’t believe all muslims are responsible for Sept 11. If circumstances in my life were different then perhaps I would, but the reason I don’t is that I know so many people of muslim culture. They are my friends, neighbors, and coworkers.

    I’ve since engaged many of these people in very direct conversations. The results have been strained, ended, and strengthened friendships. I would agree that an alarming number of people who identify as muslim support terrorists acts at least passively, but there are also a great many who do not.

    Jared

  • jasra jedi
    17 April 2006

    Steve .. Thanks for inviting me back to Camp Steve. Frankly, that sounds as inviting as, errrrm, a piece of steak would be to a vegetarian. As for Ibn, I just like the fact that he gives you a hard time. And you gots ta admit it, he’s giving you a run for your money.

    As for the monkey comment, I think that was Anon and not Ibn. And quite frankly, I dont wish to honor that comment by responding. Anon is an idiot. So are most of his point. End of story.

    As for Iran … darling darling darling steve. My sweet. Methinks your own precious DoD is coming under attack a wee bit on military strategy. And not even from the left! From some of your very own generals!!! Questioning Rummy’s decisions and how they contributed to the mess that was formerly known as Iraq. And trying to warn against interfering in Iran soon to be known as the bigger Mess.

    Now, if you feel that you cannot handle both Ibn and your own Miliary questioning the wsidom of US foriegn policy, and if you feel that the heat is too strong, you are more than welcome to ask for political assylum in Bahrain. It is rumored that MJ is a wee bit lonely and needs advice on which type of women’s clothing is more appropriate than others.

  • CerebralWaste
    17 April 2006

    jj

    There are over 9000 Generals and Admirals in the US Armed Forces. 4 or 5 that have and issue with Rummy isn’t enough to worry about. In fact I have been told by a good source that at least 2 of them had been told to either resign or they would be fired. Sounds like they have an AX to grind Jasra. So I wouldn’t read to much into it though you probably will anyway!

  • mahmood
    17 April 2006

    Thank you Jared, a sane voice.

  • mahmood
    17 April 2006

    JJ, allow me to say that I love you! I do I do! 😉

  • Steve The American
    17 April 2006

    CerebralWaste: There are over 9000 Generals and Admirals in the US Armed Forces. 4 or 5 that have and issue with Rummy isn’t enough to worry about.

    There are about a thousand general officers on active duty in the US military. The 9000 figure includes retired general officers. Just as a fun fact, there were about 11,000 active duty generals in the Iraqi military, which might explain why they lost. They had generals like we had lieutenant colonels. Lots of chiefs and few Indians.

    Jasra: “Methinks your own precious DoD is coming under attack a wee bit on military strategy. And not even from the left! From some of your very own generals!!! Questioning Rummy’s decisions and how they contributed to the mess that was formerly known as Iraq. And trying to warn against interfering in Iran soon to be known as the bigger Mess.”

    I am not so impressed with these generals as you. In America, civilians direct the military, not vice versa like some banana republic. While retired generals have the right to criticize their former civilian bosses, it is unprofessional for them to do so. It undermines the principle of civilian control and an elected government.

    These generals have been rather vague in their criticisms as well. I suspect they were the losers in some bureaucratic battles. The fact that all the critics are Big Army generals is a clue. The US Army is culturally divided into Big Army and Small Army. The Big Army is the traditional centralized army composed of infantry and armored divisions meant to defeat a Soviet invading army in Europe. The Small Army is the special forces which are decentralized and deployed in small units all over the globe. In the current war against Islamic terror, the Small Army is more effective. The US Army is undergoing a transition, ramrodded by Rumsfeld, from Big Army to Small Army. In the process, Big Army generals like the current crop of critics lose out with regard to assets, weapons, prestige, and manpower. That is likely the source of the friction, in lieu of specific complaints.

    Rummy is one of the best Secretaries of Defense we have ever had, in my opinion. I don’t find accusations that Iraq is in bad shape due to incompetent leadership very credible. Fighting insurgencies is an inherently difficult and violent problem which does not lend itself to quick solutions. Unlike many others from history, the insurgency in Iraq is steadily being beaten back. Given the conditions, it is succeeding about as well as you could expect.

    There is no criticism about Iran directed at Rumsfeld. There is no real debate here about possible military action against Iran, other than to hope vainly for some diplomatic deus ex machina that will avoid it.

    Jasra Jedi: “Thanks for inviting me back to Camp Steve. Frankly, that sounds as inviting as, errrrm, a piece of steak would be to a vegetarian.”

    Oh, Jasra, you know you would enjoy it. Camp Steve has only the finest accommodations for you. Champagne and masseurs, ocean front views, and free buffets prepared by world class chefs. Once you set foot in Camp Steve, you’d never want to leave.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    FUBAR: “I have to join Team Steve, although being British I do not support most of the pro-American crap.”

    Team Steve welcomes you. We Americans understand that the British elites favor posing as anti-American, at least until the Nazis have you by the throat when suddenly being pro-American becomes quite fashionable. My great uncles say they were well treated when they visited England. One was an infantryman who landed in Normandy the afternoon of the invasion, the other a B-17 bombardier shot down over Germany. The Germans did not treat him nearly as well as the British. And of course, the Germans treated me well when I was defending Europe flying fighters out of Ramstein.

    So let me wink at your token anti-Americanism, knowing that it is swiftly defenestrated when the war clouds gather. And the Brits have been our best ally. Hell, they’ve been our only ally. And the only one besides America with a real military.

    You’ll be pleased to know that no corresponding anti-British sentiment exists at all in America. The Brits are welcomed here. And the best part is that you didn’t even have to risk your life or any of your family’s lives defending America to earn that welcome. So enjoy! Welcome to the team! What will ya have? Gin and tonic? Coming right up!

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    Ibn,

    My position has been pretty much the same, repeated over and over. I’ve sharpened a few of the points for clarification, but it has remained the same.

    I originally said that the Muslims who directly participated in the Sep 11 attacks should be killed and the remainder engaged principally by commerce to reform their views. You distorted that to say all Muslims be killed. When I repeated my position, you claimed I was abandoning the position that all Muslims be killed, the one you invented for me.

    I originally said that all Muslims were responsible for Islamic terror to varying degrees except those who actively rejected it. You distorted this to say that all Muslims were criminally responsible for Sep 11 and should be punished. When I repeated my original position, you claimed I was abandoning the position holding all Muslims criminally responsible, the one you invented for me.

    I wonder if you even read my responses and understood them. After you beat up these scarecrow arguments, you declared victory due to your superior logic. I don’t see much logic here, only fallacious reasoning and rhetoric. Basically, you’re demagoguing the argument.

    However, the one thing you were right about is that I falsely attributed the racist post to you, for which I apologize.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    Jared in NYC: “I’ve since engaged many of these people in very direct conversations. The results have been strained, ended, and strengthened friendships. I would agree that an alarming number of people who identify as muslim support terrorists acts at least passively, but there are also a great many who do not.”

    First, I am very glad you survived the attacks. The story of the mosque was chilling.

    Jared, I am not persuaded that “a great many” Muslims do not support Islamic terrorism. I very much expected to hear a strong refutation of terror by Muslims after Sep 11 and wanted to hear it, but it’s just not there. What I do see are ambiguous expressions that could be interpreted as objections to terror but aren’t.

    Virtually every Muslim will offer a token condemnation of Sep 11, but it is always followed by a BUT where they go on to justify it, refuting their own condemnation. And that justification tends to go on much longer than the token condemnation up front. And beyond that, there is the troubling issue of taqqiya, the Muslim doctrine that allows Muslims to lie in infidel lands, to tell the infidels whatever they want to hear.

    It’s pretty easy for the Muslim world to demonstrate a rejection of Islamic terror. Not only have they not done so, but those few Muslims who do receive intense criticism from fellow Muslims. I invite you to imagine what a forceful Muslim rejection of terror would be and to measure the discrepancy between that vision and reality. I also invite you to skeptically examine those apparent expressions of rejection by Muslims and ask yourself whether they bear up under such scrutiny or whether you are reading the happiest interpretation into them.

    Steve

  • Will
    18 April 2006

    Steve said “So let me wink at your token anti-Americanism, knowing that it is swiftly defenestrated when the war clouds gather.”

    Steve, if I were an American I dont think that I would be making accusations of shifting alliances.

    Britain and her commonwealth stood virtually alone against the Nazi scourge from 1939 to 1941. The US didnt enter the war until they were directly attacked despite Roosevelts best efforts. Perhaps your comments were meant in jest but I object to you assumeing the moral high ground. The US always has and always will act in her own self interest. Just as she should. I think alot of anti-US sentiments come from the fact that the US is better at projecting power and protecting those interests than most other countries, many of whom would do worse if they could.

    In the case of nuclear bombs going off the interests of the US and the rest of the sane world are the same. The Bush administration is wasting a real opportunity to unify the world against tyranny. Maybe they dont have the capital.

    Mahmood, I understand you have some pretty serious traffic here, where are all the moderate muslim voices? Do you have anything like online count?

  • Jared in NYC
    18 April 2006

    Steve,

    Thanks for your kind opening words. Oddly, the event itself was less traumatic for me and most of my coworkers than I think it was for the people glued to the news broadcast.

    Speaking from my personal experience, I know that the muslims among my friends do not support Islamic terrorism. I also know that there are deep problems in the muslim community here in the tri-state area, where the only friend I have who would describe himself as a religious muslim felt the need to change mosques because he didn’t want his children exposed to hate speech.

    Your brush is too broad Steve. I invite you to spend at least as much energy exploring your positions as you do defending them. If you do this, I predict you’ll have more success convincing others, rather than just rallying the faithful.

    Jared

  • mahmood
    18 April 2006

    Will: Mahmood, I understand you have some pretty serious traffic here, where are all the moderate muslim voices? Do you have anything like online count?

    The statistics I use (Urchin) does not have as fine a comb as I would like it to have to count who is actually coming from where, nor does webstat which is also installed. However, judging by the responses we have had, these people ARE around. Why they’re not jumping in and joining in the discussion could be because of many reasons known to them only. I suspect however that if they see someone expressing thought similar to theirs, they won’t bother getting in, just the same I suspect is happening on the other side of the spectrum.

    In either case, if you are reading this and would like to contribute to this discussion and express your own position, please do so.

  • mahmood
    18 April 2006

    Jared: Your brush is too broad Steve.

    Hear hear and Amen too!

  • FUBAR
    18 April 2006

    Steve,

    So enjoy! Welcome to the team! What will ya have? Gin and tonic? Coming right up!

    Big mac and fries please.

  • Ashley Klein
    18 April 2006

    I will fight for the RIGHT of Nazis to preach their hate.
    I will fight to the RIGHT of future Jewish Baruch Goldsteins to preach their love for extermination of Palestinians, even though I am an Arab myself.
    and yes, I will fight for the RIGHT of Muslim terrorists to glorify terrorism.

    I do not subscribe to ANY of the messages above – but I will fight for the RIGHT to say it.”

    So, you would have fought for the right of Nazis to incite hate that led to the death of millions of Jews (and non-Jews)? Does this mean that if you had heard (before 9/11 happened) that there was going to be an attack on some US buildings from some hate-spewing Muslims that you would defend their right to say that? Yes, in America we are given the freedom of speech, but once it crosses the line to promoting violent behavior, then that is a crime. There is only one way to stop terrorism and that is to condone it and help the people who are oppressed by it. Terrorism should never be welcome anywhere.

  • Ashley Klein
    18 April 2006

    Sorry, the first seven lines are a quotation from Ibn’s comment. Just making sure that’s clear!

  • Anon Counsel
    18 April 2006

    Steve said: “Rummy is one of the best Secretaries of Defense we have ever had, in my opinion.”

    I was seriously considering joining Team Steve until this statement.

    Consider me a rambling Persian born/Australian raised, Muslim born/Agnostic bread Pinko who lives in a fairy land wishing that the people of the world “just got along” and there was less jingoistic chest pumping between nations and religions.

    But the reality is that the great countries and religions of the world need their villains and heroes in order to sure up support for their existence or policies – just like Orwell’s “1984”.

    The irony is that nothing brings people together like their common fear/hatred of other people.

    I wonder how different the whole world, especially the Middle East, would have been if the Shah of Iran did a little “Tiananmen Square” on the Islamist protesters in Tehran in 1978/79 before the revolution got out of hand. Would the region’s decline into religious fanaticism have occured?

    Mahmood, have you noticed Bahrain and other Gulf Countries becoming “a little bit more religious” than they were pre 1979? And if so, how much of this is as a result of the Iranian revolution? I understand that obviously this would have had an effect on the Shiah population, but I’m sure that the Sunni population has also been effected.

    I ask this because I remember seeing on Bahrain TV a few weeks back ago a parade before the previous Emir Isa by high school girls celebrating Bahrain’s national day probably in the mid to late 1970’s. What surprised me was that these High School Girls were wearing mini-skirts (which was probably the fashion of the time). I just could not imagine such a scene happening in 2006.

  • mahmood
    18 April 2006

    Anon Councel: Mahmood, have you noticed Bahrain and other Gulf Countries becoming “a little bit more religious” than they were pre 1979? And if so, how much of this is as a result of the Iranian revolution? I understand that obviously this would have had an effect on the Shiah population, but I’m sure that the Sunni population has also been effected.

    Funny you should bring this subject up, as I’ve been talking about this very thing with a visiting journalist a couple of days ago! But the subject will take a whole post which I should address soon, as this particular issue has been brewing in my mind since the interview…

  • MoClippa
    18 April 2006

    I wonder where Bahrain stands in all this, I mean I don’t see how we could win either way. If the region was to get into a hypothetical war over the situation then Bahrain would surely be on Iran’s hitlist. Then again, if Iran were to have its soverignty guarenteed by gaining the right to pursue a nuclear program, would that also not have potential to lead into a conflict situation with Bahrain when/if they gain weapons of mass destruction.

    I mean the rhetoric about Bahrain being the 14th province of Iran has been coming out of there since the Shah’s time. We were discussing this in class today about why Iran would not pursue open conflict with Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon (two countries Khomeini attempted to export the ’79 revolution to). The professor mentioned that those issues have long been set aside since the late 80’s but when I pressed him about the issue of Bahrain he side stepped it in a way that sounded like ‘they’ve been pushing for that for a long time and they are going to keep pushing for it’… thats scary, our little Island in the sun would be finger food for a picky expansionist if it comes to it!

  • Anonymous
    18 April 2006

    Will;

    I think alot of anti-US sentiments come from the fact that the US is better at projecting power

    Most of it seems to be an allergic reaction to capitalism and globalization, which the US is perceived to be the leader of. Look past the anti-war signs at the protests and you’ll see what’s really ticking people off. I’ve seen people carrying the Soviet flag, Che Guevara posters, etc …

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    Jared in NYC: “I have who would describe himself as a religious muslim felt the need to change mosques because he didn’t want his children exposed to hate speech.”

    That’s part of the problem, Jared. Muslims do not stand up to the hate of radical Islam, they acquiesce to it. They don’t defend their mosque against such fundamentalists. They retreat to another mosque. And one by one, Saudi money puts more Wahhabi imams into the country, who take the mosques over, one by one. That’s why the Wahhabis run Islam and Muslims take their cues from them, the most evil strain of Islam.

    Jared in NYC: “Your brush is too broad Steve. I invite you to spend at least as much energy exploring your positions as you do defending them. If you do this, I predict you’ll have more success convincing others, rather than just rallying the faithful.”

    Jared, spare me your New York City liberal condescension which assumes that anyone who disagrees with the party line is somehow less informed or educated. It cripples your ability to engage other ideas and causes intellectual sterility.

    Since Sep 11 I have plowed through a shelf of books to understand the threat to America, who knows how many magazine and Internet articles, endless debates on this forum, and random real life adventures. The result was not what I expected: the discovery of a widespread and unconcealed hostility to the world as a feature of Islam.

    You just might consider that other people have different experiences and come to different conclusions because of it. You might want to peek out of your airtight ideological box and and consider other ideas on their merits, rather than whether they deviate from the current fashionable talk in the local Starbucks in Manhattan.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    Will: “Britain and her commonwealth stood virtually alone against the Nazi scourge from 1939 to 1941. The US didnt enter the war until they were directly attacked despite Roosevelts best efforts. Perhaps your comments were meant in jest but I object to you assumeing the moral high ground. The US always has and always will act in her own self interest.”

    The US populace was wary of entering another European tribal war after the last war to end all wars in Europe. WWII taught American that we can not disengage ourself from the world, that left alone the world will often make a violent mess of itself, and America will inevitably be dragged into these foreign messes.

    Britain did not stand exactly alone before the formal US declaration of war. We were the arsenal of democracy that provided Britain with the weapons needed to defend itself, weapons that were neglected to be prepared under Chamberlain. We were also fighting an undeclared naval war against Germany in the North Atlantic to help the British before we declared war.

    May I remind you that America has taken an enlightened view of its self-interest. Contrary to the European approach after WWI to punish Germany and thereby set up the next conflict, America pursued an enlightened approach that built up both Germany and Japan after WWII. There is no precedent in history for a conquerer to aid a vanquished nation to become an economic superpower. That is the moral high ground upon which America rests. You have to ignore a lot to claim America was acting in coarse self interest in WWII.

    Will: “In the case of nuclear bombs going off the interests of the US and the rest of the sane world are the same. The Bush administration is wasting a real opportunity to unify the world against tyranny. Maybe they dont have the capital.”

    Will, have you ever considered that countries other than America can be to blame for things? Have you considered that other countries lack the will to do the right thing even when it is in their self interest?

    When the tsunami hit Indonesia, the US Navy rushed to Banda Aceh and began saving people. Millions of bucks in aid followed. Americans held rallies to raise money for Indonesia.

    Meanwhile, back in the capital of Indonesia, no rallies were held to raise money for washed away Banda Aceh. No supplies were rushed there. The elites did not do much of anything. When one US State Dept officer quizzed the Indonesians about that, one replied, why bother, the Americans will do everything.

    When the world is at risk, much of it says, why bother? The Americans will fix it. And then they have the fun of criticizing America for doing so after the fact.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    FUBAR: “Big mac and fries please.”

    You got it, supersized. And you can count on me to keep your guilty McDonald’s secret.

    Steve

  • Jared in NYC
    18 April 2006

    Steve

    I do not espouse a party line. Unlike you, I do not have a specific agenda or inflexible philosophy that requires me to denigrate any opinion not exactly my own – nor to perform mind reading on a billion people. Instead, I have offered good advice that you cannot accept because you require everyone to fit into a specific idealogical box.

    We’re actually in agreement more than half the time. Unfortunately, even positions you hold that I agree with in principle are problematic coming from you because their substance is distorted and damaged by extremity and their form by your shrill delivery.

    Jared

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    Anon Counsel: “Steve said: “Rummy is one of the best Secretaries of Defense we have ever had, in my opinion.”

    I was seriously considering joining Team Steve until this statement.

    Keep seriously considering. Rummy is the smartest, toughest, most on point SecDef we could ask for. Much of the criticism of him comes from dopey journalists who lack the experience and study to understand what he’s talking about.

    Anon Counsel: “I wonder how different the whole world, especially the Middle East, would have been if the Shah of Iran did a little “Tiananmen Square” on the Islamist protesters in Tehran in 1978/79 before the revolution got out of hand. Would the region’s decline into religious fanaticism have occured?”

    Perhaps not in Iran, but in the rest of the Muslim world. Your example illustrates an interesting point made by some historians that revolutions generally replace mild tyrannies with worse tyrannies.

    The Muslim world’s decline into religious fanaticism was precipitated and supported by the wealth of the Saudis due to oil. When they amassed a surplus of petrodollars by the 1980s, they decided to export Wahhabism. That is where Islam went wrong. Where ever blood is spilled for Islam, there is a connection back to Saudi Arabia.

    Anon Counsel: “Mahmood, have you noticed Bahrain and other Gulf Countries becoming “a little bit more religious” than they were pre 1979? And if so, how much of this is as a result of the Iranian revolution? I understand that obviously this would have had an effect on the Shiah population, but I’m sure that the Sunni population has also been effected.

    Carmen bin Laden writes in her book “Inside the Kingdom : My Life in Saudi Arabia ” that the retrenchment to religious conservatism came in response to the takeover of the Great Mosque in Mecca in 1979 by radicals. Evidently, the Saudis decided they had gotten too far ahead of the Wahhabi clerics and decided to take a few steps back to consolidate their power. Doubtless, their neighbors followed suit.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    Mahmood: “The statistics I use (Urchin) does not have as fine a comb as I would like it to have to count who is actually coming from where, nor does webstat which is also installed. However, judging by the responses we have had, these people ARE around. Why they’re not jumping in and joining in the discussion could be because of many reasons known to them only.”

    I do like this cleaner and more elegant new format for this forum but I do miss some of the old features. I liked to see what other members were on and how many readers there were. I also miss the Preview function, because I keep screwing up my tags and forgetting to close them.

    And, like you, I would like to see more people chime in.

    Steve

  • Aliandra
    18 April 2006

    Steve;
    When the world is at risk, much of it says, why bother? The Americans will fix it. And then they have the fun of criticizing America for doing so after the fact.
    It’s an attitude that hasn’t gone unnoticed in the US. Listen to American conversations these days, and you’ll hear more resistance to being the world’s policeman and welfare service. It’s an idea I happen to agree with. We get condemned for removing a genocidal tyrant like Saddam and got condemned for not doing anything about the genocide in Rwanda. A few years from now people will be blaming us for Darfur.

    It’s high time we told the world to solve its own problems. It might even result in some political maturity.

    Will;

    The Bush administration is wasting a real opportunity to unify the world against tyranny. Maybe they dont have the capital.”

    You sure have a casual attitude about spending somone else’s capital. I second Steve’s response. America is not obligated to be the global fire department, or the global ATM machine for that matter. We’ve got enough of our own problems to deal with. However, feel free to volunteer your own country for the job.

  • jasra jedi
    18 April 2006

    Steve honey .. if you let people state their views without dissecting them line by line until they acquiese to your point, i am sure more people would chime in! Seriously though, do you honestly think that the US has handled Iraq well from a military standpoint alone? I have said this once before and I will say it again, dont you think the US did Iraq on the cheap with as few troops as possible, and thereby jeapordizing the whole grand plan as it is about to erupt in our faces? And isnt it going to do the same mistake in Iran?

    Or, was this really all part of the grand plan to control the Chinese by controlling the countries that feed it with energy, thereby jeapordizing their ability to manufacture, manufacture, mahufacture, thereby limiting their running up of a huge trade deficit with the US, thereby … errrm .. buyting some more time to maintain Pax Americana??

    Forget spreading democracy to Iraq. Better to f**k up Iraq by starting a civil war (capacity of 3 Million barrels of oil a day), then f**k up Iran, put the fear of God into Saudi Arabia (10 Million Barrels and swing producer), run your operations from Gutter (World’s largest oil reserves and big time LNG producer) and in the process, remind the Chinese that there aint no romance without the finance. Power is brutal darling. Winner takes all. Ask ABBA …

    Will .. you state “I think alot of anti-US sentiments come from the fact that the US is better at projecting power and protecting those interests than most other countries, many of whom would do worse if they could.”

    Wrong. 10,000 times wrong. Ask anyone in Bahrain who lived under British rule, and have them tell you whether they think the British Empire was better/worse than the US at protecting their intrests. And you will be surprised at the answer. They will say that Americans are better people and nice people. BUT, the British were more effective at controlling and mainting power. The current anti US sentiments comes from two places, the usual negativity against authority and power, and the fact that the US keeps on having to ‘couch’ its interests in moral terms thereby insulting everyone in the process by thinking that they can’t read between the lines.

    Mahmood .. i love you too. Lots of love on this blog ..

  • jasra jedi
    18 April 2006

    Aliandra ..

    You say ” It’s high time we told the world to solve its own problems. It might even result in some political maturity.”

    I agree. One hundred, thousand, percent.

    But, the holy grail lies in not CREATING the problem in the first place!!!!

    Re Iran .. if you had let bloody Mossadeq nationalize the oil industry in the first place when he wanted to in the 50’s, then maybe we wouldnt have had the revolution in 1979, we wouldnt have had the ayatollas and we wouldnt have islamic fundamentalism as a response to perceived western control. But no. the CIA had to get involved, upsurp Mossadeq, bring back the Shah, and then prop him up with his non sustainable development plans, and then, voila. 1979 was as much a result of the US’ f**kup in 56 or whenever it was as it was of Khomeini’s strength.

    You cant have State talking about democracy if the CIA is doing regime change. At some point, somthing gives.

    I say for every moderate Moslem you get to denounced Islamic terrorism (and I will start by screaming it from the rooftops to anyone who is interested), get one moderate American who will denounce real hardcore US foriegn policy which is hardly idealistic or altruistic in nature.

    Aliandra. You cannot ask for the US to be isolationist when in reality it has been very very involved in creating some of the underlying problems that we are dealing with today.

  • Ibn
    18 April 2006

    Ashley,

    Does this mean that if you had heard (before 9/11 happened) that there was going to be an attack on some US buildings from some hate-spewing Muslims that you would defend their right to say that?

    Yes.

    So, you would have fought for the right of Nazis to incite hate that led to the death of millions of Jews (and non-Jews)?

    Carefull. Be very carefull about the “led to” part. Anything anyone says can lead to anything else. If you’re question is weather I believe threats are covered under freedom of speech, the answer is a resounding NO. Another good rule of thumb to remember here is: “Your rights end where my nose begins.” If Nazis make direct threats to Jews, saying something along the lines of “We will kill you tomorrow”, thats a threat, and warrants arrest. If Nazis are holding a cookie fundraiser and having Mein Kamph read alongs, yes, I will fight for their RIGHT to speak, even though I am diametrically opposed to their message.

    Yes, in America we are given the freedom of speech, but once it crosses the line to promoting violent behavior, then that is a crime.

    That is why threats are not covered under freedom of speech.

    -Ibn

  • Chanad
    18 April 2006

    JJ said:

    Steve honey .. if you let people state their views without dissecting them line by line until they acquiese to your point, i am sure more people would chime in!

    Yes! Yes! Yes! It’s annoying how every single discussion ends up becoming: “All Muslims are evil because they didn’t publicly condemn 9/11”. Maybe that’s true maybe it’s not…. but there are also other interesting things in life that are worthy of discussion.

    Also Steve, you have said before that your aim here is to “prod” the “good Muslims” to take back their religion. A word of advice: You’re not going to achieve that goal if you keep bantering on about how Islam is evil. That generally makes Muslims (even the “good” ones) not want to listen what you have to say. I’m sure that you would probably not try very hard to understand my point of view if I kept on talking about George Bush being a retard and that the USA being the Evil Empire.

    Looking forward to more enjoyable discussion.

  • Aliandra
    18 April 2006

    Jasra;

    then maybe we wouldnt have had the revolution in 1979, we wouldnt have had the ayatollas and we wouldnt have islamic fundamentalism as a response to perceived western control. But no. the CIA had to get involved, upsurp Mossadeq, bring back the Shah, and then prop him up with his non sustainable development plans, and then, voila. 1979 was as much a result of the US’ f**kup in 56

    The Iranians wanted a fundamentalist theocracy in power. They could have put in a democracy that respected the integrity of its citizens. The Shah was a tyrant who deserved what he got, but his replacement was installed by a popular people’s revolution.

    Islamic fundamentalism is responsible for killing Buddhists in Thailand, Christians in the Philippines, Nigeria, and Pakistan, and Hindus in India. Now the Copts in Egypt are getting attacked. That has nothing to do with Western control or the CIA, but a fanatical stream of ideology.

    To blame the rise of religious fundamentalism on the US is specious.

  • mahmood
    18 April 2006

    Aliandra: To blame the rise of religious fundamentalism on the US is specious.

    That might be so, but to every action there is a reaction. What Jasra said has merit, if you wish to remove emotion and re-examine what she said again, you might understand that the chain of events started by the US in this case ultimately led to the situation (rule) we have in Iran now.

    In fact, some would argue that had the US abstained from supporting the current crop of despots ruling this area of the world today, it would have a lot more friends than it enjoys currently.

  • Aliandra
    18 April 2006

    Mahmood;

    I must still disagree with your first statement, by virtue of the fact that the Iranians did have a choice to put in a much better government than they did. It’s been over 25 years to today’s situation. By no means do I defend US support of the Shah. Your second statement I’ve heard numerous times before and I think it’s true only to a certain point. The governments of Libya and Syria are hostile to the US, the US does not support them, but that does not make their populations friendly to America.

    That said, I think the US could do with more isolationism. We need to get our own problems solved.

  • MoClippa
    18 April 2006

    For the sake of the argument –
    http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html

    Thats a link to an article on Juan Cole’s blog (professor of history at Michigan University), he tackles Tom Friedman’s accusation in 2005 that “no muslim cleric or religous body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.”

    He provides various links to clerics from various backgrounds denouncing and condemning both Osama bin Laden and the September 11th attacks as well as that of the killing of any innocents.

    Honestly Steve I must agree with Mahmood, I’d settle for “Most”, and thats still a overgeneralization without any backing facts!

  • jasra jedi
    18 April 2006

    Aliandra ..

    Without repeating myself too much, a big flat in your argument is that the Iranian’s frist choice was Mosaddeq. They backed him. He was a technocrat. Not an Isalmic fundamentalist. It was the US that removed him, and it was actually the US that re-instated the Shah. Until, around 20 years later, the people spoke again. And yes, this time, they chose the beards. Because their first choice was removed from the playing field. By the US.

    I am NOT saying that the US is responsible for the people’s choice in 1979 that brought in Khomeini. I am saying that if the US hadnt interfered in the frist place in the 1950’s, we may very well have seen a fundamentally different leadership in Iran today than we do now. When the people originally spoke, the US didnt like the outcome because it meant a loss of control over oil reserves. 20 years later, they got an Islamic theocracy. I am not sure where in this story did the US play the world’s policeman? I see it playing only its own policeman, in the interest of safeguarding its oil interests.

    It is unfair and not complete to look at the democractic choices that were made in 1979 without looking at what the US ACTIVELY did to these same democratic movements in the 1950’s.

    So, whether or not you want the US to go isolationist today, you cannot deny the fact that the US was certainly part of the problem.

    In any event, 9-11 brought the world’s problems on your doorstep. You cant ignore the world even if you try. Because at stake is the US economic way of life. Which is being challenged by the Chinese. And trust me, the Chinese are smarter, more ruthless, more productive than the Moslems. Therefore, infinitely more dangerous to your position as a super power. And, they have already started to position themselves in the Middle East for energy reserves.

    Watch this space. Or, you can go back and put your head in the sand and pretend that nothing exists east of Washington DC and west of Los Angeles.

  • Steve The American
    18 April 2006

    Mahmood: “you might understand that the chain of events started by the US in this case ultimately led to the situation (rule) we have in Iran now.”

    Mahmood, is any chain of events started by someone other than the US? Is it possible that the arc of events in Iran or the Middle East is determined locally and America has little effect on their general trajectory?

    Mahmood: “In fact, some would argue that had the US abstained from supporting the current crop of despots ruling this area of the world today, it would have a lot more friends than it enjoys currently.”

    Or, then again, perhaps Islamic bigotry to the Great Satan would trump any action taken by America. If we did not maintain relations with the strongmen who run the Middle East, there would strongmen running the Middle East with whom we would have no influence. In that case, America would be castigated for neglecting the Middle East.

    The things that will always be true in the Middle East is that the rulers will rule for themselves to the detriment of their people, Middle Easterners will always blame somebody else for their bad state of affairs, and America will be criticized whatever its actions because it is a non-Muslim superpower.

    Steve

  • jasra jedi
    18 April 2006

    Steve ..

    What is your view of Mosaddeq in 1956? And of the role of the US Government? And how do you view the reinstatement of the Shah?

    Once you have answered the above, let me tell you another story. It is the story of Iraq. And how the US walked in trying to re move a despotic sob called Saddam. And they underestimated how much resources it would take. So they won the airwar on day one, but they didnt have enough troops, money and knowledge about the make up in Iraqi society to actually plan for peace and heal the factions and the fissures that existed way before they ever showed up. And, once the US realized that this was going to be a loooooooooooooooooong war, they reassessed their position. They couldnt get the Iraqis to agree on a government. They couldnt provide enough security to prevent sectarian killings. And they couldnt do much to prevent the bad news after bad news that reached American shores. (Goddam those Iraqis who cant get their country together in 6 months … sheeeeeeeeet, we gave ’em enough time …. and what the hell are them shiites anyways??) Until, such time,the US entanglement in Iraq became a significant issue in the US 2008 elections. Because, as we all know, foreign policy is made and broken by domestic US politics. And Americans were fed up with fighting, and spending money. And they wanted to become isolationist, the Aliandra doctrine. So, they did. And they pulled out of Iraq. Like they pulled out of Lebanon. Like they pulled out of Iran. And the Iraqis remembered the empty promises and the hypocratical lies. And they got angry. They got angry at their Arab neighbours who ‘betrayed’ them. They got angry at their Iranian neighbours who were fighting them. And they got angry at the so called jihadists who were also fighting their own proxy war within their borders. And they got fed up with the whole lot of them. But most of all, they got angry at the Bush government for coming in, stirring up the s**t, and then leaving again to their safe homes, their manicured lawns, and their heating and airconditioning that works 24 hours a day. Because, they were living in hell. A different kind of hell than Saddam. A hell that they didnt choose. A hell that saw many maimed, dead, executed. And for what? For what???!!!!!

    And you wonder why the Iranians called the US the great Satan? Wait and see what the Iraqis will do. Because, like Vietnam, like Lebanon, like Iran .. there will be also … like Iraq. And they are expecting it. We all are. When the going gets tough, the US will jump ship and then complain bitterly about … ‘those goddamn Iraqis. We came and freed their country, and can you beleive just what kind of a leadership these people are putting in place??!!!’

    The pattern is there. We know the rules that the US really plays by in other countries. We are just waiting for the next chapter. The story is well known. And we ALL know the outcome Steve. Every single one of us in this part of the world knows how it is going to end. You’ll be watching it on Cable TV or a high speed internet connection. When it gets too hopeless and gory, you can go to the movies, go bowling. Hell, even go to McDonalds and have your supersize Burger and fries. The rest of us will be living it daily. The fighting, the killing, the civil war, the spilling over onto other borders, the factionalism and sectarianism.

    So, excuse me if I tell you ever so eloquently Steve .. to go to hell. And if you need directions, look up Iraq on the map. It is fast turning into one.

  • mahmood
    18 April 2006

    Steve we can play the “IF” game ’till the cows come home, or try to dispassionately analyse what has happened and how to fix them.

    It is arguably apparent that the USA past WW2 had/has its fingers in melting pots simply to take care of its own short-term interests (spheres of influence, stopping communist creep, oil and gas supply, etc) without paying any heed to what that particular policy can espouce several decades down the line. Therefore, it chose to prop up controllable entities to this very day, rather than go to the tortuous ruote of engendering democratic institutions and supporting them long term, and thus critically assuring the supply of its needs through that democracy.

    The continued rule of most, if not all, Arab regimes is a direct testiment to that short-term ideology.

  • Aliandra
    18 April 2006

    Jasra;

    In any event, 9-11 brought the world’s problems on your doorstep.

    9-11 was a result of our involvement in Gulf War 1. Had we stayed out of it and let Iraq have Kuwait, there would have been no need to have American troops in Saudi Arabia and no 9-11. As harsh as this sounds, Kuwaits’s oil would have gone on the market regardless.

    Now, I’m not advocating total isolationism, just a lot more than we have now. There’s much to be said for minding your own business.

    Until, around 20 years later, the people spoke again. And yes, this time, they chose the beards. Because their first choice was removed from the playing field. By the US.

    By the US and the British. The US involvement was propelled by the UK, who were the ones worried about the oil.

    Jasra, the Iranians had 20 years (that bears repeating – 20 years) to come up with an alternative to the beards. How long do you think the US should be held accountable?

    And, they have already started to position themselves in the Middle East for energy reserves

    Something that may turn out to be a Good Thing. If Chinese competition drives oil prices high enough, it would force the US to develop an alternative energy source.

  • Ibn
    18 April 2006

    … And now back to our regular programming folks! 🙂

    Steve said:

    However, the one thing you were right about is that I falsely attributed the racist post to you, for which I apologize.

    Apology accepted. Dont let it happen again. In the future, if Steve wants to attribute quotes to me, he must know that he must have proof, before presuming me guilty.

    Speaking of assuming people are guilty without proof, Steve has said:

    I generally hold Muslims responsible for the Sep 11 attacks if they do not actively and publicly oppose them.

    My previous statements to Steve to answer up to the repurcussions of his statement (on above posts) have been ignored by Steve. He has not addressed them. No matter. I can change the tax form to make it even easier to read than the IRS’s 1040EZ or itemization form. Uncle Sam needs his money, but uncle Sam also needs to know who to prosecute for Sep11! Perhaps Steve can help…lets see what he says:

    Definition 1 of Responsible:
    1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one’s actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.

    Q1: Does Steve believe that Muslims-who-have-not-condemned-Sep11-in-public are “liable to be required to give account” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 2 of Responsible:
    2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority:

    Q2: Does Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 is “personally accountable” for the perpetrators who killed 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 3 of Responsible:
    3. Being a source or cause

    Q3: Does Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 has been a “source” or “cause” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 4 of Responsible:
    Required to render account; answerable:

    Q4: Does Steve beleive that all Muslims-who-have-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 are “required to render account” to (render account to who?) or are “answerable” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Steve has also replaced the word “responsible” for “blame” at times, which if we open our American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th Edition 2000, will see that blame means:

    PRONUNCIATION: blm
    TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: blamed, blam·ing, blames
    1. To hold responsible.

    ah! haha! Responsible! That DARN word again! So pesky! Just wont go away! Kinda like a charge levelled against you without any proof! Just sits there lingering over your head for all your life! 🙂

    —————————

    So now, whatever will Steve do?? I am personally more eager to see how Steve’s answers stack up with his statement made much later of:

    I originally said that the Muslims who directly participated in the Sep 11 attacks should be killed and the remainder engaged principally by commerce to reform their views.

    Persumably, those “remainders” are also ones who have not publically condemned Sep11. You know, the ones responsible for murdering 3000+ people. Steve wants to open commercial K-mart ventures with them. Oooookaaayy. *twilight zone music in the background*

    …too doo too doo too doo too doo….

    ———————-

    So ladies and gentlemen!! How EVER is our American patriot, Steve The Confederate, going to wiggle out of this “web-of-contradictions” that rivals any other “web-of-lies” created by even the smoothest of all smoothest playas and womanizers?? Will he come clean and recant his earlier statement in light of his more enlightening one made later? Will he smack himself in the head and say: “oh! silly me! All those years flying high altitude low pressure missions for the USAF has made me a wee bit careless..silly me!”

    Surely, his answers to the multiple choice midterm will give us even greater insight into the head of one person, nay…one MAN… who was the only one who stood between freedom… and the menace of latte serving Muslim terrorists in Starbucks…

    too doo too doo too doo too doo….

    Thank you all! 🙂

    -Ibn

  • jasra jedi
    18 April 2006

    Aliandra

    You make me laugh. You think that 20 years, one generation, is enough to challenge the existing leadership of a country?!!

    For God’s sake, how long did it take to challenge the Shah? And how long did it take to change the monarchy in the UK? And how long did it take to bring down the Russian monarchy? And then the Communist Party? How long did it take the French to stage a revolution? How long did it take for Germany to become unified again?

    Sweetheart. 20 years is a drop in the sand when it comes to changing the DNA of a socio-political fabric of a country.

    How long do you think it will take to bring down Hamas? Or Hizbollah? 20 years? Hizbollah just got a seat at the Lebanese table recently. RECENTLY.

    The day you and President Bush understand how long a proper grass-rooted regime change will actually take and plan properly is the day that I think the US really knows what it is doing. Until then … God help us all.

    I still can’t get over it! 20 years! HAH!

  • jasra jedi
    18 April 2006

    One more thing.

    9/11 was NOT a result of Gulf War 1.

    9/11 was a result of some Islamofacists who mainpulated Moslem youths to do suicide missions in the name of Palestine and every other humiliation they could think of. Most of these humiliations actually done by their own leadership.

    9/11 was a declaration of war. Of UBL and his ilk agasint the USA and against every moderate Arab moslem and against anybody loyal to the current regimes we have in place in the Moslem Middle East. Be in Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. (Tehcnically not ME, but ..)

    9/11 was about them telling you as an infidel American woman that your life has about the same value as mine as an infidel Arab woman. Worthless.

    9/11 was not about American troops in Saudi. That was an excuse darling. Get over it. Complex issues dont have simple pat one liner answers. Save that for the soundbytes that work on TV when they are talking to American audiences that dont have more than a 5 minute span of attention who think that 20 years is enough time to replace one newly formed regime with another!

  • Aliandra
    18 April 2006

    Jasra;

    9/11 was not about American troops in Saudi. That was an excuse darling. Get over it.

    All hysterics aside, Osama noted in virtually all his discourses his displeasure of infidel troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That was his prime motivator. Sure, he might have had issues with independent women (Palestine was incidental), but that’s not why he sicced his boys on the Great Satan. If he was so mad at the local governments, he would have rammed his planes into local skyscrapers. The fact that infidel troops disturbed him far more than bikinis speaks to where his greviences were. He did start with smaller fare like African embassies and navy ships.

    Here’s a link to his fatwa: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

    Quote: “the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples”

    Now where was he when Saddam was filling those mass graves?

    You think that 20 years, one generation, is enough to challenge the existing leadership of a country?!!

    Which is it? They could challenge the Shah with the beards in 20 years but they couldn’t challenge him with something else?

    I don’t give Hamas more than a few years, at most. Once the Palestinians start asking what’s it take to get a job and a real economy around here, they’ll fall pretty fast.

    The day you and President Bush understand how long a proper grass-rooted regime change will actually take and plan properly is the day that I think the US really knows what it is doing.

    Oh, I agree that the US didn’t know what it was getting into in Iraq. The US thought it was a unified country, like Germany or Japan. All that fractiousness existed long before the US got involved. Saddam was just another Tito. No matter how perfectly the US plans it, democracy isn’t going to work until the sectarianism burns out. It’s only going to work when folks get over their differences and learn to live with each other. You will blame the US for “jumping ship”, and although it made some serious errors in Iraq, certain accomplishments need two to tango. America is awakening to that fact.

  • Ashley Klein
    19 April 2006

    Ibn said:

    “Ashley,

    Does this mean that if you had heard (before 9/11 happened) that there was going to be an attack on some US buildings from some hate-spewing Muslims that you would defend their right to say that?

    Yes.

    So, you would have fought for the right of Nazis to incite hate that led to the death of millions of Jews (and non-Jews)?

    Carefull. Be very carefull about the “led to” part. Anything anyone says can lead to anything else. If you’re question is weather I believe threats are covered under freedom of speech, the answer is a resounding NO. Another good rule of thumb to remember here is: “Your rights end where my nose begins.” If Nazis make direct threats to Jews, saying something along the lines of “We will kill you tomorrow”, thats a threat, and warrants arrest. If Nazis are holding a cookie fundraiser and having Mein Kamph read alongs, yes, I will fight for their RIGHT to speak, even though I am diametrically opposed to their message.

    Yes, in America we are given the freedom of speech, but once it crosses the line to promoting violent behavior, then that is a crime.

    That is why threats are not covered under freedom of speech.

    -Ibn”

    The first scenario I mentioned is a threat also. I don’t know about you, but if I heard from someone that some buildings were going to be attacked I would report it to the authorities.

  • Ashley Klein
    19 April 2006

    Mahmood said: “It was Voltaire who said it, actually. But Franklin was a good man too!”

    Actually it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who said it. I agree with you on the Ben Franklin part though!

  • Sally the American
    19 April 2006

    Just for the record: Not all Americans are insane. We remember the post-9/11 political capital which instantly evaporated after the leaker decider-in-chief linked Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea with the Axis of Evil a little more than a year after the US military allowed Osama bin Laden, along with many of his minions, escape into the Mountains of Afghanistan. Some of us even know where Iran is, without looking it up on Google maps.

    But most impotantly, many of us are horrified that our gov would even consider using a nuclear weapon against anyone.

    For a more balanced American perspective read:

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

    http://billmon.org/archives/002375.html

    Contrast with the attitude problem displayed at a White House press gaggle earlier today:

    BUSH: I say I listen to all voices, but mine’s the final decision and Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices and I read the front page and I know the speculation, but I’m the decider and I decide what is best and what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense. I want to thank you all very much.

    At which point, Little Lord Fauntleroy stomped away.

    Look for some serious griping in Kansas when oil goes way higher than the current $71. a barrel right in the middle of summer vacation time.

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Jasra Jedi: “Seriously though, do you honestly think that the US has handled Iraq well from a military standpoint alone? I have said this once before and I will say it again, dont you think the US did Iraq on the cheap with as few troops as possible, and thereby jeapordizing the whole grand plan as it is about to erupt in our faces? And isnt it going to do the same mistake in Iran?

    Given our inherent handicaps in culture and language in managing Iraq, I think that we are doing well in defeating the insurgency.

    I disagree that we did Iraq on the cheap. Obviously, the number of troops were sufficient to capture Iraq in three weeks. By my arithmetic, the number of US troops to insurgents is about 30 to 1, which seems sufficient to deal with them. Doubling or tripling that number would not make us more effective but rather give the insurgents more targets.

    If we wanted to subdue Iraq and make it a 51st state, it would make sense to flood it with a half million troops. Such a large number of troops would ensure we took ownership. That’s not our aim in Iraq. If we put a massive presence in Iraq, the war would become exclusively American. Should we win the war in such a way, the country we presented to the Iraqis would hardly seem theirs. For a democratic Iraq to take hold in the hearts of the Iraqis, they have to fight for it. Nobody values anything they get for free.

    Flooding a war with US troops is the mistake we made in Vietnam. There is a story about US troops building a bridge over a stream in Vietnam next to a village. As soon as they were finished, the Viet Cong blew it up. They rebuilt it to have it blown up again. The third time, they laid the materials out and let the villager build it themselves. It stayed intact. The villagers felt no ownership for the American bridge but they didn’t want the village bridge blown up. Likewise, we shouldn’t make the fighting for an Iraqi democracy an American monopoly but stand back and let the Iraqis fight for their own democracy.

    Less is more, in the case of Iraq.

    As for Iran, there are no plans to invade it but rather consideration of an air campaign to set its nuclear bombmaking back a few years.

    Steve

  • jasra jedi
    19 April 2006

    Aliandra.

    Whatever UBL said in his fatwa is irrelevant. It is to stir the masses. Its like the crap Hollywood churns out year after year. It makes money because it has currency. UBL wanted power. And he wanted it primarily against the Al Saud. And the biggest backers of Al Saud were/are the US Government. Hence, cut off the legs, and the whole things crumbles. The message came via the twin towers, but it didnt stop there. So, please dont kid yourself that it is to protect the “sanctity of Saudi Soil from American troops.”

    And, do you really think Hamas is going to crumble any soon? Yeah. Right. And it didnt take the beards 20 years to challenge the Shah. Like it didnt take 20 years for Hamas to grow. The seeds are buried in the ground much earlier. Go back and read about resistance movements in history. And if you want to know how political Islam learnt how to fight, go to Afghanistan, circa the war against the Soviets. And look up the teachers.

    But, my favorite …
    “No matter how perfectly the US plans it, democracy isn’t going to work until the sectarianism burns out. It’s only going to work when folks get over their differences and learn to live with each other.”

    My dear child. And who the hell asked the US to get involved with introducing democracy in Iraq in the first place? Do you really think that Iraq is about democracy? Think again…. and do me a favor, go back and revisit your own words and take a second to think about the implicit arrogance in that statement that you honestly think, that the average Iraqi was waiting for Goorge Bush to introduce them to the concept of democracy?????? Another point is that sectarianism in America (in terms of race) was alive and kicking until around 200 years after the country was created! America- 1789. Civil rights – 1960’s. Darling, sectarianism, racism, sexism can flourish whilst under a democracy.

    Nothing happens in 20 years.

    Wake up and smell the Latte. Skinny. Double shot. And extra hot.

  • Citizen Quasar
    19 April 2006

    I posted this:
    Zay: “How can america say iran has no right to these weapons while america can have them and use them?
    Iran is nothing but a terror sponsoring state. No one may claim a right to enslave or terrorize. For that matter, if you are going to speak of “rights,” then define what you mean by a “right.” Islam is the ideology that fuels Iran’s terror.
    I am NOT a faithist. Faith kills. Faith is the basis for all religions.
    I put up with enough Christian kooks here in OKC. I also have to be (even more) wary of hordes of self-flagellating Muslims who seek death for everyone and can dish it out but cannot take it. These are such pathetic and dangerous sub-humans. All they do is terrorize and enslave and all in the name of “Allah” which, as best I can tell, does not even exist. They cannot even accept their women as part of their society.
    That narrows it down to Muslim men. Yet Muslim men, as a general rule, are not man enough to stand up and accept responsibility for their faith. Instead, they want to blame their hatred of the good for being the good on the United States of America…the only beacon of hope for humanity in this world.
    There is no reasoning with ANY religion, especially the backwards and cowardly Islam. There is no reasoning with the psychopaths in Iran. The day will come when military action is necessary. And I for one don’t care if the entire Middle East is turned to glass because Islam needs to go away at all costs in order for humanity to survive.
    Mahmood: “Switch that TV off CQ and go out get some fresh air. Get off the internet if you have to, because you seriously need some reality check.”
    Thank you, Mahmood. Very perceptive of you. Nice call. I salute you. That is exactly what I need: some fresh air.
    I woke up coughing my lungs out. I decided to stop lighting cigarettes, stop putting them in my mouth, stop sucking on them, and above all, stop inhaling afterward. I showered, ate breakfast, read, puttered around for a few, got a glass of green tea, sat down at my computer, checked my email, and went to your blog.
    My chest hurt. I became very grouchy like I do every time I attempt, perhaps half heartedly, to quit smoking. No one can stand to be around me when I am not smoking because I am so grouchy. GROUCHY. THIS time, I see that I could’ve started WWIII! Oops!
    Ah…A man with chemical dependencies! Surely a nut; at the very least, someone who cannot consistently make a valid point. Yes, it is true. Sometimes my emotions and perceptions cloud up in my mind and it I sometimes misstate my position.
    So now, with that very lame excuse, I offer my apologies for my vicious post. It was more rampant emotions than reasoned opinion. Below, I will attempt to explain my position in a manner more conducive to this international discussion.
    I come to your blog for several reasons. Its professional format and content, and your calm and respectful demeanor are two of them. That you are in a different nation half way around the world and host a thought provoking international discussion/debate are two more.
    I came out pretty strong against Islam. Now I am smitten that before I go on I should explain my familiarity with this religion. Here goes:
    My first encounter with the religion of Islam was actually not through a Muslim but through an Objectivist. (www.aynrand.org) This Objectivist was a Palestinian. He was born in the West Bank, went to elementary school in Saudi Arabia, attended a boarding high school in England, received a BS degree in predicate mathematics from Notre Dame, an MS in computer science from the University of Virginia, and had his own software company. I worked for him and rented a room from him in his condo on the lake. His hobbies were basketball and wind surfing.
    His family still lived in Saudi Arabia. Sometimes he would go visit them. They always wanted him to come during Ramadan which he called “Crazy Time.”
    I asked him what life in Saudi Arabia was like and he said it was a Muslim state and was very different from the United States. He said, “First of all, women are illegal.” “How can women be illegal?” I inquired further. He said, “They can’t drive cars. They can’t go anywhere without their husbands or a close-relative man with them. They have to keep their faces covered.”
    He went on to tell me about “the Morality Police.” He said that if they see you walking down the sidewalk and do not like your haircut that they can stop you right there and give you one. He said that they watch you at the airport too, go through your luggage and confiscate anything they don’t like.
    He said that they confiscated an album of his once. This was a classical album but it had a picture of an inappropriately dressed female on the cover so it got confiscated. He went to the room where they stored all the confiscations and asked for his album back. The attendant (guard?) said that he could not give the album back because of the picture on the cover. My friend said that he talked the attendant into giving back the album and just confiscating the cover.
    I asked him what other kinds of things were in the confiscation storage room and he named several. The only one that I remember was a Christian crucifix on a stand that was about a foot tall.
    I asked him why he called Ramadan “Crazy Time.” He said that everyone is tired and lackluster and hungry all day during Ramadan so it is no fun to do much. He also said that a number of businesses close. These descriptions stuck in my mind.
    The last I saw of him was when he was standing in his driveway and waving goodbye as I drove off. That was in Rowlett, Texas, across lake Ray Hubbard from Dallas. The next day he flew to Hawaii and I never saw him again.
    The first time I ever saw anyone pray toward Mecca was in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Two men in colorful robes knelt down behind the north pergola there. I was standing on the grassy knoll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealey_Plaza) and looked at them.
    One of them was a young man and one of them was an old man. The young man looked at me and started to stand and walk away. The older man grabbed him by the sleeve and pulled him back down. They both faced east with their faces to the ground and began to pray aloud but softly. I turned and walked away to give them privacy.
    I have seen some hard times in my life. One time when I was eating in the cafeteria at a local homeless shelter operated by a Christian church, a man came up and asked if I wanted to do some work for pay. This man was a Muslim.
    The job entailed riding across town to put out pizza flyers, eating a pizza, riding back here, and getting paid. This turned into a regular part time job and I got to know the owner and all the employees.
    The owner was a beautiful little Panamanian woman who was a Catholic. She was married to a software engineer who was a Muslim from Morocco He was currently residing in Ireland where he was making a ton of money as a consultant.
    There were three or four other employees that were Muslims. These were all from Morocco. One was an electrician who was in the process of immigrating. He spoke Arabic and French and could read English but was having difficulty learning to speak English. Another was an engineering student at a local university. This student was surprised to find out that I know integral calculus. Another one of them partied all night, played loud rap music on the radio in his car, and slept at work. He eventually got fired.
    One of the cooks often read the Koran on break and kept a mat at work which he knelt on to pray several times a day back in the kitchen. I never saw it pointed east though. He always knelt with it pointed northeast toward the suburb of Edmond. I always wondered about this.
    Down on the corner is a gas station that I shop at sometimes. One of a group of three actually, this is run by Muslims from Pakistan. They have spent a lot of money completely remodeling this store, remodeled another gas station down the street and completely built a new gas station that is the main one in downtown Oklahoma City. They are always very polite. One of them is attending business school and sometimes has his laptop and textbook on the counter by the cash register doing homework.
    Today, while I was grocery shopping, I saw two Muslim women. The first was easily identifiable because she had on a light blue scarf covering her head and pulled fairly snug around her face. Her husband and child were with her and they were speaking a Middle Eastern sounding language. Perhaps it was Arabic. The second was all alone in another store. She had on an overly large pink scarf worn similar to the first lady. She had on glasses and her skin was very dark. She was all alone in the vegetable section and stood at length pondering as if to remember her grocery list which she had forgot to bring or the ingredients of a favorite recipe.
    No problem here. Just another ordinary day in the Oklahoma City. So what’s my beef?
    Well, there is this one certain Muslim named Zacharias Moussaoui. He is on trial for the 911 affair and is making national headlines. He lived as a Muslim sleeper terrorist in Norman, Oklahoma which is about thirty miles south of where I am right now.
    Further, there is the infamous “John Doe Number Two.” Hussain Al-Hussaini (link: http://www.jaynadavis.com/). He hid out a few blocks from where I am and orchestrated bombing the federal courthouse about a mile from here. He later went to work at Logan International Airport and then went crazy because he knew what was going on there and was having recurrent nightmares about what he got away with in Oklahoma City in 1995.
    Hmmm. Let’s go back to that Palestinian guy; the Objectivist. I am an Objectivist. I try to be anyway. I suppose you might ask, “Exactly WHAT kind of faith IS Objectivism?” Well, Objectivism is not a FAITH at all. Objectivism is anathema to faith.
    Objectivism is a PHILOSOPHY for living on Earth. It is based on the axioms of Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. It recognizes REASON as man’s only absolute. It defines RIGHTS in terms of a necessity for human survival via the nature of human existence as a rational life form. It recognizes faith as an invalid tool of cognition and a blanking out of one’s mind.
    Objectivism provides the framework for conceptual thought and the determination of factual information versus what people IMAGINE to be true. Objectivism provides the metaphysical and epistemological underpinnings for the scientific method.
    Christianity is a faith. Judaism is a faith. America’s defacto state religion, the 12-Step plan, is a faith (http://www.orange-papers.org/). Islam is a faith.
    It is worth noting here that I was raised a Christian. On my mother’s side, I have several relatives that are ministers of that faith. My father (RIP) became a devout 12-Stepist. I rejected Christianity and believe very deeply in Objectivism. I have paid dearly for this in that I have been disinherited and disowned by all my living relatives. I have not spoken to any of them since 1998.
    It is further worth noting that it has been my experience that most people who believe in a religion are not really familiar with all the beliefs and dogma associated with their religion.
    Using Christianity as an example, I see most Christians attending church services and listening to weekly sermons without consideration of what the specifics of their denomination/sect actually are. For example, there is probably not one Christian in a thousand that can tell you the difference between beliefs of a Baptist or a Methodist even though they may attend one or the other of these churches.
    People sing in the church choir, attend bake sales, celebrate religious holidays with their families, and generally help out the less fortunate in society simply because this is what their friends, relatives, and associates do.
    Church goers utter that God is all loving and forgiving. However, they tell me that since I do not believe in God that this same all-loving and all-forgiving god will condemn me to an eternity of sadistic and unbearable punishment simply because I do not believe.
    I suppose that many practitioners of Islam are much the same. They practice Islam because everyone around them practices Islam. To them, Islam represents love and caring and family values, not to mention salvation in some imagined afterlife.
    Yet Islam has a dark side. There are those practitioners of Islam, a relatively small percentage of all, who seek to destroy or subvert all non-believers. As a non-believer in Islam, I am one of the people that said Islamic practitioners see it as their god commanded duty to kill.
    Therefore, Mahmood, I ask you to help me understand this by providing me with information. Below are a series of questions. Mahmood, please, please, please post the relevant quotations from Islamic religious writings that shed light on the thinking of the people referred to in these questions. Here goes:
    Why is it that official Muslim governments, KSA, Syria, and Egypt to name a few, oppress their peoples?

    Why is it that all the wars going on, today and recently, are started by Muslims attacking and terrorizing their neighbors and the societies within which they reside?

    Why are all the terrorist acts in the world committed by Muslims?

    Why is the government of Iran shouting Allah Akbar on international television in the same presentation where they vow to destroy a nearby nation with nuclear weapons?

    Why do Muslim terrorists from all over the Middle East poor into Iraq and commit acts of terror?

    Exactly WHAT, Mahmood, is in the Koran that encourages such behavior from and among ANY Muslims?

    In closing, I thank you for hosting this blog. I thank you for being a knowledgeable and understanding person who is seeking to make the world a better place for us all. I further applaud your social involvement up and down the Persian Gulf to help make that a good society.

    Yet, I await your response.

    Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go get the brown stuuf off of my nose.

    —Dan

  • Sally the American
    19 April 2006

    The Shrub said “I hear the voices.” And that is about as logical explanation for any of this madness anyone is likely to hear.

  • Wog Blogger
    19 April 2006

    Mahmood, thanks for posting about this Iran business. My two cents, and you know I am fan of yours so take this in the spirit it’s intended, Iran should not have nuclear power of any variety because it is not responsible enough to deal with it. Full stop. It’s current leader has an irrational hatred of Israel and Jews and a weirdo 12th Imam culty end-of-days obsession and most of its people have been jumping up and down for decades screaming ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Jews’ like maniacs. The actions of Iranians is entirely within their control and not the fault of the US or the Shah and to look back to 1979 to excuse the current leadership’s dreadful brinksmanship is unconvincing. The Pakistanis are equally crazy with the burning of US flags and hatred of India etc. But the Pakis unlike Iranians are genuine international players – they have been playing cricket internationally for decades. The rest of the world knows Pakistan is not completely stable and breeds crazy jihadists far too much but for each crazy jihadi is a family of perfectly stable Pakistanis living in Australia or the UK etc etc.
    The same cannot be said of Iranians. Their only international contribution is to force women journalists to wear veils whenever they speak to Iranian men and maybe feature in the World Cup soccer or the Olympics. That’s it.
    I don’t think there’s any double standard at work here – crazy people who threaten the existence if Israel and lie about the Holocaust have no right to handle nuclear anything. None.
    Blaming the US for Iran’s theocracy and madness is a weak argument.
    Iran, Syria, Jordan, Palestinian territories and Libya are all nuts. No nuclear anything for them because they cannot be trusted.
    Bahrain, Kuwait and hopefully soon Iraq – can be trusted. Cos you and they are not crazy Jew hating US blaming nuts. That’s basically my two cents. And it isn’t racist by the way. It’s got nothing to do with race. It has to do with behaviour and attitude to the greater world and the Iranians have a terrible attitude of self-pity and vanity that makes them a real danger to the rest of us if this nuclear showdown keeps on tracking with Ahmadinejad in charge.
    Whatdyareckon?

  • Will
    19 April 2006

    Steve

    I dont dispute your facts re the US and WWII and I dont think they contradict anything I said.
    I didnt mean to imply that protecting you own self interests as a nation is immoral or wrong or coarse.

    There is something wrong with the anthropomorphic treatment of a nation over time as a single entity. Yes we have to correct the wrongs of the past but mostly we are alive here and now.

    I agree that there are some freeloader counties but who is actually supporting Iran at a state level?

    Will;

    “The Bush administration is wasting a real opportunity to unify the world against tyranny. Maybe they dont have the capital.”

    Aliandra

    “You sure have a casual attitude about spending somone else’s capital. I second Steve’s response. America is not obligated to be the global fire department, or the global ATM machine for that matter. We’ve got enough of our own problems to deal with. However, feel free to volunteer your own country for the job. ”

    I was referring to political capital. The US is going to respond to Iran’s nuclear policy to protect itself and it’s allies . What else would you expect? My point is that this not a US/Iran problem as much as it is a world/Iran problem and I was volunteering my country.

    Will

    “I think alot of anti-US sentiments come from the fact that the US is better at projecting power…”

    jasra jedi

    “Wrong. 10,000 times wrong…The current anti US sentiments comes from two places, the usual negativity against authority and power, …”

    So is it you or me that is only 5000 times wrong?

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    Ashley: Actually it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who said it

    You’re partly right Ashley, Ms. Hall writing Voltaire’s biography expressed his beliefs best by this particular statement. So although it was she who said it, it was Voltaire who lived it.

  • Anon Counsel
    19 April 2006

    Wow Wog Blogger, I never knew that the way to be an “international player” was to play international cricket!!!

    Yes, the Pakistani team comes to Australia now and then for a game of Cricket, but that, and that alone doesn’t make it a world player!!!

    Maybe in the eyes of the Aussies, but I bet most Yanks, Europeans, South Americans etc. have no idea which countries play cricket or what the hell “sill mid on” means.

    I’m going to Ahmadinejad right now and telling him that the way to get the worlds attention, and also firm his support in Iran, is not to join the Nuclear Club but rather join the International Cricket Board!!!

    Brilliant. You beauty!!! This answers our question. Next topic.

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    Wog Blogger you’re more than welcome and I appreciate your views, though I think they are flawed on several levels, particularly as you ignore the huge Iranian diaspora in the States, Canada, Australia and Europe and some have been there for generations, not just people who have elected to leave Iran since the Islamic Revolution.

    Some I suspect have integrated very well in society where they are, in fact, one of my favourite photographer is an Iranian living in Toronto, Canada and pursues work in computer graphics and the film industry I think.

    I say this because they too can and maybe to some extend exert as much pressure on Iran as do the Pakistani and Indian emigres on their own countries.

    That still is beside the point, which I remind you is the patent acceptance that a sovereign country does have the right to acquire and maintain nuclear energy.

    Do I condone Iran, or the States for that matter having nuclear plants and weapons? Of course not. That doesn’t take away a sovereign country’s right to having them.

    Do I believe that nuclear energy and weapons should be controlled and should be under the monitoring of the United Nations? YES, I do.

    Would I like Iran having nuclear plants and weapons? NO, I do not.

    That’s me though, a personal opinion. I would much rather not have any nuclear sources in any of the countries in this region. That’s not going to happen though as some already do have that power, so I would elect to treating all the same and putting monitors in their facilities to ensure that things are safe.

  • Citizen Quasar
    19 April 2006

    Whatever. I just got clobbered in the head. See, I SHOULD put this on the Internet just so everyone knows how it went down.

    It went down like this:

    After spending the day buying tubes of silver, shopping for a good bicycle, and listening to Michael Savage, and finishing my post here, I became very lonely and went to the bar across the street.

    They had no business but me and closed at midnight. There is another bar about a mile up the street which serves liquor and beer and stays open until 2am, so I walked up there and ordered a few drinks.

    I ordered several (sipping) shots of peppermint schnapps and a beer chaser. I tipped the bar tender about $2.00.

    After a while, the bar tender became very unruly and insulted me to my face because I did not tip 40% as did the table that was drinking behind me.

    He said that he was the owner of the bar but I know that this is not true as I know the owner of the bar and she is a female.

    He challenged me to a fight and I told him that if he would come out back that I would rip his head off and shit down his neck. I told him that he was the most ignorant MF that I have ever met. I then moved out the back door and got myself into a position to fight.

    He produced a large stick, approximately the size of a baseball bat, and stuck it to my left frontal forehead which is still bleeding. I walked away.

    So, folks, the moral of this story is to NOT DRINK. And IF YOU DO, to stay away from ignorant Christians in Oklahoma City, USA.

    In the mean time, Mahmood’s Den is a place to come and share your thoughts, AND if you think hard enough, to REST.

    —Dan

    PS
    I’llllllllllll be back!

  • Citizen Quasar
    19 April 2006

    Thank you Mahmood. I am sure that I will have have MUCH more to say about the Iranian nuclear thing. Dot. Dot. Dot.

  • Ibn
    19 April 2006

    …that I would rip his head off …

    A jihadist in fly-over-state America??…Naawwwww……. 😉

    Next time you get in a fight, remember, there is no such thing as a fair fight. Only a fight to garuantee winning. And I hope you stop listening to Micheal Savage. Anyway, get well soon.

    -Ibn

  • Citizen Quasar
    19 April 2006

    Oh yes, Mahmood: “Exactly WHAT, Mahmood, is in the Koran that encourages such behavior from and among ANY Muslims?”

    You have proposed changes in Islamic rituals that will affect 1.2 billion people; per your own words in this blog concerning the trampling of many at Mecca.

    Will you please tell us where in the Koran that the government of Iran gets its divine mandate from?

    Oh, and by the way, the United States of America, the creators of nuclear weaponry over sixty years ago, have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet. So your statement that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in existence and that we must learn to live with them is a bunch of crap.

    I submit to you that one well placed thermonuclear device aimed at and exploded at Mecca would shake and alter all of there faith. If this does occur, it will hopefully be launched from Jerusalem. Then bow down and pray to THAT.

    —Dan

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    Dan, I think that hit has certainly affected you. Once you’re fully recovered, which I hope is soon, I hope you will stay on-topic rather than go once again hairing off at a tangent.

    Get well soon.

  • Citizen Quasar
    19 April 2006

    Hey, thanks, Mahmood.

    It is a difficult (and sometimes confusing) world that we live in. I will continue to try to be rational and a benefit to humanity. Unfortunately, I am diminished by my own upbring and my own impulses.

    I will further add that is is really awakening to get hit in the forehead by a large weapon when one is leaving a bar.

    In the meantime, even though I do not know you personally, I consider you a friend on the Internet and hope that you will allow me to continue to comment on your blog topics.

    Even though I sometimes express seemingly unjustified anger, my real goal is understanding and world peace.

    Thank you.

    —Dan

  • jasra jedi
    19 April 2006

    Will:

    “So is it you or me that is only 5000 times wrong?”

    Good question. Half of zero is … zero! But, forgive me if i went off yesterday, I was having a bad day and wasn’t as eloquent as I normally am .. 🙂

    I would agree with your statement “I think alot of anti-US sentiments come from the fact that the US is better at projecting power…” if you replaced the words ‘is better at projecting” with the word ‘has’.

    I dont think the US is managing its power as effectively as the British did in their heyday. Hence my disagreement with the word ‘better’.

  • Ibn
    19 April 2006

    Oh, and by the way, the United States of America, the creators of nuclear weaponry over sixty years ago, have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet. So your statement that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in existence and that we must learn to live with them is a bunch of crap.

    I submit to you that one well placed thermonuclear device aimed at and exploded at Mecca would shake and alter all of there faith. If this does occur, it will hopefully be launched from Jerusalem. Then bow down and pray to THAT.

    *Sigh*.

    Mahmood, me thinks he just needs *another* hit to the head, just to set him straight … – for good. 😉

    Geez.

    -Ibn

  • Citizen Quasar
    19 April 2006

    Mahmood, you never answered THIS question:

    “Exactly WHAT, Mahmood, is in the Koran that encourages such behavior from and among ANY Muslims?”

    Now when all is said and done, Mahmood, I bared my soul to you, “my friend.” So, answer the question. I will state it more clearly for here:

    Which verses in the Koran are some Muslims referring to when they justify killing infidels?

    You have been very polite, Mahmood. BUT you refusal to answer this question duplicates the lack of logic posed by “Anonymous.”

    Out with it, boy!

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    *Sigh* indeed…

    Don, there are over 2000 posts on this blog, if you look through them I’m sure you will find my position and my justification for stances I have taken. Got to get back to work at the moment… good luck in your quest.

  • Citizen Quasar
    19 April 2006

    Hey, Mahmood, I am on a roll here. I doubt that you even know enough about the Koran to even answer the above question. Personally, I think that you are just like most Christians that I know…they have not even read the Bible.

    Have you read the Koran? I doubt it. If you had then you would have answered my question quickly. That is unless you are hiding something or do not want to admit something.

    So WHAT IS IT, Mahmood? What’s the deal, Mahmood? Answer me, Mahmood.

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    Oh my…. [ignoring Citizen Quasar’s mode entered]

  • jasra jedi
    19 April 2006

    CQ ..

    go to sleep. leave us alone. and when you wake up, go to therapy.

  • Sally the American
    19 April 2006

    Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Warning Letter to President Bush

    Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.”

    The physicists include five Nobel laureates, a recipient of the National Medal of Science and three past presidents of the American Physical Society, the nation’s preeminent professional society for physicists.

    Imagine, a bunch of secular eggheads telling the decider-in-chief what he should or should not do. Just imagine!

  • Aliandra
    19 April 2006

    Mornin’ Jasra;

    You said: Whatever UBL said in his fatwa is irrelevant.

    No, it’s not. Neither is his Letter to America. They specify all his grievances and everything that’s driving him. Had American troops stayed out of Saudi Arabia, he might have kept his skyscraper wrecking company operating in his own country.

    And, do you really think Hamas is going to crumble any soon?

    Seems they’re getting short of cash lately. That’s a sign right there.

    Yeah. Right. And it didnt take the beards 20 years to challenge the Shah.

    Most of the Iranians supported the Khomeini government they’d just installed. It’s nonsense to blame the US because that government went sour. Even the Iranians aren’t doing that.

    you honestly think, that the average Iraqi was waiting for Goorge Bush to introduce them to the concept of democracy??????

    The average Iraqi was waiting for Saddam to be introduced to the concept of a heart attack, an incurable disease, or an assasination Given the large turnout in the Iraqi elections, the Iraqis looked pretty eager to participate in the concept of democracy that George Bush introduced.

    Another point is that sectarianism in America (in terms of race) was alive and kicking until around 200 years after the country was created! America- 1789. Civil rights – 1960’s. Darling, sectarianism, racism, sexism can flourish whilst under a democracy.

    Jasra, my precious petunia, the worst of the 1960s never got even near the point where people were lobbing bombs at each other as part of their normal day. The sectarianism, the racism, the sexism,the whatever, wasn’t that intense. People got along for the most part. Demonstrations and sit-ins are much more civilized ways to resolve things and generally they did. Your analogy is bordering on hysterics.

    Wake up and smell the Latte. Skinny. Double shot. And extra hot

    You ought to cut down on that caffeine a bit.

  • Aliandra
    19 April 2006

    Sally;

    You and your 13 physicists need to distinguish between political bluster and actual intent. The US isn’t going to drop nukes on anyone. There are thousands of other physicists who already know that.

    Will,
    I stand corrected by your clarification. But it would be nice if the world did more of the cooking and less of the cleaning up.

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Jasra Jedi: “What is your view of Mosaddeq in 1956? And of the role of the US Government? And how do you view the reinstatement of the Shah?

    Jasra, I only know the bare outlines of the Mosaddeq story, not enough to debate it with you. It looks like I’ll need to take a crash course in modern Iranian history in the next year as things come to a head.

    However, I have had a brush with history with the Shah. I met his son, Reza Pahlavi II, when he came to visit the Air Force Academy. I think it was the summer of 1979, a few months, maybe just weeks, before the Shah fell. He was only about 18 and I saw him standing around in front of the dining hall with his beefy State Dept bodyguard, who looked like he could whup Idaho. I got an officer I knew to introduce us. I was wearing white gloves because I was part of the training cadre, so I whipped it off to shake hands. Reza whipped his glove off and we shook. He didn’t strike me as particularly imperious, more like a well-mannered kid who was a little nervous.

    Jasra Jedi: “Once you have answered the above, let me tell you another story. It is the story of Iraq. And how the US walked in trying to re move a despotic sob called Saddam. And they underestimated how much resources it would take. So they won the airwar on day one, but they didnt have enough troops, money and knowledge about the make up in Iraqi society to actually plan for peace and heal the factions and the fissures that existed way before they ever showed up. And, once the US realized that this was going to be a loooooooooooooooooong war, they reassessed their position. …. And Americans were fed up with fighting, and spending money. And they wanted to become isolationist, the Aliandra doctrine. So, they did. And they pulled out of Iraq. Like they pulled out of Lebanon. Like they pulled out of Iran. … Because, like Vietnam, like Lebanon, like Iran .. there will be also … like Iraq. And they are expecting it. We all are. When the going gets tough, the US will jump ship and then complain bitterly about … ‘those goddamn Iraqis. We came and freed their country, and can you beleive just what kind of a leadership these people are putting in place??!!!’

    You have a point, Jasra, but you are complaining to the wrong guy. I believe we will need to be in Iraq for a century, although perhaps for the back 80 years as a token force. The American conservatives understand that it will be a long war and that pulling out will bring on terrible consequences for Iraq and America. And it’s the conservatives from the heartland of America mainly, guys like me, who join the military and fight the fight. It’s not the sons of blue state professors nor big city newspaper editors nor TV producers in Manhattan. Oddly enough, it’s the liberals who largely have no family in the fight who want to retreat from Iraq. Those would be the liberals with whom you align yourself, Jasra.

    So it’s a little ironic that you would side with the Democrats but criticize a Republican for the Democratic position of cut and run. If I were you, I’d hope a Republican president follows Bush to get this thing done.

    Jasra Jedi: “So, excuse me if I tell you ever so eloquently Steve .. to go to hell. And if you need directions, look up Iraq on the map. It is fast turning into one.”

    We’re having a bad day, aren’t we, Jasra?

    Your comment about Iraq becoming hell is not quite so. In the Kurdish north, it’s quite calm. The hell up there came under Saddam, when he could drop poison gas on towns at will or kick them out of their homes en masse. All that’s over now. Down in the Shia south, things are going very well. The civil affairs projects are proceeding apace. Nowhere are Shias rounded up by the bus load into the desert and shot en masse. Saddam is digging no more mass graves down there. The Shia hell has ended. It is only in the Sunni provinces that insurgent fighting continues to reestablish Baathism or an Islamic theocracy. Slowly, Sunnis are rejecting both.

    I’m sure you’ll share my surprise when I reveal that you’re not the first woman to tell me to go to hell. Several have, with some vehemency. I’m sure one day they will realize that they were wrong and coming running back but in the meantime they’ve run off with other men, even married them, and had kids. I see this as very deep denial. One day they’ll wake up and be very sorry.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Citizen Quasar: “Oh, and by the way, the United States of America, the creators of nuclear weaponry over sixty years ago, have enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet.

    Pure nonsense. We have enough nuclear warheads to hit our targets. The Earth is a very big and durable place that is highly resistant to abuse. All of our nukes together could not match a fraction of the destructive energy of Hurricane Katrina or the Pacific tsunami.

    Citizen Quasar: “I submit to you that one well placed thermonuclear device aimed at and exploded at Mecca would shake and alter all of there faith.”

    The United States is not in the business of fighting religious wars. That’s a Middle Eastern thing. Nuking Mecca would be as evil as the Muslims sacking the Vatican in the 9th century.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Aliandra and Jasra,

    While I agree that the deployment of US troops in Saudi Arabia to defend it against Iraq was the proximate cause of Bin Laden’s war on America, I also agree that it was just an excuse. There is no case in which Bin Laden will side with America. To the radical Muslim, and many Muslims in general, America is offensive because it is a superpower that is non-Muslim. That offends Muslim imperialists like OBL because they believe the Muslim Caliphate should be the only world superpower, just as Moussaoui the wannabe Sep 11 skyjacker testified last week in court.

    Had it not been for the Saudi deployment, it would have been for something else. Wahhabi ideology demands that America be the enemy. Non-Muslim power offends them.

    Steve

  • Sally the American
    19 April 2006

    Actually the leakerdecider-in-chief is the one who needs the learn the difference between political bluster and actual intent. Which is the point the physicists made.

    Steve, it is estimated that the Hiroshima bomb killed 45,000 on the first day and a further 19,000 died within four months. In Nagasaki, 22, 000 died on the first day and another 17,000 within four months. That 103,000 with just 2 small, by todays standards, bombs. According to Joseph Suhayda, a secular egghead (er Louisiana State University engineer who warned — & was ignored) of the effects of a catastrophic hurricane in the New Orleans area: “A catastrophic hurricane represents 10 or 15 atomic bombs in terms of the energy it releases.” Are you saying we only have say . . .30 nuclear weapons?

    And I recomend you read up on the Mossadegh-CIA affair and its connection to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Interesting little story about how the US spreads democracy….

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Citizen Quasar,

    Sorry to hear of your accident and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

    If I may offer some advice, if you enter a bar and there are no women there, there’s no point staying. You should leave and find the bars where the women are. If there are no women in the bar, there’s probably some good reason. Women tend to avoid dangerous places where guys beat on each other.

    If you are trying to fill empty hours by drinking in redneck bars in Oklahoma, your life may have taken a wrong turn somewhere. Taking a drink or two in an Oklahoma redneck bar, then going on to the next one, is something like a modified version of Russian roulette. Visit enough bars without a posse of pals with you and you are sure to get your ass beat before the night is through.

    You might give bowling a try next time.

    Steve

  • Aliandra
    19 April 2006

    Sally;

    Both you and the physicists need to review some facts about balance-of-powers in the US government. The decider-in-chief cannot go to war without approval from the congress.

  • Sally the American
    19 April 2006

    Aliandra – “cannot” or “should not” … ?

  • Aliandra
    19 April 2006

    Sally, you know very well that the Iraq war could not happen without the ok from Congress.

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    Aliandra: Jasra said: Whatever UBL said in his fatwa is irrelevant.

    No, it’s not. Neither is his Letter to America. They specify all his grievances and everything that’s driving him. Had American troops stayed out of Saudi Arabia, he might have kept his skyscraper wrecking company operating in his own country.

    Believe me Aliandra, no one listens to these kooks anymore. Their diatribe is just that, hot air which unfortunatley is taken as gospel by news organisations.

    And the petunia season is ending in Bahrain… I’ve scheduled this weekend to pull up all of mine and prepare the soil for the next crop of lovely summer flowers!

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Sally the American: “Steve, it is estimated that the Hiroshima bomb killed 45,000 on the first day and a further 19,000 died within four months. In Nagasaki, 22, 000 died on the first day and another 17,000 within four months. That 103,000 with just 2 small, by todays standards, bombs. According to Joseph Suhayda, a secular egghead (er Louisiana State University engineer who warned — & was ignored) of the effects of a catastrophic hurricane in the New Orleans area: “A catastrophic hurricane represents 10 or 15 atomic bombs in terms of the energy it releases.” Are you saying we only have say . . .30 nuclear weapons? “

    First, let me say how cute it is when liberals try to do math and argue science. It’s rather like a chimp smoking a cigar or a bear riding a bicycle. It’s not that they do it well, but rather that they try at all.

    Hurricane Katrina was not limited to the New Orleans area or even to Louisiana but included Mississippi and Alabama as well. In fact, it wreaked devastation 100 miles from its eye. That implies that the worst part of the storm was 200 miles in diameter, giving the storm an area of 31,400 square miles.

    New Orleans has an area of 350 square miles, which means that at any one time, only 1/90th of Katrina’s fury was applied to it. So your argument fails in its implicit assumption that the full energy of Katrina was applied to New Orleans alone.

    One should also remember that a hurricane does not have a static amount of energy, but is constantly drawing energy in the form of heat drawn from the evaporation of warm ocean water which the storm dissipates in the form of kinetic energy, ie wind. That means that over the life of a tropical storm that forms off the African coast and turns into a hurricane over the Bahamas and hits the coast of America, it draws and expends many multiples of the energy it contains at any particular moment.

    A hurricane produces per day about 200 times the world’s electrical generation capacity. The 20 kiloton Trinity blast was equivalent to 30 seconds of power generation in the US. Now 20 kt is near the low end for nuke warheads, so let’s multiply it by five times to call it 100 kt, which is equivalent to 2.5 minutes of US power generation, which, in turn, is a fraction of world power generation. So let’s call a nuke about one minute of world power generation. That’s overstating US power generation but it’s an easier number to work with.

    Given those assumptions, that would mean that the power generated by a hurricane in one day would be equal to (60 min x 24 hours) 1440 atom bombs. Hurricanes last from two to four weeks, so a three week hurricane (21 x 1440) would be equivalent to 30,240 atom bombs. The US has about 10,000 nuclear warheads. So our entire arsenal of atom bombs would produce about one third the energy of a hurricane.

    I look forward to your next ill informed and wrongheaded lefty rant. Please use plenty of math.

    Cheers,

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Oops, I forgot to multiply my figures by 200. That means that a hurricane would actually be equivalent to about six million atom bombs over its life as far as energy released, which means that the ten thousand atom bomb US arsenal would release 1/1000th the energy of a hurricane.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    … and 1/1000th the energy of a hurricane in human lives stolen by the diffusion of nuculur blast(s) are how many exactly?

    I think regardless of your lefty/righty stance you would agree that it would be far too many, even if calculated dispassionately and for the better good.

    So it’s probably better to return to diplomacy rather than continue to engage in idiocy to contain this situation.

  • Aliandra
    19 April 2006

    Mahmood;

    Believe me Aliandra, no one listens to these kooks anymore. Their diatribe is just that, hot air which unfortunatley is taken as gospel by news organisations

    Unfortunately, it got taken as gospel by the 9-11 terrorists, and probably still does by Zarquawi and his fellow travelers, who then happily carry out some pretty bad acts.

    Petunias can grow in Bahrain? You’re going to have to do a special garden post on that one 🙂

  • Jared in NYC
    19 April 2006

    My military service and comrades in arms (left and right) disagree with this patently untrue, disgusting, divisive diatribe. I’m glad I don’t have this kind of poison inside me.

    Jared

  • Jared in NYC
    19 April 2006

    The above in response to Steve comment:

    “And it’s the conservatives from the heartland of America mainly, guys like me, who join the military and fight the fight. It’s not the sons of blue state professors nor big city newspaper editors nor TV producers in Manhattan. Oddly enough, it’s the liberals who largely have no family in the fight who want to retreat from Iraq.”

    Jared

  • Sally the American
    19 April 2006

    Petunias can grow just about anywhere – as long as they’re watered. Personally, I am going a little wild planting pretty little pansies here about 1/2 a mile from the former site of the WTC.

    Which brings me to my next point Steve. Mahmood said it better than I; 10,000, 100,000 or 200,000 people killed in a nuclear explosion would be far to many.

    Last I knew, a hurricane or a tsunami is an act of God or nature (depending on your perspective) over which you or I or a petulant little manchild with his finger on a button has any control. Dropping nuclear weapons on human beings – and the earth – is a human act of total idiocy.

  • jasra jedi
    19 April 2006

    Aliandra ..

    I will try and give up caffeine. Maybe for Lent.

    As for the fatwa … let me put it to you another way. UBL wanted to declare war through his fatwa. G W Bush wanted to declare war on Iraq. Therefore, UBL used the excuse of American soldiers on Saudi soil. And Bush used the excuse of WMD.

    Bottom line, they wanted to go at each other. And they used whatever legitimacy they each needed.

    Now .. back to those 20 years. Aliandra … Hamas will find the money. If not from the EU, and not from the Palestinian diaspora, from Iran, or from whoever wants to sell the arms. Movements take time. Lots of it. And 20 years is a drop in the ocean.

    As for the point on sectariansim. I can guarantee you that State knew the issues with sectarianism in Iraq before 9/11. Powell certainy did. The Pentagon didnt want to hear. And as a result, a well meaning US military screwed up because they underestimated what it would take to secure the country after day 3. And thats how you have the mess that is there at the moment. Whose responsibility is that?

    As for Iran – no-one is blaming the US per se. My whole point there is to tell you that a better response than isolationism is to not contribute to the problem in the first place.

    Petunias rule.

  • Sally the American
    19 April 2006

    Sorry about the typo – I meant to write “over which you or I or a petulant little manchild with his finger on a button has NO control.”

  • Ibn
    19 April 2006

    Jared,

    My military service and comrades in arms (left and right) disagree with this patently untrue, disgusting, divisive diatribe. I’m glad I don’t have this kind of poison inside me.

    Jared

    *Clap Clap*. Bravo, bravo. I hope you realise Jared, that Steve The Confederate is in the business of generalizations. You see, generalizations are really really easy to make. It saves you the time and trouble of having to nit-pick through little details and engage in self-corrections. Never mind that there are probably more economical reasons why people from red-states happen to join the military more so than people from blue-states, but Steve wont have it! 🙂

    In fact, Steve is still out on a limbo and has not answered the questions I have posed to him regarding his stance of:

    All Muslims who have not-publically-condemned Sep11th are responsible for Sep11th

    I have given him a chance to own up, but Alas! He has not…maybe he hasnt seen the post – I will repost.

    -Ibn

  • jasra jedi
    19 April 2006

    Steve ..

    Yes darling. I am in severe denial when it comes to you. I just wish you would see the light sweetheart, and come across and live with us in Bahrain. You can convert, ask for my hand in marriage. Mahmood will get his mulla’s license and marry us off. And, we can call you Steve Bin Wrong, formerly known as Steve the Infidel.

    Mahmood ..

    When are we up for another cabinet reshuffle? I think Steve ticks all the boxes for a Minister of Dis Information .. I think that is his real calling in life ..

  • jasra jedi
    19 April 2006

    Ibn ..

    Lighten up over Steve. You are just feeding his ego. Now, has anyone seen Ahmed- the-nut-nijad’s latest speech?

  • Ibn
    19 April 2006

    (Sorry – messed up the bold donts. Mahmood, please remove my post above, I will replace it with this:)

    FOUR OPEN QUESTIONS FOR STEVE
    (repost)

    … And now back to our regular programming folks!

    Steve said:

    However, the one thing you were right about is that I falsely attributed the racist post to you, for which I apologize.

    Apology accepted. Dont let it happen again. In the future, if Steve wants to attribute quotes to me, he must know that he must have proof, before presuming me guilty.

    Speaking of assuming people are guilty without proof, Steve has said:

    I generally hold Muslims responsible for the Sep 11 attacks if they do not actively and publicly oppose them.

    My previous statements to Steve to answer up to the repurcussions of his statement (on above posts) have been ignored by Steve. He has not addressed them. No matter. I can change the tax form to make it even easier to read than the IRS’s 1040EZ or itemization form. Uncle Sam needs his money, but uncle Sam also needs to know who to prosecute for Sep11! Perhaps Steve can help…lets see what he says:

    Definition 1 of Responsible:
    1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one’s actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.

    Q1: Does the good Sir Steve believe that Muslims-who-have-not-condemned-Sep11-in-public are “liable to be required to give account” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 2 of Responsible:
    2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority:

    Q2: Does the good Sir Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 is “personally accountable” for the perpetrators who killed 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 3 of Responsible:
    3. Being a source or cause

    Q3: Does the good Sir Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 has been a “source” or “cause” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 4 of Responsible:
    Required to render account; answerable:

    Q4: Does the good Sir Steve beleive that all Muslims-who-have-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 are “required to render account” to (render account to who?) or are “answerable” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Steve has also replaced the word “responsible” for “blame” at times, which if we open our American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th Edition 2000, will see that blame means:

    PRONUNCIATION: blm
    TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: blamed, blam·ing, blames
    1. To hold responsible.

    ah! haha! Responsible! That DARN word again! So pesky! Just wont go away! Kinda like a charge levelled against you without any proof! Just sits there lingering over your head for all your life!

    —————————

    So now, whatever will Steve do?? I am personally more eager to see how Steve’s answers stack up with his statement made much later of:

    I originally said that the Muslims who directly participated in the Sep 11 attacks should be killed and the remainder engaged principally by commerce to reform their views.

    Persumably, those “remainders” are also ones who have not publically condemned Sep11. You know, the ones responsible for murdering 3000+ people. Steve wants to open commercial K-mart ventures with them. Oooookaaayy. *twilight zone music in the background*

    …too doo too doo too doo too doo….

    ———————-

    So ladies and gentlemen!! How EVER is our American patriot, Steve The Confederate, going to wiggle out of this “web-of-contradictions” that rivals any other “web-of-lies” created by even the smoothest of all smoothest playas and womanizers?? Will he come clean and recant his earlier statement in light of his more enlightening one made later? Will he smack himself in the head and say: “oh! silly me! All those years flying high altitude low pressure missions for the USAF has made me a wee bit careless..silly me!”

    Surely, his answers to the multiple choice midterm will give us even greater insight into the head of one person, nay…one MAN… who was the only one who stood between freedom… and the menace of latte serving Muslim terrorists in Starbucks…

    too doo too doo too doo too doo….

    Thank you all!

    -Ibn

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Mahmood: “… and 1/1000th the energy of a hurricane in human lives stolen by the diffusion of nuculur blast(s) are how many exactly? I think regardless of your lefty/righty stance you would agree that it would be far too many, even if calculated dispassionately and for the better good. So it’s probably better to return to diplomacy rather than continue to engage in idiocy to contain this situation.”

    Mahmood,

    May I point out that none of those 10,000 warheads has been put to use? Now, tell me, what Arab power would you be willing to trust with 10,000 atomic bombs? Which one do you think would show restraint and not let one fly?

    I might also point out that the two atom bombs we did drop on Japan saved tens of thousands of American dead, hundreds of thousands of American wounded, and millions of Japanese dead had we resorted to the much more deadly conventional war. The atomic bombs saved lives and ended a war where many more millions of lives were stolen by the samurai sword than by atom bomb.

    We do agree that it would be much preferable to curb Iran’s nuclear bombmaking ambitions with diplomacy, but how much hope do you have of success with that, given the current regime? Diplomacy should be earnestly tried but a military solution must be prepared as a last resort.

    It’s also worth pointing out that such an air campaign to scuttle Iran’s nuke bombmaking infrastructure would not be an attack on the general population. The loss of life would be fairly closely contained to the sites themselves, even if tactical nukes were used as bunker busters.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    None Steve. I would trust not a single Arab state with nukes or any other weapon other than beebee guns, and even then I would be worried.

    However, that is not an excuse for condoning the USA’s arsenal of tens of thousands of those warheads, what would they need them for anyway in those numbers other than be an aggressor? And don’t tell me that you need them “in order to keep the peace.”

    And don’t ask me to condone nor accept the US mounting an attack on Iran or its nuclear capacity because I simply won’t. It is enough that in my lifetime I lived through 6 wars in this region. Time to give peace a chance.

    Diplomacy is the only way forward in this Iranian situation, even with all their bluster, it is just bluster.

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Sally the American: “Which brings me to my next point Steve. Mahmood said it better than I; 10,000, 100,000 or 200,000 people killed in a nuclear explosion would be far to many.”

    If you truly believe this, then why would you oppose stopping Iran from acquiring nukes which it euphemastically promises to use against Israel?

    Sally the American: “Last I knew, a hurricane or a tsunami is an act of God or nature (depending on your perspective) over which you or I or a petulant little manchild with his finger on a button has any control. Dropping nuclear weapons on human beings – and the earth – is a human act of total idiocy.”

    I see you are abandoning your nonsense about nukes being more powerful than hurricanes. However, you are continuing with a line of nonsense that holds the issue of Iranian nukes is all about Bush’s emotional state, as if he were a silly little sorority girl in a snit. It’s a foolish analysis that shows little understanding of the issues.

    Iran has made it clear it intends to pursue nuclear weapons. It also has made it clear it intends to use them, ie the Ahmadinejad speech in which Israel the withered tree will be swept away “in one storm.” And after Israel, who’s next? Iran has plenty of religious enemies nearby. The whole Middle East is full of Sunnis who will need atomic exterminating in the view of Iran’s Shia ruling nutcases.

    It would be irresponsible to let the current disastrous course continue. If it’s necessary to bomb those bombmaking sites to stop it, then the world is better for it. If those bunkers are so deep that only tac nukes can reach them, then that’s what needs to be done to avoid a wider war.

    What’s inherently self-contradictory in your argument is that you are against tac nuke bunker busters being dropped if that is the only thing that can stop Iran from dropping full sized nukes on cities. You are implicitly arguing for a nuclear holocaust by Iran.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    Jasra: Mahmood will get his mulla’s license

    Mullas need a license? NO EFFING WAY! This is news to me JJ. Two things in life **I know** you don’t need a license for: being a mulla, and having babies. Any fool (or pair thereof) can fulfil either task!

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    Steve, like the preview thingymajingy? slows down posting a bit though… let me know what you think and if it’s worth having.

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Mahmood: “Steve, like the preview thingymajingy? slows down posting a bit though… let me know what you think and if it’s worth having.

    Hey, not bad! It’s out of the way and the page still keeps its elegant look. And I can see if I’ve blown my tags. I vote for keeping it, if I get a vote.

    Steve

  • Ibn
    19 April 2006

    Sally,

    Even though I pretty much oppose your stances on much of what you say, I feel you will need this extra piece of information:

    Steve said:

    The whole Middle East is full of Sunnis who will need atomic exterminating in the view of Iran’s Shia ruling nutcases.

    But Steve has also said:

    I hold all Muslims who have not condemned-sep11-in-public as being responsible for Sep11

    Presumably those Sunni-nukees are all responsible for Sep11 like Steve says, because I do not recall any instances of them protesting-in-public-condemning Sep11th. But Steve has also said he wants to “trade” with them, and open up commerce…but yes, they are still responsible for Sep11th.

    Those sunnis are responsible for murdering 3000+ people, but Steve wants to open up trade with them. Steve wants to trade with people he calls mass murderers. If Iran wants to nuke mass-murderers are Steve calls them, why would Steve complain?

    -Ibn

  • MoClippa
    19 April 2006

    Violence only begets more violence. You want to win the hearts and minds of Iranis then don’t drop tactical nukes or whatever over their heads. There needs to be another solution to this crises then resorting to arms or we’ll all be stepping down a long dark and ugly road. The only solutions are long-term solutions, grass roots institutions and organizations setup to aid in developng cross cultural dialogues, educational institutions and training or charities. Over time that will most definatly inspire people to think more about reform and less about security concerns and war.

    I think some people here are caught up in the nationalist frevor politicians on both sides are using to garner support for their campaigns. Iran is several years away from making a bomb, if it even is pursuing one. There is ample time between now and then to setup capable monitoring organizations for nuclear sites, and setting up grass roots innitiatives.

  • mahmood
    19 April 2006

    of course you get to vote Steve, this is a democratic Mahmoodistan! 😉

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Ibn,

    You are fabricating positions for me with fallacious reasoning. If you care to debate the positions I actually hold, we can talk. However, you are arguing in bad faith, ignoring the responses I actually make in favor of ones you wish I were making. You seem to be particularly hopeful that I would wish for the deaths of all Muslims. I don’t. You don’t seem to understand that I would trade with people who approve of criminal acts, yet it happens every day. Trade is a proven way of aligning diverse people’s interests.

    In particular, you can’t seem to get a hold of the fact that you can hold some moral responsibility for a crime, even though you had no part in it. I have a fuller response to illustrate this, but I don’t have time to write it out now. Maybe tonight.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    19 April 2006

    Mahmood: “of course you get to vote Steve, this is a democratic Mahmoodistan!”

    Hmmm. Can I wear a turban in Mahmoodistan? I’m thinking a big purple one with a big jewel in the front. I can be like a soothsayer who listens to people’s problems and gives them answers in profound yet meaningless riddles for fifty bucks a pop.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    20 April 2006

    huh.. isn’t that what you’re doing now for free?

    (sorry couldn’t resist that one, wide open Steve!! 😀 ;))

  • Ibn
    20 April 2006

    Stevo said:

    If you care to debate the positions I actually hold, we can talk.

    Ahh, the bait worked. Part of debate is to answer questions that one’s debate opponent has brought up to him.

    I have asked Steve to answer the “FOUR QUESTIONS” I have asked him. The ball is in his court.

    -Ibn

  • Sally the American
    20 April 2006

    Look Steve – if the US was able to “contain” the Soviet Union over 40 years, I think that we can “contain” Iran without nuking its people. Moreover, according to Iranian polls, Ahmadinejad is not too popular for a lot of reasons including economic. Could it be that some of this insane political bluster has something to do with using fear to innoculate himself from his domestic critics? Hmmm, maybe something along those lines is going on a little closer to home.

    BTW: No one, not the Brits, not the CIA, not the Pentagon, not the UN and not even the Iranians or the decider-in-chief hisself are claiming that Iran is even remotely close to having the capacity to strike the US with any kind of warhead, nevermind a nuclear one.

    And I dare you to bring up Israel as a justification for a 1st strike! As if it didn’t already have enough nuclear weapons to bomb most of the middle east into oblivion if it so chose.

    Oh, I almost forgot. Do you remember MADD? I do, and what’s more I am sure the Iranians do. They may be full of bluster, but it is unlikely they are suicidal. And if they are – well, I am sure the US has stealth bombers and cruise misssles ready to oblige. In the meantime, fantasies of pre-emptive nuclear strikes are not only immoral but insane as the fall out would poison much or all of the region (especially when you consider the number of weapons it would take to hit the various locations of the program – some of which are in or near heavily populated urban areas).

    Re hurricanes and nuclear weapons. I think the point of your comparison was that since hurricanes were so big and powerful, nuclear weapons are not such a big deal. That is what is known as a red herring. Which is why I am not going to get into a tit for tat with you regarding which is more deadly and destructive: an act of nature or a man-made nuclear weapon.

    I am sorry about all the wars Mahmood. I truly am. I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in such close proximity to so much senseless violence for so long, and I sincerely apologize for the part my US tax dollars have played.

  • Steve The American
    20 April 2006

    MoClippa: “Violence only begets more violence.

    The campaign across France was very violent, yet stopped Nazi Germany from further violence. The atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very violent, yet stopped WWII on a dime and begat a peaceful japan.

    MoClippa: “You want to win the hearts and minds of Iranis then don’t drop tactical nukes or whatever over their heads.”

    We’re not interested in winning a popularity contest in Teheran but in stopping religious nutcases from starting a nuclear holocaust. The nukes must be stopped now, the hearts and minds can come later.

    MoClippa: “There needs to be another solution to this crises then resorting to arms or we’ll all be stepping down a long dark and ugly road. The only solutions are long-term solutions, grass roots institutions and organizations setup to aid in developng cross cultural dialogues, educational institutions and training or charities. Over time that will most definatly inspire people to think more about reform and less about security concerns and war.”

    How exactly would a cross cultural dialogue help dissuade a religous madman that starting a nuclear war will help bring back the hidden imam and conquer the world for Islam? How do you handle bullies who only respect force, who think dialogue is weakness to be exploited?

    Steve

  • mahmood
    20 April 2006

    Sally, thank you. I think it is the fervent wish of almost every individual in this area to not be in yet another war.

    We are tired, our economies, infrastructure and education are not in a state that we could be proud of due to the huge amounts of money spent on the war machine. Even little Bahrain spends billions to get airplanes, bombs, tanks and other toys year in and year out and the population suffers and our development regresses tens of years due to this.

    It’s a mugs game.

    Much better to engage in ways to truly promote democracy, transparency and an independent judiciary.

  • Sally the American
    20 April 2006

    And Steve – did you know that it is estimated that a million people took to the streets immediately after 9-11 and held candlelight vigils in cities throughout IRAN?

    One year later, an Iranian Student Association in Teheran released the following press release:

    A Public Call For Rememberance of the 9/11 Tragedy

    SMCCDI Political Committee
    September 10, 2002

    Free spirited Iranians,

    It has been a year since the terrorist attack on the military and commercial centers of the United States of America. Consequences of the events of that fateful day were so immense and far reaching that they truly will be known as the turning point in the recent political history of the world.

    On those days that America was mourning and Iran was directly or implicitly being called a “haven for terrorists”, we remember how, despite the violent crack down and repression of the “Hezbollah” forces roaming the streets, hundreds of our youth poured into the streets and lit candles in memory of the victims of that tragedy and showed the world that they sympathized with the families of the victims and extended their condolences to them.

    That night, our youth made it crystal clear that they were with the world coalition for the elimination of “religious” terrorism.

    We remember how the reactionary, backwards, Taliban loving, self-elected rulers of Iran tried to down grade that humanistic and thoughtful sympathy action of our youth by calling them a “bunch of candle in hand sissies!,” and once again showed, with their short-sighted vision of reality, how far away they are from virtue of humanity.

    Bravo to you nation who, despite lack of leadership, embarked in that spontaneous movement, and with your sensational presence in the streets of the capital, you saved Iran from a catastrophe, as you showed in the best possible way, Iranian nation’s excellence in love of humanity to the free world.

    Now, with the first anniversary of 9/11 tragedy upon us, as SMCCDI expresses its sympathy to the families of the victims and survivors of that ungodly event, and the honorable nation of America; it invites all free spirited Iranians to honor the memory of the victims of that day by gathering and lighting a candle in front of the main entrance of the Tehran university and major public squares in Tehran, and the main squares in other cities and townships, from 6:00 PM till 9:00 PM, on Wednesday 11 September.

    Also, from all those Iranians who feel they share the sorrow and pain of the American nation, it is requested that they turn off all their light on that same night from 10:30 PM till 11:30 PM in a silent, but much telling gesture of sympathy and solidarity with the bereaved nation of America. Without a doubt, in this age of high-resolution satellite cameras, your message of sympathy will reach the Americans loud and clear!

    Tehran, September 10, 2002 (19 Shahrivar 1381)

    The “Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran” (SMCCDI)

  • mahmood
    20 April 2006

    Steve: How exactly would a cross cultural dialogue help dissuade a religous madman that starting a nuclear war will help bring back the hidden imam and conquer the world for Islam? How do you handle bullies who only respect force, who think dialogue is weakness to be exploited?

    Make them rich! I can bet that when a person has much to lose, especially his or her comfort, they will think many times about giving all that up for an abstract entity!

    So engaging in peaceful discourse, propagation of commerce and education, will certainly help achieving that state in a much more prolonged and stable manner than a bomb!

  • Steve The American
    20 April 2006

    Sally the American: “And Steve – did you know that it is estimated that a million people took to the streets immediately after 9-11 and held candlelight vigils in cities throughout IRAN?”

    I am acutely aware of it. The Iranian young are the only people, the ONLY people in the Middle East who held pro-American rallies after Sep 11. That’s what makes this entire situation so tragic.

    Unfortunately, those young pro-American Iranians are not in charge of their government. We would not be faced with this problem if they were. Instead, the crazy mullahs who chased them off the streets are in charge. And they are the ones pursuing the nukes.

    The current estimate is that only about 20% of Iranians support their government of mullahs. What’s so damned tragic is that the mullahcracy is leading an unwilling Iranian population into nuclear war. If only they were spending all that money and talent on reforming their government, reconfiguring their economy, beefing up their infrastructure, and creating jobs, everyone would be better off.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    20 April 2006

    Ibn,

    I generally hold Muslims responsible for the Sep 11 attacks if they do not actively and publicly oppose them.

    I think of this problem of Islamic terrorism something like that of a small American southern town in the 1930s where the Ku Klux Klan holds sway, lynching black people as it sees fit. If dead black people keep appearing, hanged by the road, and nobody in town objects to it, not even in private, in my view everyone is complicit in this crime.

    It’s easy to see where the KKK killers are guilty and their facilitators. But what about those people who see this evil and look away? Are they innocent if they allow it to happen, if they ignore it? Just as you can be criminally responsible for taking a criminal action, you can be morally responsible for inaction that allows a crime to occur. If you acquiesce to evil, you become part of it. If you say nothing when people are being lynched, you become part of the environment that allows such crimes to be committed. Some of the responsibility for those crimes falls in your lap because of your complacency. All evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing.

    A morally righteous person must object to such a state of evil. You must resist, even if only in private at first. By confronting private acceptance of crime, overcoming it, you create cells of rejection. With enough private condemnation, you can create public resistance. Bit by bit, the moral quality of public opinion is changed until such crimes become unacceptable and public policy is set against it.

    What you do, privately and publicly, contributes in some small way to the trajectory of morality in your community. You are not an island apart from your community but a contributor who pushes or pulls it one way or another. You can not divorce yourself from all responsibility for it.

    What each Muslim does has an effect on the morality of the Muslim world. If you wink at jokes about Sep 11, you help maintain an environment of acceptance for such terrorist crimes. If you do nothing, you signal acceptance of such evil. You can only be morally righteous by objecting to terror, even if it only means in private at first. You have to act against it, otherwise you bear some responsibility for it. If all Muslims objected to Islamic terrorism, it would end. Until they do so, every Muslim who does not voice his objection bears in some degree, lesser or greater, responsibility for the blood spilled by Islamic terror.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    20 April 2006

    Sally the American: “Look Steve – if the US was able to “contain” the Soviet Union over 40 years, I think that we can “contain” Iran without nuking its people.”

    The Russians were rational people who did not want to die. Ahmadinejad thinks that starting a nuclear war would speed the return of the hidden imam. The Islamic crazies are also fond of reminding us that our weakness is that we love life while they love death. Ahmadinejad thinks that even if the Iranians die, they win. That bodes ill for containment. To be deterred from war, you have to be convinced that death is a bad thing. Ahmadinejad thinks death is a promotion.

    Sally the American: “BTW: No one, not the Brits, not the CIA, not the Pentagon, not the UN and not even the Iranians or the decider-in-chief hisself are claiming that Iran is even remotely close to having the capacity to strike the US with any kind of warhead, nevermind a nuclear one.”

    Actually, they are. Iran supports a number of terrorist groups capable of striking American assets. Iran also has an intelligence service that is currently arming, supporting, and killing Americans in Iraq. That same intelligence service has assassinated Iranian dissidents in America and bombed Americans in America. It hardly seems much of a challenge to smuggle a nuclear weapon into America across our porous borders.

    We don’t know how close the Iranians are to acquiring a functioning nuke. During the first Iraq war, our CIA was unaware of Iraq’s nuclear program, only to discover afterwards that Iraq had everything but the nuclear fuel to put in its Bomb. During the second Iraq war, we thought Iraq had maintained its nuke program but we discovered afterward it had gone into hibernation. Consequently, I have no confidence in the CIA’s estimate of Iranian progress in building a nuke. Maybe they will have one in a year, maybe five years, maybe ten years.

    Sally the American: “And I dare you to bring up Israel as a justification for a 1st strike! As if it didn’t already have enough nuclear weapons to bomb most of the middle east into oblivion if it so chose.”

    I’ve already raised the defense of Israel as justification for a preemptive strike. It’s worth defending just as we defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the past. It hardly matters how many nukes Israel has if it gets nuked first. Even if its nukes survive a nuclear first strike, their raison d’etre has been eliminated if Israel is destroyed.

    Sally the American: “Oh, I almost forgot. Do you remember MADD? I do, and what’s more I am sure the Iranians do. They may be full of bluster, but it is unlikely they are suicidal.”

    Actually, they are:

    “When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: “What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.””

    Ahmadinejad has surrounded himself with clerics from the Hojatieh society, regarded by the Shia as the lunatic fringe. The Ayatollah Khomeini considered them extreme and sent them underground. The Hojatieh believe that only an increase in violence and conflict will prompt the 12th Imam or Hidden Imam or Mahdi to return. Ahmadinejad has told Iranian government officials that the Mahdi will return in two years.

    Sally the American: “And if they are – well, I am sure the US has stealth bombers and cruise misssles ready to oblige. In the meantime, fantasies of pre-emptive nuclear strikes are not only immoral but insane as the fall out would poison much or all of the region (especially when you consider the number of weapons it would take to hit the various locations of the program – some of which are in or near heavily populated urban areas).”

    You are confused about the nature of the weapons being discussed. There is no consideration of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran a la Hiroshima. What is being considered is the use of low yield tac nuke bunker busters which would burrow into the earth and detonate below ground, breaking up buried bunkers. The radioactive fallout from such subterranean explosions would be minimal.

    Sally the American: “Re hurricanes and nuclear weapons. I think the point of your comparison was that since hurricanes were so big and powerful, nuclear weapons are not such a big deal. That is what is known as a red herring. Which is why I am not going to get into a tit for tat with you regarding which is more deadly and destructive: an act of nat,ure or a man-made nuclear weapon. “

    Actually, the original point was to refute the insane, uninformed, and wild-eyed claim that America has enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. My point is that our entire nuke arsenal releases only a fraction of the energy of a typical hurricane, which ply the Earth regularly without destroying it or even coming close. You are wise not to press the point further because you would lose the argument, your position being based on goofy myths passed around by lefty knuckleheads who never check their facts against reality.

    Sally the American: “I am sorry about all the wars Mahmood. I truly am. I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in such close proximity to so much senseless violence for so long, and I sincerely apologize for the part my US tax dollars have played.”

    Without America, Saddam Hussein would have taken Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia. Bahrain would have been a nice after dinner mint for Saddam. Life for Mahmood under Saddam would be one of terror. Some of his family members would have been kidnapped by the Mukhabarat, tortured, then returned to their doorstep to be shot in front of their horrified family’s eyes, just like they did in Kuwait. Every night every one in Bahrain left alive would go to bed fearing the next day.

    There would be no freewheeling discussions on Mahmood’s Den. There would be no Mahmood’s Den. There might be no Mahmood. He’s kinduva troublemaker, the kind the Mukhabarat might make an example of as a warning to the others. The Mukhabarat was fond of delivering prisoners back to their families with their brains removed as a terror tactic.

    With all those new billions of petrodollars going into his pocket, Saddam would by now have a nuclear arsenal along with vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons to throw at Iran, Iraq’s traditional enemy. The war in the Gulf would have increased in scope and violence with no power to stop it.

    Except America.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    20 April 2006

    Mahmood: “huh.. isn’t that what you’re doing now for free?”

    I’d still like the turban. I think I would look bitchin’. I want to ride the Metro wearing it.

    Steve

  • mahmood
    20 April 2006

    Steve: Ahmadinejad thinks that starting a nuclear war would speed the return of the hidden imam

    Did you actually see this reproduced as said by Ahmadinejad in any way that can back up your ready assertion? Or is it something that you cobbled up together:

    Ahmadinejad is Shia
    –> Shi’a believe in a “hidden” imam that will be the savior of the world when he re-appears (much like the Christians with Jesus) – whoever fights behind the Mahdi will be saved and given a ticket straight to Heaven
    –> then it must be that Ahmadinejad being a devout Shi’a is planning to destroy the world to hasten his appearance!

    Give me a break Steve, this is so thin that it is not worthy of you. Or maybe it is!

  • mahmood
    20 April 2006

    Steve, do you really believe this extremely thin “evidence” and conjecture you have put up? Where the hell do you get your information from? More importantly, how do you manage to put 2 and 2 and get an 11 as an answer? You are talking about Iran, Shi’ism, Islam, psychology, war and many other things that looks to me as a result of a cursory and unstudied google search than actual thing worth contemplating!

    You are taking things as gospel because they appear in print, while the very same things you do take as such, to us only deserve a roll of the eye.

    Steve you have intelligence, use it for goodness sake, don’t be a parrot and get people to actually believe what you repeat.

  • Ibn
    20 April 2006

    *sigh*

    I invite Steve to give me the name of the holy entity he believes in. He can write it here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

    Ok. One feels compelled to now ask Steve: “How many ostriches does one have to sacrifice to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ before Steve answers the 4 questions that have been asked of him?”

    Steve has not answered the FOUR (super easy) multiple choice questions I have asked him. Furthermore, Steve has changed his stance yet again:

    First he said he wanted to:
    Open up commerce with those the majority of Muslims who are responsible for Sep11

    Now he says:

    You don’t seem to understand that I would trade with people who approve of criminal acts, yet it happens every day.

    Uh Uh. Not so fast. In the latter Steve says “approve”. Earlier, he said “responsible”. They are NOT-THE-SAME.

    One can gladly APPROVE of murder, yet never be RESPONSIBLE for one. And therein lies the crux of the matter. Which one is it? Responsible? Or Approval? Pick a word, and stick with it. But now matter! Thats a small infraction – lets see whats left:

    ——————————————-

    Steve continously throws out “responsible”. I have asked him to answer those 4 questions then. Here they are again:

    Definition 1 of Responsible:
    1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one’s actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.

    Q1: Does the good Sir Steve believe that Muslims-who-have-not-condemned-Sep11-in-public are “liable to be required to give account” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 2 of Responsible:
    2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority:

    Q2: Does the good Sir Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 is “personally accountable” for the perpetrators who killed 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 3 of Responsible:
    3. Being a source or cause

    Q3: Does the good Sir Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 has been a “source” or “cause” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 4 of Responsible:
    Required to render account; answerable:

    Q4: Does the good Sir Steve beleive that all Muslims-who-have-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 are “required to render account” to (render account to who?) or are “answerable” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    —————————————

    One can in fact “see where” Steve is “coming from”. In fact, one can sympathize with him that there are in fact Muslim Imams out there who preach and tolerate Islamist Facism, and as such, are “part of the problem” so to speak.

    But calling random followers of the faith responsible for something they have not done, is ludicrous, and that is exactly what Steve is doing. If he stands by this, then he MUST fact up to the full meaning and gravity of the word “responsible”, and what his statement entails. In short, he has to answer the four questions I have posed to him.

    If he cannot, then I will gladly give him the following advice:

    Never let your mouth write a check your ass cant cash.

    -Ibn

  • Aliandra
    20 April 2006

    Jasra;

    Therefore, UBL used the excuse of American soldiers on Saudi soil. And Bush used the excuse of WMD.

    Every major intelligence agency thought Saddam had WMD. His own generals were not informed until three months before the invasion. Call that faulty intelligence but not an excuse.

    Hamas will find the money. If not from the EU, and not from the Palestinian diaspora, from Iran, or from whoever wants to sell the arms. Movements take time. Lots of it. And 20 years is a drop in the ocean.

    You’re talking about movements, not governments. If the Hamas government does not provide jobs and a decent living for its people, it will go. The violent fractiousness with Fateh does not make their position very stable.

    And thats how you have the mess that is there at the moment. Whose responsibility is that?

    The US undeniably deserves part of the blame. The other part of the blame undeniably belongs to the Iraqis. They had an opportunity to make their country into a progressive state that respected the integrity of its people. With the exception of the Kurds, they chose to waste it on tribal vendettas, clan feuds, religious and political killings, and so on. If you read the Iraqi blogs they’re madder at their own people than at the US.

    As for Iran – no-one is blaming the US per se. My whole point there is to tell you that a better response than isolationism is to not contribute to the problem in the first place

    You have been blaming the US throughout the thread, but I can forgive that 🙂 US responsibility ended when the Iranians put in a government supported by the majority of people.

    As for isolationism and the US, the world cannot have it both ways. It’s either damning the US for not fixing something or damning it for fixing something too late, too early, too badly, with too little money in too rainy weather, or too too. If the world can’t bear the fact that the US might screw up something they want it to fix, they should stop asking or do it themselves. Now the UN wants the US to do something about Darfur. The US is already doing all it can diplomatically and that’s good, but as for American troops going there, no f**king way.

  • Steve The American
    20 April 2006

    Mahmood: “Steve, do you really believe this extremely thin “evidence” and conjecture you have put up? Where the hell do you get your information from? More importantly, how do you manage to put 2 and 2 and get an 11 as an answer? You are talking about Iran, Shi’ism, Islam, psychology, war and many other things that looks to me as a result of a cursory and unstudied google search than actual thing worth contemplating! You are taking things as gospel because they appear in print, while the very same things you do take as such, to us only deserve a roll of the eye.”

    Well, Mahmood, if it’s not true, then knock it down. This is the picture being conveyed in the media. Has Ahamdinejad NOT installed a coterie of religious kooks around him as stated? Has he NOT changed the main drag in Teheran to prepare for the return of the Mahdi? These are tangible things that can be checked. Building a nuke while surrounding yourself with religious nuts is a bad development.

    Steve

  • Steve The American
    20 April 2006

    Ibn,

    I have given you yet another explanation of my position, which you ignore in favor of the one you would like me to have. I have explained how people can be held morally responsible for a crime even when they had no direct hand in it. You don’t respond to it but rather misstate my positions and expect me to defend those distorted positions.

    You are obviously not arguing in good faith and so it’s pointless to respond to you further.

    Steve

  • Mark Leisher
    20 April 2006

    How many Iranians do we have here in the village of Blast!, Mahmoodistan anyway? Here’s a link to one Persian opinion.
    Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

  • Ibn
    20 April 2006

    Steve said:

    You don’t respond to it but rather misstate my positions and expect me to defend those distorted positions.

    What exactly is Steve referring to as being distorted here? The dictionary definitions, or me trying to get him to answer up for his statements? I had also said to him:

    One can in fact “see where” Steve is “coming from”. In fact, one can sympathize with him that there are in fact Muslim Imams out there who preach and tolerate Islamist Facism, and as such, are “part of the problem” so to speak.

    But calling random followers of the faith responsible for something they have not done, is ludicrous, and that is exactly what Steve is doing.

    (?!) Eh? Dude. Like I had mentioned earlier, I CAN SEE where he is coming from, and sympathize with it. But communication is two way. I can acknowledge his position, (and debate it), but communication is two way. Right now Steve has not answered the 4 questions I asked of him. He is the one who is being evasive, and not communicating properly.

    You ask someone a question, and they tell you you arent being communicative. What are his answers to the questions? YES? NO? Does he agree? Not agree? This is the ESSENSE of debate. Steve is invited to partake. If Steve does not answer, it would be fair to say that he CANNOT answer up for his statement. Where is his defence? What force is stopping him from answering? As in any debate, this is the case. This is not a case for ball-busting. Answering questions your opponent asks you is the essense of debate.

    Here are the 4 questions again:
    —————————————-

    REMEMBER, Steve HAS said:
    I generally hold Muslims responsible for the Sep 11 attacks if they do not actively and publicly oppose them.

    (Sidenote: The fact that Steve has made this statement, but then posted 2 paragraphs that dont really correlate is ANOTHER issue. In essense, there is a rift between what Steve SAYS, and what he MEANS. Those questions are meant to highlight that what he SAYS however, are in CONTRADICTION, with what he MEANS).

    Definition 1 of Responsible:
    1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one’s actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.

    Q1: Does the good Sir Steve believe that Muslims-who-have-not-condemned-Sep11-in-public are “liable to be required to give account” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 2 of Responsible:
    2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority:

    Q2: Does the good Sir Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 is “personally accountable” for the perpetrators who killed 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 3 of Responsible:
    3. Being a source or cause

    Q3: Does the good Sir Steve believe every Muslim-who-has-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 has been a “source” or “cause” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    Definition 4 of Responsible:
    Required to render account; answerable:

    Q4: Does the good Sir Steve beleive that all Muslims-who-have-not-publically-condemned-Sep11 are “required to render account” to (render account to who?) or are “answerable” for murdering 3000 people? YES or NO?

    -Ibn

  • Ibn
    20 April 2006

    One more thing for Steve:

    THE REAL DEAL WITH STEVE

    Steve said:

    Ibn,
    I have given you yet another explanation of my position, which you ignore in favor of the one you would like me to have.

    False. Here is the issue.

    Steve SAYS X.
    In the English language, X MEANS Y.
    Steve SAYS “no no, I mean Z, not Y”.
    ..but Steve SAYS X, and X MEANS Y.
    Steve complains: “You are putting words in my mouth!”

    …Umm…So then DONT SAY X !!!

    Steve must take comfort that no one is going out to “get him”. I, Ibn, really do believe this poor soul’s “position” if you will. I believe what he MEANS. (He has explained it). The PROBLEM, is that he SAYS something that CONTRADICTS what he MEANS. And what he is SAYING in this case, (centered on the word “responsible” carries ALOT of weight).

    The purpose of this is to highlight this inconsistency. There is a rift between what Steve SAYS, and what he MEANS. If that is the case, then one usually modifies what he SAYS. Its basic. It happens all the time. Humans are self-correctors. If you do NOT correct it, then people have no choice BUT to judge you based on what you SAY.

    You cant loudly proclaim something, and then say “oh, but in my little head it means something else…”. That is simply looney!

    You SAY something, you MEAN it. If you dont, then dont say it! Correct yourself! The fact that Steve does not do this, is the crux of the issue. So long as he loudly claims “Muslims who-did-not-condemn-Sep11th-in-public are RESPONSIBLE for Sep11th”, then he MEANS what the word “responsible” insinuates. If he doesnt, correct oneself. This is language. And as such, “responsible” has the 4 meanings I have looked up, and asked him to answer for. If he is willing to stick to this word (and its undivorcable meaning) like a desperate prom date, then he MUST answer up. We still await.

    -Ibn

  • Sadferret
    20 April 2006

    I’m worn out reading this, God only knows how you guys feel … group hug?

  • Steve The American
    21 April 2006

    Steve: “Ahmadinejad thinks that starting a nuclear war would speed the return of the hidden imam.”

    Mahmood: “Did you actually see this reproduced as said by Ahmadinejad in any way that can back up your ready assertion? Or is it something that you cobbled up together … Give me a break Steve, this is so thin that it is not worthy of you. Or maybe it is!”

    Amir Taheri in the Opinion.Telegraph:

    “Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a “clash of civilisations” in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the “infidel” West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

    In Ahmadinejad’s analysis, the rising Islamic “superpower” has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim “ghazis” (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world’s oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

    According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad’s strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the “Dr Kissinger of Islam”, President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have “run away”. Iran’s current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by “divine coincidence”, corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.”

  • Steve The American
    21 April 2006

    Ahmadinejad: “We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return. If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier.”

    http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49698

  • mahmood
    21 April 2006

    From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return.

    What crap. Being a Shi’a for 44 years, this is the first time I ever here of this “fact”. This article is nothing more than scaremongering; sounds like what that guy Chalabi did to “engage” the US into Iraq.

    You’re going to fall for the same trick again?

  • FUBAR
    21 April 2006

    Ibn,

    How about contributing to the topic rather than going on and on about how Steve will not defend an opinion you have so eloquently modifed for him? It is getting boring! Face it, he is not going to buckle….and it takes for ever to read the “off topic” debate.

  • mahmood
    21 April 2006

    Steve, I’ve just been thinking about this “disappeared Imam” for a couple of hours now and I can remember that every time “Al-Mahdi” is mentioned, the name is followed by “May Allah make him re-appear soon” so there may be something into the lore that I don’t know about and have to investigate. I guess I am privileged in that I have been brought up without a thought to sectarianism and encouraged to think for myself rather than follow dogmatic views blindly. Thanks to my father for that one.

    I’ll go on a journey of discovery now of who this Mahdi is and why Shi’as think that he is going to be the Mesiah. As he disappeared some 300 years from the inception of Islam, I doubt very much that he is mentioned in the Qur’an or the Sunna. So let’s see what I can unearth about this.

    But logically thinking about the issue at hand – re Ahmadinejad and the nuclear debate – I think the twit is just using that particular lore to massage his popularity with his cronies and superiors, rather than the 80% of Iranies who don’t believe in him or his capabilities. He is a useful fool, but a very very dangerous one as he is using this crap to face-off the west that can wipe out his country in a few days and get this whole region to be flushed down the toilets of war for the 7th time in my living memory.

  • mahmood
    21 April 2006

    Fubar let him speak. Steve can more than take care of himself as he demonstrated countless times. There are germain issues that Ibn brought up that Steve needs to answer without ambiguity.

  • Steve The American
    21 April 2006

    Mahmood,

    Whether all this mumbo jumbo Ahmadinejad is spouting is a legitimate part of Islamic doctrine is almost beside the point. Whether Ahmadinejad actually believes the crap he spouts is almost irrelevant, although it appears he does believe it. What is important is that he has adopted a set of beliefs that supports a policy of aggression against his neighbors. He’s building atom bombs to fulfill that policy.

    Whether those beliefs are grounded in anything legitimate or are even sane is irrelevant. What matters is that he intends to act on them.

    Everyone rolled their eyes at Bin Laden when he declared war on America. All he had was a bag of boxcutters. Ahmadinejad will have nukes. He’s announced his wacky intent to rule the world and his policy of war against America.

    Let me tell you, Mahmood, America will not let Sep 11 happen again. Certainly not with nukes.

    Steve

  • Sally the American
    21 April 2006

    Mahmood, not that I am by any means an expert – but after living in Iran in the 70’s, I have maintained a very active interest in all things Persian including religion. The Imam Mahdi is – from my understanding – a concept that really took root and flourished in a number of Sufi sects. The idea of the return of the hidden Imam is considered a mystical state which occurs in the heart. (the experience of religious awakening following the classical inner cataclysm, Dark Night of the Soul and such) The first time I came across the idea was in my studies of the great Islamic mystic Ibn ‘Arabi.

    I have ‘hung’ in Iranian circles quite a lot – and my sense is that their reaction is similar to yours “the Imam-what?” Or that it is theological obscurity that only a cleric can speak knowlegably of. For this reason, if Ahmadinejad is spouting off about this concept, I wonder what the “real” clerics think. It is also worth mentioning that this would not be the first time a religious literalist nutcase took an idea that had great symbolic beauty and twisted it into something horrible. We see it all the time in this country in the spewings of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell – particularly in the noxious fundamentalist view that a ME congflagration is a necessary part of a biblical prophecy which will open the way for the return of the Messiah in Israel. Etc.

  • Steve The American
    21 April 2006

    Here is a disturbing article that outlines Ahmadinejad’s rise in the Basij, where he recruited and trained children during the Iran-Iraq war to clear minefields by walking across them in formation. The Basij deatch cult remains one of his political bases.

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060424&s=kuntzel042406

    The same article reveals that the use of an atom bomb against Israel predates Ahmadinejad and is a longstanding theme in the Iranian government:

    … in December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything.” On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it “will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable–only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam.

    And Rafsanjani is a member of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the Iranian Revolution; he believes that any conflict ought to have a “worthwhile” outcome. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. In one of his first TV interviews after being elected president, he enthused: “Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?”

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060424&s=kuntzel042406&c=2

    When sending thousands of children to their deaths in minefields is a profound formative experience in Ahmadinejad’s character, it is not out of character for him to foment a war where a hundred thousand Iranians lose their lives in a nuclear exchange.

    Steve

  • Ibn
    21 April 2006

    Dearest FUBAR,

    How about contributing to the topic rather than going on and on about how Steve will not defend an opinion you have so eloquently modifed for him?

    Please state what opinion I have “modified” for Steve. How is asking Steve to explain HIS OWN WORDS and their REPURCUSSIONS based on their MEANINGS, a “modification” of any sort?

    And how is this off-topic? So we start discussing Iran/Nukes/Hidden Imams, someone, oh I dunno, lets say his name is “Queve”, makes a dubious statement or two, (which are off topic to begin with), and WE arent allowed to HOLD him to account??

    Face it, he is not going to buckle

    Thats not my problem. That’s his. In fact, I for one, do not WANT him to buckle…especially not when he goes around telling cops that he knows alot more people responsible for Sep11th. I want him to be as steadfast and coherent as possible so that we can watch the defamation lawsuits with ease.

    Ive said it before, and will say it again. Steve SAYS one thing, and MEANS another. He SAYS something, but then he tells us that “oh no, in my head it actually MEANS something else!” Well that’s not gonna fly jack.

    If we are going to whore around words and not be “responsible”, not pun intended, for their meaning, then allow me to be the first to do so:

    “Death to America”.

    -Ibn

  • Chanad
    21 April 2006

    Mahmood said:

    As he disappeared some 300 years from the inception of Islam, I doubt very much that he is mentioned in the Qur’an or the Sunna. So let’s see what I can unearth about this.

    Be very very careful of trying to do such a thing. Yes, read and learn, but be wary not fool yourself into thinking that you have gained an authoritative understanding of the subject by reading a few sentences. A while ago, some people said “hey, all we need to do is go back to the Quran and Sunna and ignore everything since to know what real Islam is”. The result was Wahhabism.

    A small note on the the Mahdi though. The idea of a Mahdi who will come to lead the righteous prior to the Resurrection is quite prevalent amongst Sunnis also (though, obviously they disagree with Shias on his identity and nature).

  • Sally the American
    21 April 2006

    I agree Chanad, re the concept of the Mahdi – or “hidden Imam.” Ibn Arabi was Sunni.

    It is also worth noting that all 3 major middle eastern religions have incoporporated some sort of Apocolyptic end of days scenario. And it does seem to have emerged in ancient Persia in the Avestan, the book of Zoroaster. Of course none of this excuses any of the religious radicals who have used this idea to forment war and bloodshed.

  • Chanad
    21 April 2006

    Sally said:

    I agree Chanad, re the concept of the Mahdi – or “hidden Imam.” Ibn Arabi was Sunni.

    Although most people consider him to be Sunni, there are some Shia who claim that Ibn Arabi was a Shia. Or if they don’t consider him to be a Shia, there is certainly a huge school within Shiism that views him as being as being one of the biggest stars of Islam, and refer to him by his title “Shaykh al Akbar”. Khomeini was one of the foremost proponents of this school in recent times. Its all absolutely fascinating and utterly confusing to me. (I assume you probably know much about this than me!)

  • mahmood
    21 April 2006

    Chanad: Be very very careful of trying to do such a thing. Yes, read and learn, but be wary not fool yourself into thinking that you have gained an authoritative understanding of the subject by reading a few sentences.

    I wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing and I do not intend to be a theologian of any sort. I want to understand how they got to decide that when a 5 year-old boy disappeared that he really was taken and hidden by Allah. Furthermore, they created a yarn that this 12th Imam is going to be revealed “one it is time” to lead the Muslim nation in a war to cleanse the whole world and let peace rule for 7 years, climaxing in the Apocalypse and an entrance into Heaven!

    I don’t think that Speilberg on crack can come up with such a scenario, but it is believed as fact by the majority of Shi’a muslims, and as Sally mentioned above, almost all “Heavenly” religions actually espouse this believe with their own brand-approved person.

    I am skeptical, at best.

    Going back to the issue at hand; however, if Ahmadinejad is working toward the 12th Imam’s appearance in all shapes and forms and preparing the ground for him to do so by going into futile confrontational politics… we have a huge problem…

  • MoClippa
    22 April 2006

    Steve – “We’re not interested in winning a popularity contest in Teheran but in stopping religious nutcases from starting a nuclear holocaust. The nukes must be stopped now, the hearts and minds can come later.”

    Yes Steve but you should also know and understand what your fighting against. Top down –
    The Irani president is never alone, his statements are NOT policy decisions. He always has to report to Khameni and the Supreme Council (I belive is its name) who are both above him. What he can do though, is create nationalist frevor and stir people to a cause. This is typical in Irani Mullah behavior, that is to rely on the Charisma of th ruler. In that sense, Ahmadinjaad is fashioning himself to be quite the demagogue, but aside from rallying people to a ’cause, he can’t go beyond what the supreme council fashions.

    On the other hand the majority of Irani people do not view this issue as having the potential to shape the world for the arival of the Mahdi (12th Imam) even though their president might declare it to be such. They view it as a conflict of soverignty. Iran has historically been opressed by other nations, or used as a semi-colonial outpost by France, Russia, and The United States recently. They do not want to succeed any of their soverignty to any international power, mostly on an issue such as nuclear rights which they very well know grants them the legal capacity to produce nuclear power (not weapons, which most of the regime and people view as being unIslamic… to back this fact up, when Sadam used chemical weapons on Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran did not respond in kind because of its views on chemical weapons being unIslamic)

    What this means is, if you bomb them, then you are putting yourself (in their perspective) in the position of “new colonial opressor designate”, very much similar to what occured in Vietnam (even though comparisons between are few and thin – In Vietnam the U.S. administration viewed it as a war against communisim, the Vietnamese viewed it as a war against colonial opression, which meant that every villager and and kids picked up weapons to fight to maintain soverignty (evn if they may not have believed in communisim) – Robert MacNamarra describes the situation well in the documentary “fog of war”.

    Now what I’m saying is you know for a fact this man is several years away from gaining a nuclear weapon, and you know a lot can change in days let alone years. If a policy of incentive and dialogue is offered (more carrots then sticks for now) and you improve the lives of people, then 1. they might like you a bit better and look towards understanding your perspective, 2. they focus on comforts and luxuries (and maintiaining them) as opposed to security concerns (where they readily mobilize for war, that is the people, not the military)

    The campaign across France was very violent, yet stopped Nazi Germany from further violence. The atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very violent, yet stopped WWII on a dime and begat a peaceful japan.

    As for this assumption, I readily provide you with another perspective that uses the same justification. Ghandi = peaceful protest, he trademarked the whole approach. Many would argue it won the independence of India. Yet Ghandi was active at a time in India where there were already a number of groups functioning to violently oppose their colonial masters (british). The argument goes that Ghandi’s peaceful protest would never have been succesful had they not been given a counter-weight of violent protests. Nobody would have recognized Ghandi’s campaign existed in the British media, had it not been a distinctly different approach to the violent “terrorist” campaign that existed around him. So yes I guess you could argue that violence is useful sometimes, but it differs from perspective to perspective to have varying ends. In this sense, terrorist violence (stick) and ghandis peaceful protest (carrot) combined provided for an independent India.

    Very well, if that is taken into consideration and we accept that the terrorist, or freedom fighters actions against England for the independence of India is justified, then that also justifies a lot (in their minds) of the fundementalist actions that are going on today against the west, which are often viewed as opressors or neo-colonial powers.

    I don’t agree with that, both forms of violence, terrorist (such as ousama) and military (as the U.S.) justify themselves based on their perspecitive and historical and cultural understandings of themselves. By each existing, they actively promote the annihalation of the other because their violence spawns from the others violence, and they seek to cancel each other out.

    You are not fighting Hitler along the shores of Normandy trying to strike and root out the nazi military machine. You are fighting something that I belive should be tackled socially and culturally lest it grow and fester into something much more heinous and justified when it observes itself as having to protect itself from you

    — By the way Steve sorry for the late reply! And to the rest, sorry if my quotations turned out wrong, its my first time and I have no clue about inserting html quotes in, so I just read up on it.

  • MoClippa
    22 April 2006

    Heh, yeah they did turn out wrong…. Steve I quoted you twice in mine, the first is obvious, the second is

    “The campaign across France was very violent, yet stopped Nazi Germany from further violence. The atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very violent, yet stopped WWII on a dime and begat a peaceful japan.”

    Again sorry everybody but I’m new to the whole quoting thing!!

  • MoClippa
    22 April 2006

    In my earlier post I said Iran had three recent colonial opressors, France, Russia and America. – Correction, replace France with Britain.

    For more info on Irani conflicts with colonialist powers, read up on the Tobacco revolt as a start, and go on from there. Theres a lot of interesting information of how Iran was used for quite some time and that might shape a view of their perspective in understanding why the regular people and moderates do not want to give up an ayotah of soverignty, as they view that as being directly implicit in them returning back to pre 1979 Iran Puppet State

  • MoClippa
    22 April 2006

    Mahmood, in various press confrences (to the English speaking media) I have noticed very specific dialogue by the incumbant Irani regime towards setting up the world for the arrival of the Mahdi. They seemed to be presenting it in a sort of universalist, ‘the world shall be at peace, because we’re all looking for our mahdi’s to arrive’ sort of way… and almost approached the idea of the mahdi as being generic… You as I very well know that the mahdi is not a generic concept and if we were to take the dialogue as is then we would assume that yes he is trying to setup the world for the reapperance of the 12th Imam which would be VERY bad new.

    Again I think this is primarily nationalist speech on from the Irani administration. They know if they push the world to act against them by preaching these issues, can garner domestic support by preaching their soverignty is being trampled over.

    Khomeini adhered to a very Manchian view of the world, which sees the world as being divided into the non-muslim and muslim worlds. They observed the whole hearted indoctrination of western ideals and importation of western products as being directly implicit in the demise on Islam, that they are an attack on Islam and that there is little compatability. Extremists in the Manchian view promote (like some marxist views) that the muslim world split from the rest, cut off all ties and promote trade and cultural development within themselves without outside impedment. Ofcourse this is both wrong and impossible, but as a view it may lead many to take radical courses of action.

    So in this sense, if we were to observe Ahmadinjaad as “going back to the roots of the revolution” as he has often argued, then we should also take into consideration that his perspective may be very manchian as was Khomeinis (who ignited the 79 regime change, and united opposers to the government under 1 banner)… This means, Unite the muslim world, and set it in direct opposition to the Western world…. This can only be done through a combination of nationalism and charisma… as well as setting up Iran as both a regional Demagogue and Hegemon….

    Is he actually trying to setup the world for a revival of the 12th imam, I certainly hope not and really don’t think he is, I think he’s trying to spur up more a revival of 60’s and 70’s Arab Nationalism within a more religous sense then what had occured before (secular nationalisim)

  • jasra-jedi
    24 April 2006

    Aliandra.

    “Every major intelligence agency thought Saddam had WMD. His own generals were not informed until three months before the invasion. Call that faulty intelligence but not an excuse.”

    I don’t think thats true. I think that both the US and the UK intelliegnce agencies have made it more than clear that they were asked to find intelligence that would support the WMD claim. Even Powell wouldnt stand by the weak intelligence. And it is not faulty intelligence, it is faulty excuse for a war.

    ” You’re talking about movements, not governments. If the Hamas government does not provide jobs and a decent living for its people, it will go. The violent fractiousness with Fateh does not make their position very stable.”

    Agreed. But, before Saddam’s Baathis government, there was a Baathist movement. And before Hizbolla’s place in government, it was als a movement. In the Middle East, movements turn into Governments. And my only point here was that it will take significantly more than 20 years for things to evolve.

    “The US undeniably deserves part of the blame. The other part of the blame undeniably belongs to the Iraqis. They had an opportunity to make their country into a progressive state that respected the integrity of its people.”

    Go back to basics here. A traumatized child does not become ‘normal’ right after they stop the child abuse. It takes time for wounds to heal. And it is this process that the US totally mismanaged because it chose to believe Ahmed Chalabi’s version of things than State. It is unfair to expect the Ir…

  • jasra-jedi
    24 April 2006

    ooops mahmood. screwed up there and submitted before i finishing posting. please ignore all the bits after ‘with the exception of the kurds’. that is a repeat of aliandra’s earlier post.

  • mahmood
    24 April 2006

    ok you can carry on now! 🙂

  • Steve The American
    24 April 2006

    Testing, testing, testing.

    Mahmood, I posted a couple times over the weekend but it was eaten by the Bit Bugs.

    Steve

  • Aliandra
    24 April 2006

    Carryin’ on ….

    Jasra;

    And it is not faulty intelligence, it is faulty excuse for a war.

    Ir was faulty intelligence, Jasra. I don’t think that’s being disputed anymore. Saddam’s own generals thought he had WMD too. They were not told the truth until right before the invasion. If he could fool his inner circle, he most certainly fooled everyone else.

    it was als a movement. In the Middle East, movements turn into Governments. And my only point here was that it will take significantly more than 20 years for things to evolve.

    I will agree with your point about movements by saying it is generally true.

    A traumatized child does not become ‘normal’ right after they stop the child abuse. It takes time for wounds to heal. And it is this process that the US totally mismanaged because it chose to believe Ahmed Chalabi’s version of things than State. It is unfair to expect the Ir…

    The majority of abused children do not go out and commit hideous crimes when they grow up. Society expects proper behavior and that expectation is not considered unfair. But following your argument to its conclusion, the fractiousness would exist even if the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam themselves. And since, in your view, the Iraqis are children who are not responsible for anything, who will you blame then?

    MoClippa;

    Gandhi’s success also owes something to the fact that he was dealing with the British. Had the Raj been an instrument of the Soviet Union or Red China, history would have turned out a lot bloodier.

    Ibn;

    Steve’s post of Apr 20th 2:46 explains the point perfectly. Individual opinions, when accumulated over an entire population, do indeed direct the way a society thinks and acts. We are all in this together. No, you are not directly responsible for the atrocities of others, but you are responsible for not condemning the attitudes that brought those atrocities about (the Holocaust comes to mind here). Until everybody acknowledges that terrorism is bad for everyone, bad for Jews, Zionists, Muslims, infidels, bunnies, etc … it will not go away.

    If you hear people saying bad things, make it a point to scold them. If you can’t do it publicly, do it privately, starting with your friends and relatives. If a newspaper (or a mosque) puts out some really hateful opinions, write a letter of complaint, anonymously if you have to. Get your friends to do the same. Enough people do this and public opinion will begin turn.

  • Ibn
    24 April 2006

    Aliandra,

    No, you are not directly responsible for the atrocities of others, but you are responsible for not condemning the attitudes that brought those atrocities about (the Holocaust comes to mind here).

    Ahh, Aliandra, but thats not what Steve has said. He might have meant it (which I dont think so either), but he certainly has not said it. 🙂

    Steve has repeatedly said that Muslims who do not condemn Sep11th are responsible FOR Sep11th. That is light years away from what you are saying, whereby Muslims who do not condemn Sep11th are, well, responsible for not condemning certain attitudes. Thats very different than saying they are responsible FOR murder. So your paraphrased quote does not reflect what Steve has said.

    I understand perfectly where Steve is coming from. I understand what he MEANS. My entire engagement with him is to show that what he SAYS, is very DIFFERENT than what he MEANS.

    Since it is fair to assume we arent telepaths, people must MEAN what they SAY. If there is a difference, then they must modify what they SAY. As long as Steve sticks to “…they are responsible for Sep11th”, I will continue to ask him the four oh-so-scary questions which I posted above. (I bold, so he cant miss them).

    P.S. Aliandra, before you jump into my engagement with Steve, please read the previous posts, and specifically my questions to him. You will see that he has evaded most of them. But more importantly, I want you to stay within context. Thank you.

    -Ibn

  • MoClippa
    24 April 2006

    Agreed Aliandra, it would have been a much different situation, But thats not really what I was on about. I was talking about justifying forms of violence in reply to steves justification of it and the relation of that to my views on peace. Whether it had been Britan or China is besides the point I was trying to make, and that you mention that trivializes what I was trying to say.

  • billT
    25 April 2006

    Been following this post with interest and amusement. The interesting part is that no one who lives in the area or elsewhere wants an Iran with nukes and the concept of the Mahdi – or “hidden Imam.” which shows how much Muslims, Christians and Jews have in common when it comes to the mysticism of the coming of someone. I find it amusing that people can base there life on the coming of someone rather than the helping of someone.

    The amusing part is Ibn trying to get to Steve. Ibn if your lucky as Steve gets older God will change his views but your not going to.

    billT

  • Ibn
    25 April 2006

    BillT said:

    The amusing part is Ibn trying to get to Steve. Ibn if your lucky as Steve gets older God will change his views but your not going to.

    billT

    Ahh yes. Quite true Mr BillT. Steve is quite a commodity. But I doubt the Almighty could correct him either. After all, the omnipotent supreme being wouldn’t possibly destroy a damnation of its own creation. 🙂

    -Ibn

Previous
Creative Scaremongering