You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Armegeddon, or should we launch a nuclear..
- Thread starter Artie21
- Start date
How many have their been so far?
Here i was thinking they were a death cult, now their a doomsday cult as well?
Makes sense, though.
But given, their enjoyment of killing people and killing themelves, how on earth would they know if they hadnt' accidentally already bumped off this 12th imam?
Here i was thinking they were a death cult, now their a doomsday cult as well?
Makes sense, though.
But given, their enjoyment of killing people and killing themelves, how on earth would they know if they hadnt' accidentally already bumped off this 12th imam?
Quote from Artie21:
Attack on Iran.
Radical Islam holds that the 12th Imam (thier version of the messiah) will reveal himself. Yet he can only do so in a time of cataclysm. Is this what Iran is seeking to create with its pursuit of nuclear weapons?
They're confusing Jesus Christ with some mullah.
Surely you don't seriously believe this. How about a little reality ?
First there is no hard evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Just as the IAEA found no substantive evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq, they have uncovered no significant evidence in Iran. No amount of blather can negate this.
Which is not to say with absolute certainty that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Even if that were to be the case, let's look at a bit of the real world.
Iran does not exist in what you might call a 'nuclear free zone'. India, Pakistan and most importantly Israel all have nuclear weapons. I'm sure that the effectiveness of MAD hasn't disappeared with the end of the cold war. That could very well be a quite rational reason from an Iranian point of view to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran is on Bush's axis of evil. It's neighbour, also in Bush's axis of evil, has been devastated by an unjustified war of agression by the United States. The United States has consistently refused to provide security guarantees to Iran. In fact the US has threatened Iran with a nuclear strike ("All options are on the table"). Iran cannot mix it up militarily with the US in the conventional sense and win. Again from a Iranian point of view, acquisition of nuclear weapons as a deterrent may have a certain rationality about it.
Demonising peoples, goverments and religions has just one purpose - beating the drums of war.
First there is no hard evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Just as the IAEA found no substantive evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq, they have uncovered no significant evidence in Iran. No amount of blather can negate this.
Which is not to say with absolute certainty that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Even if that were to be the case, let's look at a bit of the real world.
Iran does not exist in what you might call a 'nuclear free zone'. India, Pakistan and most importantly Israel all have nuclear weapons. I'm sure that the effectiveness of MAD hasn't disappeared with the end of the cold war. That could very well be a quite rational reason from an Iranian point of view to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran is on Bush's axis of evil. It's neighbour, also in Bush's axis of evil, has been devastated by an unjustified war of agression by the United States. The United States has consistently refused to provide security guarantees to Iran. In fact the US has threatened Iran with a nuclear strike ("All options are on the table"). Iran cannot mix it up militarily with the US in the conventional sense and win. Again from a Iranian point of view, acquisition of nuclear weapons as a deterrent may have a certain rationality about it.
Demonising peoples, goverments and religions has just one purpose - beating the drums of war.
Quote from dcraig:
Surely you don't seriously believe this. How about a little reality ?
Iran cannot mix it up militarily with the US in the conventional sense and win. Again from a Iranian point of view, acquisition of nuclear weapons as a deterrent may have a certain rationality about it.
Demonising peoples, goverments and religions has just one purpose - beating the drums of war.
I thought the topic was somewhat theological, rather than practical.
I disagree, mostly, the time and monetary aspect puts paid to those concepts of conventional war "winning" being anything other than a red herring.
Win the battle, lose the fight etc, vietnam, (lost) , mexican war, lost if illegal immigration floats your boat, ww2, lost if you think japanese imports werent the way to go 30 years ago, etc etc etc etc, ww1, lost if you look at the results re ww2, etc etc.
Of course they want nukes, they want to take out israel and the western infidels, in entirety, completely.
There was a key word there, "radical" islam.
How that differs from the normal shit, well, enlighten me on the matter, please.
MAD is effective with those concerned about living. Radical Islamists are not. Do the math.Quote from dcraig:
I'm sure that the effectiveness of MAD hasn't disappeared with the end of the cold war. That could very well be a quite rational reason from an Iranian point of view to acquire nuclear weapons.
Quote from hapaboy:
MAD is effective with those concerned about living. Radical Islamists are not. Do the math.
I presume you are referring to suicide bombers. At the risk of stating the entirely obvious, there is a world of difference between individuals martyring themselves and the leadership of an entire nation inviting certain catastrophe by initiating a nuclear exchange. If Iran possessed nuclear weapons, which it does not and under any scenario is not likely to for several years at least, I would think that the leadership would believe it in their own best interest to keep them under the tightest security lest they fall into the hands of loose cannon.
You miss entirly the point of suicide bombings - they are an effective political and military weapon in asymetric warfare. The insurgents in Iraq are not fighting to destroy themselves and all their people - they are fighting to win, which means expelling the foreign occupiers. Suicide bombings are a weapon to this end. If would hardly be the first time in history that people have sacrificed their lives for what they believe was right.
Proponents of Islamophobia might find it hard to swallow, but the best evidence is that it is the presence of foreign military occupiers that is the key factor in suicide bombings. If the occupiers are of a different religion, it just makes matters worse. When occupiers leave, suicide bombings stop.
This interview with Associate Professor Robert Pape who has assembled the worlds largest (public) database on suicide bombers is most illuminating. His findings are that religion is NOT the primary motivation.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
As I don't want this to descend into a flame war, please be advised that I understand the intent of your post but disagree with your conclusions.Quote from dcraig:
I presume you are referring to suicide bombers. At the risk of stating the entirely obvious, there is a world of difference between individuals martyring themselves and the leadership of an entire nation inviting certain catastrophe by initiating a nuclear exchange. If Iran possessed nuclear weapons, which it does not and under any scenario is not likely to for several years at least, I would think that the leadership would believe it in their own best interest to keep them under the tightest security lest they fall into the hands of loose cannon.
I'm not talking specifically about suicide bombers, although they are a symptom of the overall problem. That overall problem is radical Islam.
I do not believe that Iran can be equated to that of your average nation-state, including most Middle Eastern nations. The Assads of the world, the Qaddafis, Saddam before we kicked him out - they support(ed) and abett(ed) suicide bombings and the militant groups that carried them out. But they do (did) so primarily for political reasons.
Iran is a unique case. It's leaders preach hatred of Israel and the US every day. They are radical Shiite zealots who believe it is their duty to herald the second coming of a Shia Muslim messiah via an apocalypse. Their statements and actions give me no cause not to take them at their word.
IMO we simply cannot afford to take the risk. Millions of lives and the future of our country are at stake.
Would you let your child approach a pit bull that barked, salivated, and strained at its leash when your child came near it? I think not.
Quote from dcraig:
I presume you are referring to suicide bombers. At the risk of stating the entirely obvious, there is a world of difference between individuals martyring themselves and the leadership of an entire nation inviting certain catastrophe by initiating a nuclear exchange. If Iran possessed nuclear weapons, which it does not and under any scenario is not likely to for several years at least, I would think that the leadership would believe it in their own best interest to keep them under the tightest security lest they fall into the hands of loose cannon.
You miss entirly the point of suicide bombings - they are an effective political and military weapon in asymetric warfare. The insurgents in Iraq are not fighting to destroy themselves and all their people - they are fighting to win, which means expelling the foreign occupiers. Suicide bombings are a weapon to this end. If would hardly be the first time in history that people have sacrificed their lives for what they believe was right.
Proponents of Islamophobia might find it hard to swallow, but the best evidence is that it is the presence of foreign military occupiers that is the key factor in suicide bombings. If the occupiers are of a different religion, it just makes matters worse. When occupiers leave, suicide bombings stop.
This interview with Associate Professor Robert Pape who has assembled the worlds largest (public) database on suicide bombers is most illuminating. His findings are that religion is NOT the primary motivation.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
Last time I read about this guys hypothesis I noted that he excluded any sucide killings before 1980. He is basically doing the disinformation PR work for the Islamic terrorists. His data
is limited to 462 bombings and he draws sweeping conclusions that seemed to be entirely based on taking OBL at his word.
By the way in the interest of intellectual debate - I am not saying that I know his "findings" to be wrong. I am just saying his conclusions are not necesarily right. They seem to echo the OBL party line.