Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/30/06 01:20 PM, Begoner wrote: Heh, conspiracy theory?

Yes, our gas prices have sky rocketed and any gas we are getting from Iraq isnt worth the hundreds of billions we have spent there. CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Actually, one glance at the website of that magazine is enough to reveal what its goals are.

Begoner, do you want to try to refute anything or are you going to do anything but say the source is bad so the material is bad? I have personally see you link to far far FAR left sites and defend them. What now, bitch?

Honestly, look up Hojjatieh, look up Ahmadinejad. Khomeini has in Iranian schoolchildrens textbooks something along the lines "Martyrdom=good." You want to close your eyes and think religious extremists somehow are rational, go ahead. I sure as shit am not going to let your kind spread their particular brand of bullshit and let in infect others.

BTW, I love the argument where the source is biased and yet you refute nothing. Love it.

Do you prefer one country starting 20 wars for no damned reason?

Yeah, what 20 wars?

You call it "peace"? The only times in which there was relative peace was when there were countries capable of keeping others in check. When there was only one "big dog," that dog beat up on all the smaller dogs.

You really dont read to much history do you?

I can refer you to times when everyone was on roughly equal footing and everyone killed eachother and war was constant. I can also refer you to times when there was one world power and there was relative peace. Prove your claim that fractured power is better.

If you think that the US has the right to invade weaker countries on some bogus pretexts just to acquire petrol and army bases, then it is your sanity which I question.

You are puttin words in my mouth you retarted douche. And the USA is a damn site safer bet than "Ayatullah" Ahmadinejad and his crazy ass shit.

I did not say that it would hurt America if Iran obtained nuclear weapons.

I am saying it would. It would hurt every country in the world when an unstable theocracy led by religious nuts who actively support martyrdom and continually ignore world resolutions. Thats funny how you are on Israels ass for every UN resolution but when it comes to Iran, hey, they are anti Western, give them a break.

Unable to continue exploiting countries without fear of reprisal. A sad day indeed.

How the fuck are we exploiting any of the countries in the Middle East? We arent even exploiting Iraq, evidenced by our huge debt. Oh wait, thats right, you dont like looking at reality, you like twisting it to fit your anti-Western outlook.

I am actually of the opinion that Ahmadinejad is far more sane and intelligent than the US leadership can ever hope to be.

PFFT. You fucking joking? Oh yeah, denying the Holocast, saying Israel should be destroyed, been quoted as seeing religious signs when giving a speech at the UN, been quoted as calling for the spread of an Islamic Republic from North Africa to Pakistan, and been quoted as saying people are not smart enough to lead for themselves. Oh yes, what a great and sane leader.

I mean, at least Ahmadinejad has never been quoted as saying "God speaks through me."

Oh yes, the "I saw signs of Allah at the UN when giving a speech" and widening roads in Tehran to make them bigger for when the Mahdi returns are totally rational.

The Iranian leadership's rein on fanstasy and reality is quite strong -- they realize that the only way to stop US aggression is to be able to fight back.

Yes, a theocracy who thinks the Mahdi is living in a well sure is sane and rational.

They also realize that selling a nuclear weapon to terrorist or otherwise using it against the US would be utterly suicidal (and no, they are not suicidal, despite what you may believe).

Yeah, you want to try proving that with, ya know, anything? Because they ENCOURAGE MARTYRDOM. They have a MARTYRS BRIGADE. Not suicidal? Bitch please.

I'm sure that Iran will have them for decades and never use them either, the same way every single country that has ever had nukes (except the US) has done. Why should Iran be so special?

BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EXTREMIST THEOCRACY. Damn.

Neither has Iran -- Ahmadinejad has said that he only wants a one-state solution that would satisfy Israelis and Palestinians.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
Huh.

Iran wanted to review the facts before drawing a conclusion like every good scientist should.

OMG give me a fucking break. You leftist apologizers are fucing ridiculous. You cry about the Lebanese "genocide" but then need to make sure the Holocaust happened. Give me a flying fucking break. Im sure Dachau was just a holiday camp for Jews with defective steam rooms.

They wanted a conference where both ideas could be debated -- are you against a healthy debate?

A healthy debate? The fuck are you talking about? We dont need to debate HISTORICAL and ARCHAEOLOGICAL FACT. You support a debate to make sure slavery happened? WWI happened? You were born?

Yes. We would rather kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians rather than agree to a conditional peace.

Conditional peace? They deserved no conditional peace. They DECLARED WAR on the USA and sneak attacked us that killed thousands, were absolute dogs to all of Asia and our soldiers, and raped and pillaged on a scale even the Nazis would be hardpressed to match.

They were in no condition to declare terms to peace. None. They were warned, they knew thousands would die, they knew they would lose, their fault. The blood is on their leaderships hands for not surrenduring.

Yes, our gas prices have sky rocketed and any gas we are getting from Iraq isnt worth the hundreds of billions we have spent there. CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Yes, because Bush cares so, so much about the US economy and not special interest groups such as Big Oil. I mean, Halliburton's stock increased from $9 before the war to $69 dollars in 2005. I guess it's just a coincidence that Halliburton, which Cheney used to run, profited so much from the war, while the American people lost so much. Various companies turned a huge profit because of the war, and those companies belong to lobbies which dictate US foreign policy. You must be extremely naive to think we invaded Iraq because of WMDs or because Bush was just so nice that he wanted to free the Iraqi people.

Begoner, do you want to try to refute anything or are you going to do anything but say the source is bad so the material is bad? I have personally see you link to far far FAR left sites and defend them. What now, bitch?

That was a fairly long article and I didn't have enough space to comment on it all. I'll attempt to refute any part of that you wish, but reading the entire thing is too much. And yes, if the source is bad and does not provide a list of sources for their assertions, then I am dubious of the veracity of the content. What far, far, FAR left sites have you seen me link to?

Honestly, look up Hojjatieh, look up Ahmadinejad. Khomeini has in Iranian schoolchildrens textbooks something along the lines "Martyrdom=good." You want to close your eyes and think religious extremists somehow are rational, go ahead. I sure as shit am not going to let your kind spread their particular brand of bullshit and let in infect others.

Yeah, what 20 wars?

What 20 countries were you referring to? I assumed that by 20, you meant 2, since there's not another 19 super-powers waiting in the wings.

I can refer you to times when everyone was on roughly equal footing and everyone killed eachother and war was constant. I can also refer you to times when there was one world power and there was relative peace. Prove your claim that fractured power is better.

I can refer you to the exact opposite of that. For example, look at Rome. They were strong, and they conquered land, bit by bit, because nobody was strong enough to stop them. Look at the Mongol Empire -- they were the sole super-power in the region, but did they attempt to keep peace or were they hell-bent on conquering land? Anyway, many examples of fractured power being bad are moot due to the nuclear weaponry that we now have, making it highly unlikely for one nuclear power to declare open war on another.

I am saying it would. It would hurt every country in the world when an unstable theocracy led by religious nuts who actively support martyrdom and continually ignore world resolutions.

What world resolutions did they ignore? The NPT states that a country has the right to enrich uranium, so why shouldn't they be doing that? And guess who has ignored more world resolutions: Iran or Israel? Only one of those two nations has committed war crimes and gone to war against weaker neighboring countries. I'd rather Iran have nukes than Israel, but as long as Israel has them, so should Iran. And why do you care so much about martyrdom -- in many cultures, it is noble to die for one's country, not just in Iranian culture.

Thats funny how you are on Israels ass for every UN resolution but when it comes to Iran, hey, they are anti Western, give them a break.

Because Israel is breaking UN resolutions for reasons that don't fly with me. They are breaking them because they simply wish to kill more Arabs and steal their land, not because they need to defend themselves against the US. There is a difference between a 30-year-long illegal occupation of several territories and the building of a defensive weapons system to protect against invasion. One says "we want to beat the crap out of you" and thee other says "please don't hurt us."

How the fuck are we exploiting any of the countries in the Middle East?

I'll confine myself to how we exploited Iran, because the list is far too long. From 1952-53, Iran's democractically elected nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began a period of rapid power consolidation, which led to the brief exile and then placement into power of Iran's constitutional monarch, the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Much of the events of 1952 were started by Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum. Established by the British in the early 20th century, an agreement had been made to share profits (85% British-15% Iran), but the company hid their financial records from the Iranian government. Due to alleged profit monopolization by the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, the Iranian Parliament had unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company. The United States and Britain, through a now-admitted covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from US Embassy in Tehran, helped organize protests to overthrow Moussadeq and return the Shah to Iran. After his return from brief exile, Iran's fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch. Here's a short list of US imperialist actions:

http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm

Oh yes, the "I saw signs of Allah at the UN when giving a speech" and widening roads in Tehran to make them bigger for when the Mahdi returns are totally rational.

Your argument against Ahmadinejad's sanity is that he widened roads in Tehran? Give me a break. If that's insane, then what about the Bridge to Nowhere? World leaders frequently say that they have interacted with God in some way or another, or that God speaks through them. It is rare to hear such comments in a secular state (although Bush has indeed said that God speaks through him, so I guess the US isn't as secular as all that), but is a frequent occurrence in a religious state.

And now, Bush is making the same approach to Iran as it made to Iraq, which failed.
He better not drag my country into it aswell.

At 8/31/06 12:08 PM, N-Antichrist wrote: And now, Bush is making the same approach to Iran as it made to Iraq, which failed.
He better not drag my country into it aswell.

I say that Britain should get closer ties to Europe and not be as good allies with the US. Afterall, the Brittish governemtn is fighting wars it really wasn't apart of just to please the "superpower" that is America. If Britain didn't go into Iraq with Bush then the only major terrorist attacks the Brittish people would remember were done by the IRA.
I do think that New Labour is idiotic.. Why become good allies with a country that supplied the IRA with funding?

At 8/31/06 10:19 AM, Begoner wrote: You must be extremely naive to think we invaded Iraq because of WMDs or because Bush was just so nice that he wanted to free the Iraqi people.

Iraq has been on the neo-cons minds like Wolfowitz and Cheney since the 80's. I can provide proof for this. Find me any proof other than coonjecture that Haliburton and other engineering firms led us to war.

Every guessed maybe Bush and the neo-cons are morons?

What 20 countries were you referring to? I assumed that by 20, you meant 2, since there's not another 19 super-powers waiting in the wings.

What 20 wars have WE started.

I can refer you to the exact opposite of that. For example, look at Rome. . . Mongol

Huh huh. You are making shit up.

What world resolutions did they ignore?

Iran on Sunday rejected a U.N. atomic watchdog agency resolution that would refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program as "political, illegal and illogical."
Link

The NPT states that a country has the right to enrich uranium, so why shouldn't they be doing that?

And yet you already admitted they are seeking nuclear weapons and that the "enriched uranium" is all propaganda. What up?

And why do you care so much about martyrdom -- in many cultures, it is noble to die for one's country, not just in Iranian culture.

THEIR LEADERS SUPPORT IT. Shit, Ahmadinejad has been fingered for being a man involved with the 1979 American embassy takeover. Show me another nation whos
leadership actively encourages and supports martyrdom. Show me.

Because Israel is breaking UN resolutions for reasons that don't fly with me.

That is subjective bullshit and you have lost all credibility in this debate. All. You cant use your bullshit bias to decide when you are against something and when you are for something. Its not ok if someone kills someone you dont like and then if someone kills a friend of yours you raise a shit storm spouting all brands of hypocrisy.

They are breaking them because they simply wish to kill more Arabs and steal their land, not because they need to defend themselves against the US.

Another conspiracy theory. Prove it or shut the fuck up with the zionist bullshit.

I'll confine myself to how we exploited Iran, because the list is far too long.

NOW. HOW ARE WE EXPLOITING THEM NOW. I have now of Mossadegh and Ajax and CIA operative Roosevelt for a long time now. I dont care about the past now, you made the claim we are exploiting them, prove it. What happened decades ago is moot.

Your argument against Ahmadinejad's sanity is that he widened roads in Tehran?

In fact, taken as a whole, Ahmadinejad's actions ominously indicate his adherence to a very radical strain of the messianic Shi'a creed, which aims to hasten the Mahdi's appearance. As mayor of Tehran in 2004, Ahmadinejad demolished homes and businesses to build a grand avenue to facilitate the Mahdi's return trip. A year later, freshly elected to the presidency, he went to Jamkaran, south of the capital, where a shrine houses a well where the Twelfth Imam is believed to have hidden himself. At the well, the president-elect dropped in a list of his proposed cabinet members to see if the Mahdi had any objections (none were reported, although perhaps the president's gift of $17 million to gild his sanctuary assuaged any concerns on the part of the long lost Imam).

The point is that all of this surreal preoccupation with the end times has a direct impact on the course of real-world events and, consequently, the eventualities that one must plan for. In the case of Iran, by all means every possibility for peacefully resolving the crisis should be exhausted. But Realpolitik necessarily entails an accurate assessment of your counterpart's motivations and objectives. And it might just be that someone who really believes he can hasten the return of the Promised One to defeat his enemies isn't particularly interested in compromises with the "Great Satan," but rather will hole out the prospect of a negotiated outcome to buy the time needed to finish the weapons that will precipitate the final, Mahdi-led battle. Failure to acknowledge this very real possibility renders an analyst as much a fundamentalist trapped by ideological blinders – albeit of an entirely different variety – as someone sitting around a well waiting for the a mythical figure to emerge after nearly eleven centuries.
Yeah, it is fucking nuts. I like how you left out the part he did it to prepare for the Mahdis return. Love it. You are getting very good at misrepresentation and making crap up to support your false claims.

Iraq has been on the neo-cons minds like Wolfowitz and Cheney since the 80's.

Why, though? Because they were actively seeking a WMD programme? Because they were ruled by an evil dictator? Or because Iraq had enormous petrol reserves? There is no other plausible reason for going to war in Iraq, especially since we sold weapons to Iraq in its war against Iran.

What 20 wars have WE started.

We haven't started 20 wars and there aren't 19 super-powers waiting to crop up.

Huh huh. You are making shit up.

What the hell are you trying to prove with those links? That after the Romans and Mongols invaded most of Europe and most of Asia, respectively, there was law and order in the conquered territories? So what? The point is that there was no peace -- they gobbled up land like it was Munchkins. Those links basically prove my point -- that there was no peace when the Mongols and Romans were in power, because they simply invaded more countries and conquered more land, until they were logistically hog-tied and could annex no more.

Iran on Sunday rejected a U.N. atomic watchdog agency resolution that would refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program as "political, illegal and illogical."
Link

Why were they referred to the Security Council in the first place? They were simply enriching uranium (nuclear power grade, not nuclear weapons grade), an activity which the NPT allows.

And yet you already admitted they are seeking nuclear weapons and that the "enriched uranium" is all propaganda. What up?

Yes, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to enrich uranium because of my hunches. The fact remains that the NPT allows for uranium enrichment as long as the material is not used in nuclear weapons. You tell me what part of the treaty was violeted:

http://disarmament2.../wmd/npt/npttext.htm

THEIR LEADERS SUPPORT IT. Shit, Ahmadinejad has been fingered for being a man involved with the 1979 American embassy takeover. Show me another nation whos leadership actively encourages and supports martyrdom. Show me.

I don't know what you mean "actively encourages and supports martyrdom." It's not like many countries have official policies stating "it is a brave and noble thing to die for one's country," but that is part of the implicit culture in many countries that is understood without needing to be stated. I'm pretty sure that Bush at some point referred to the dead soldiers in Iraq as having "died for their country" or something like that.

That is subjective bullshit and you have lost all credibility in this debate. All. You cant use your bullshit bias to decide when you are against something and when you are for something.

I simply differentiated between various breaches of UN resolutions. For example, I hold the Geneva Conventions in higher regard than most other documents, including minor resolutions which fingered Iran for no reason at all, since its nuclear programme was within the limits set forth under the NPT. Similarly, I value international law with regard to occupied territories over paranoid resolutions pushed through by the US. What Israel did was much, much more horrible than what Iran is doing -- Iran has not killed thousands of civilians with impunity. If it had, there would be hell to pay.

Another conspiracy theory. Prove it or shut the fuck up with the zionist bullshit.

Prove what? That they have been illegally occupying territories for 30 years? That thousands of Arab civilians died at Israeli hands? That refugee camps have been bombed by Israel, not to mention the public infrastructure in places like Lebanon and Palestine? No, the facts speak for themselves.

NOW. HOW ARE WE EXPLOITING THEM NOW.

We are not exploiting Iran any longer -- right now we are planning to invade it. We obvoiusly exploited other Middle-Eastern countries, such as Iraq. A good movie to watch is Syriana which accurately portrays US exploitation (yes, I know it's just a movie -- no need to remind me).

Yeah, it is fucking nuts. I like how you left out the part he did it to prepare for the Mahdis return. Love it.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand religion -- to me, it all seems nuts. To me, it seems nuts to dye eggs red because Jesus disappeared from a cave or whatnot. I don't get religion, but obviously the people of Iran get Islam. If they think the the Mahdis or whatever will return, they're crazy, but they have the right to widen roads. If Christians think the four horsemen of the Apocalypse will come, they're crazy, but they can do what they want to prepare for it.

At 8/31/06 05:18 PM, Begoner wrote: Or because Iraq had enormous petrol reserves?

Again, you need to read. It was to protect our "allies" in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia. Protecting Americas sphere of influence in the region. Did Iraq need to be taken out? Not likely. But the war was still just a carryover in these planners minds from the late 80's to early 90's. You want to prove otherwise, go ahead. We aint stealing Iraqs oil and we didnt invade to steal their oil.

We haven't started 20 wars and there aren't 19 super-powers waiting to crop up.

I claimed there was more relative peace than if there were 20 equally powered countries. You talked about some 20 wars started by a superpower. Then I asked for you to highlight the wars that America has started. So what was your point?

Those links basically prove my point

No, really, it doesnt.

"Pax" means "peace." Again, you are making shit up. History is not on your side.

Why were they referred to the Security Council in the first place? They were simply enriching uranium (nuclear power grade, not nuclear weapons grade), an activity which the NPT allows.

It probably had something to do with the fact they bought illegal nuclear supplies, didnt report their activities, the very anti Western attitudes they have espoused, the fact their leadership has called for an Iranian bomb before, and to make sure they are complying with the NNPT, which they arent, evidenced by their strongarm tactics with the IAEA.

Yes, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to enrich uranium because of my hunches.

So you have no problem with people lying to your face and breaking the spirit of international law as long as it is a country you support.

Hypocrisy.

I don't know what you mean "actively encourages and supports martyrdom."

I asked a simple question. Find me other countries where leaders support martyrdom and have an entire fucking brigade of ready martyrs at a moments notice, that is government supported and funded, to blow themselves up at a moments notice.

I simply differentiated between various breaches of UN resolutions.

I dont care what way you want to spin it, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You cant support some laws and disregard others. Textbook hypocrisy.

Prove what?

We are not exploiting Iran any longer -- right now we are planning to invade it.

Again, more conspiracy theories. Prove that. Dont dance around it like you have been with everytime I have asked you to prove something.

PROVE IT.

If Christians think the four horsemen of the Apocalypse will come, they're crazy, but they can do what they want to prepare for it.

And if they wanted to prepare for it by trying to find nukes to blow up and create chaos that would bring Jesus back, even though millions might be martyred in the process, you are perfectly OK with that?

At 8/30/06 06:44 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 8/30/06 01:20 PM, Begoner wrote: Actually, one glance at the website of that magazine is enough to reveal what its goals are.

Begoner, do you want to try to refute anything or are you going to do anything but say the source is bad so the material is bad? I have personally see you link to far far FAR left sites and defend them. What now, bitch?

I don't mean to enter your discussion, but this point seems to have been dropped. That website is clearly biased (picture below) and the specific article you linked to has the sole purpose of smearing Ahmadinejad. They want him to be a maniacal zealot and are clearly working towards that conclusion. Take this excerpt for instance:

"Other Hojjatieh ideologues, such as one of Ayatollah Yazdi’s chief students, Mohsen Ghorourian, have openly advocated the use of nuclear weapons to assert Iranian/Islamic preeminence over Israel and the West."

This is what really was said: "According to it one senior cleric it is 'only natural' to have nuclear bombs as a 'countermeasure' against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel. " All he said was that there should be no religious incentives in Islam to refrain from using or possessing nuclear weapons the same way there are none in Christianity, while after reading Front Page Magazine one would be lead to believe that Ghorourian openly called for using nukes to assume a dominant status over the West.

Ahmadinejad believes in the return of Mahdi and he has called for hastening his coming, but only through "development and justice". There is a rational, non-religious explanation for his quest to obtain nuclear weapons, namely the fact that after the Second Gulf War the threat of an American invasion has proven to be very real and it's somewhat logical that he's looking for a permanent means to defend his country.

Do I want Iran to have nukes? No, more nukes on this planet is never a good thing and they might eventually fall in the wrong hands. But I don't believe the unproven rumors that Ahmadinejad wants to nuke the West to rush the process leading up to the coming of the 12th Imam just like I don't believe that Bush invaded Iraq to expedite the Tribulation Period and the Rapture. It’s kind of ironic that you accuse Begoner of believing in conspiracy theories while at the same time defend this rumor.

At 9/1/06 04:05 AM, lapis wrote: They want him to be a maniacal zealot and are clearly working towards that conclusion. Take this excerpt for instance:

THE MAN IS. Do you want a list of everything I can find that proves this? I will look for everything if you are unconvinced Ahmadinead is a crazed religious nut in charge of a country led by crazed religious nuts. Off the top of my head:

1) Part of religious extremist student organization when younger
2) Fingered as a member of the 1979 Tehran embassy takeover
3) Saw religious signs when giving a speech at the UN
4) Widened roads in Tehran to ready Mahdis return
5) Jamarkan well reports
6) Connections very closely to Haqqani school, founded by Hojjatieh
7) Closest religious advisor is Haqqani leader
8) 18 page letter to Bush was FILLED with religious refrences
9) Denied the Holocaust
10) Called for Islamic Republic from North Africa to Asia
11) Called for destruction of Israel
12) Culture of martyrdom that is encouraged and supported by Iranian leadership

If this is not all raising warning bells in your head, I dont know what will.

This is what really was said: "According to it one senior cleric it is 'only natural' to have nuclear bombs as a 'countermeasure' against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel. "

You are reading a lot into what they didnt say and you are implying a lot that wasnt said. Your interpretation is no more valid than any other.

Ahmadinejad believes in the return of Mahdi and he has called for hastening his coming, but only through "development and justice".

The man talks out of one side and then another. His preplanned sayings mean little when the overall picture he has presented to the world is a religious nut obsessed with the end times and the other crazy shit he has said. Iran, under his leadership, should NOT posess nuclear weapons, especially when they already have a history of dealing in the black market for nuclear goods.

the threat of an American invasion has proven to be very real and it's somewhat logical that he's looking for a permanent means to defend his country.

Really? I didnt know America has ever shown any interest in invading Iran. As a matter of fact, I think we have displayed virtually NO interest in invading Iran. And Iranian leadership KNOWS we cant. They KNOW we wont. Yet they continue. They have been around for 2 decades now. If America wanted them gone, they would have been gone decades ago. Reagan had no scruples in invading countries. Iran would have been no different. EXCEPT we have shown no interest in INVADING them. Especially now.

It’s kind of ironic that you accuse Begoner of believing in conspiracy theories while at the same time defend this rumor.

You are telling me its a conspiracy theory to not want them to have nukes because I am unsure of their motives, especially, ESPECIALLY, considering the circumstances? Please. If this were law case, this circumstantial evidence would be more than enough to bring this shit to trial.

Iran has not proven themselves responsible enough to posess nuclear weapons and until they do, THEY DO NOT DESERVE THEM. You deny shit like the Holocaust and call for the destruction of a country and have shady religious dealings, YOU DO NOT DESERVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

At 9/1/06 06:25 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: THE MAN IS. Do you want a list of everything I can find that proves this? I will look for everything if you are unconvinced Ahmadinead is a crazed religious nut in charge of a country led by crazed religious nuts. Off the top of my head:

I believe he's religious, and the term "nut" is relative. But I don't believe that he wants to hasten the coming of the 12th Imam by dropping nuclear weapons.

1) Part of religious extremist student organization when younger

Yes, he joined the ultraconservative wing of the Office for Strengthening Unity, which is the largest Iranian student organisation nowadays. They were anti-Shah but certainly not Hojjatieh.

2) Fingered as a member of the 1979 Tehran embassy takeover

Fingered, but unproven. Other captors have denied that he was there. Besides, even if he was involved in the crisis it would say nothing about his believes regarding the use of nuclear weapons to hasten the second arrival of Mahdi.

3) Saw religious signs when giving a speech at the UN
4) Widened roads in Tehran to ready Mahdis return
5) Jamarkan well reports

Yes, he's religious.

6) Connections very closely to Haqqani school, founded by Hojjatieh

Haqqani is the most prestigious religious university in Iran so that says little. "But others point out that many former government officials, perceived as moderates, graduated from Haqqani."

7) Closest religious advisor is Haqqani leader

I think you meant Hojjatieh. I think out of your 12 points this is the only one that could seriously be considered to link Ahmadinejad to them. However, never has he supported Hojjatieh in his speeches - even if he considers Mesbah-Yazdi to be his mentor he doesn't have to agree with all that the man stands for, he's a politician first and foremost. Plato also developed his own views while being influenced by Socrates.

8) 18 page letter to Bush was FILLED with religious refrences

Religious.

9) Denied the Holocaust
10) Called for Islamic Republic from North Africa to Asia
11) Called for destruction of Israel

Rhetoric meant to gain support among Arabs. Seriously, explain the link between Holocaust denial and Shi'a Islam.

12) Culture of martyrdom that is encouraged and supported by Iranian leadership

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. I read the speech, he's basically saying that martyrdom, dying or ending up permanently injured due to war, is the highest virtue, I think there are plenty Americans who would share that belief. He said that it was "[the] best guarantee for our national security", he didn't say: "we need more martyrs, let's use some nuclear weapons to make the Mahdi return earlier".

Let's apply your line reasoning to Bush. He has said that he invaded Iraq because God told him to do so. An estimated 40% of the people that voted for him are evangelical Christians who believe in a rapture, followed by a period of Tribulations, followed by the second coming of Christ. People have accused Bush of ties to groups that propagate these beliefs. What should I fear more, a third world country led by people who could be tied to apocalyptical Muslims working on nukes, or the world's superpower, owner of almost 10,000 nuclear missiles, being led by apocalyptical Christians who base their Middle East policies on the belief that the world will end in a fiery Armageddon?

You are reading a lot into what they didnt say and you are implying a lot that wasnt said. Your interpretation is no more valid than any other.

Er, this is what the newspaper quoted him as saying. It's not a random interpretation, he called it a countermeasure and not a way to achieve dominance, simple as that.

His preplanned sayings mean little when the overall picture he has presented to the world is a religious nut obsessed with the end times and the other crazy shit he has said.

I'm taking into account what he said, and he never said "we must actively use nuclear weapons to empidite the return of Mahdi".

Iran, under his leadership, should NOT posess nuclear weapons, especially when they already have a history of dealing in the black market for nuclear goods.

Fair enough, it was the Hojjatieh rumor that I don't believe, that's all. I also don't want them to have nukes.

Really? I didnt know America has ever shown any interest in invading Iran.

The Second Gulf War proved that the US are ready to invade a country if they have the means to invade and consider that country, or it's government for that matter, to be a threat to stability in the region. Right now the occupation of Iraq isn't going swimmingly but there's no guarantee at all for Iran to assume that no US-led invasion will take place in the next few decades. Iraq might stabilise and Iranian internal frictions could weaken the position of the government, which might prompt a war. They need a guarantee, and that's something MAD would provide them with.

You are telling me its a conspiracy theory to not want them to have nukes because I am unsure of their motives, especially, ESPECIALLY, considering the circumstances?

I'm calling the rumor that Ahmadinejad shares his views concerning the use of nukes to hasten the return of the 12th Imam with the Hojjatieh a conspiracy theory. It's purely speculative in nature.

Please. If this were law case, this circumstantial evidence would be more than enough to bring this shit to trial.

Right, but the main problem is the absence of proof.

So, in conclusion, I don't want Iran to have nukes but I believe the motives for having them to be geopolitical rather than religious.

At 9/1/06 07:52 AM, lapis wrote: An estimated 40% of the people that voted for him are evangelical Christians who believe in a rapture, followed by a period of Tribulations, followed by the second coming of Christ.

Most Christians dont necessarily believe that, let alone know what it means. More importantly, believing in the Rapture has nothing to do with the Hojjatieh belief that humans creating chaos can precipitate the return of the Mahdi. The Rapture is purely God started, with natural disasters and such. The Hojjatieh believe in human precipitated chaos.

What should I fear more, a third world country led by people who could be tied to apocalyptical Muslims working on nukes, or the world's superpower, owner of almost 10,000 nuclear missiles, being led by apocalyptical Christians who base their Middle East policies on the belief that the world will end in a fiery Armageddon?

1) America has used nukes once and had them for half a century
2) We are secular
3) We have checks on power
4) We have already shown our respect for MAD
5) The population would not stand for a President to deploy nukes. Ever. And with our checks on power, they would not be launched.

I'm taking into account what he said, and he never said "we must actively use nuclear weapons to empidite the return of Mahdi".

You dont discount it when some of the things he has done are suspect at best and crazy at worst. Even if it is only a 1/10 chance he is Hojjatieh, he still doesnt get them. Those are not good odds. And with their rhetoric and disrespect shown towards the world and their continued saber rattling, they shouldnt have nukes. They have not proven themselves a responsible country.

They need a guarantee, and that's something MAD would provide them with.

We had no reason to want to mess with them before the nukes. We have only involved ourselves with Iran after Ahmadinejad made it his personal crusade to get nukes into Iran. If he was a little less on the rhetoric, I doubt most countries would even be raising much a stink. That isnt the case. Everyone doesnt want them to have them.

I'm calling the rumor that Ahmadinejad shares his views concerning the use of nukes to hasten the return of the 12th Imam with the Hojjatieh a conspiracy theory. It's purely speculative in nature.

It sure would explain a lot of his actions. And there are more than enough coincidences to raise questions.

The US is secular in name only. When the president goes on record wanting to introduce creation in public schools, sorry, but I call bullshit.

And well, you certainly didn't have a reason to mess with Iraq either. Before desert storm the US and Iraq were good friends. And N. Korea certainly was left alone by the US, when they proved to posess nuclear capacity. No wonder that Iran sees nukes as an insurance.
And with Israel being nuclear armed and stomping around like that, I can definitely see that Iran feels threatened.

I feel nuclear devices really attracts unwanted attention to any country. As soon as a country with a history of bloodshed and war gains nuclear capabilities the whole world looks on and the media starts spewing out the same old 'what if' scenarios to invoke fear to the masses.

It is the whole idea of 'what if' that really gets to people, the image of a nuclear fallout occuring in your own backyard is one we all can visualise, although many people know this is probably not gonna happen, the blanket of fear surrounding nuclear weaponry casts a shadow over us all.

I'm not worried about any other country Nuking the US. If they did, so be it, we have like 10,000 more than anyone else, and they'd blow up a few of our cities, while we destroyed their entire country.

I'd like someone to explain why the US is going absolutely crazy over Iran wanting nuclear power, and thus posessing the capacity to nuclear arms in about 10 years time, while a country like North Korea, whom the US have been at war with, and that conflict ending among others with threats of nuclear attack, is allowed to persue it's nuclear arms development. Even going so far as to test long range missiles as a delivery platform.

The threat in North Korea is infinitely more urgent, yet it is ignored. Because communist nutcases that have fought with the US already are less dangerous than an Islamic nutcases?

At 9/1/06 07:58 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Most Christians dont necessarily believe that, let alone know what it means.

I'm talking about "evangelical" Christians, people who identify themselves as being part of a religious group that subscribes to what has been laid out in the "Left Behind" series. A group that subscribes to the idea of a Tribulation Period preceded by a Rapture.

More importantly, believing in the Rapture has nothing to do with the Hojjatieh belief that humans creating chaos can precipitate the return of the Mahdi. The Rapture is purely God started, with natural disasters and such. The Hojjatieh believe in human precipitated chaos.

It's the work of humans that leads up to the Rapture. For example, in the Left Behind series, Israel is being attacked by Russian, Syrian and Iraqi forces. I don't want people who want to hasten the Rapture by expediting such an attack to command the world's most powerful army.

1) America has used nukes once and had them for half a century
4) We have already shown our respect for MAD

When the nation wasn't administered by evangelical Christians.

3) We have checks on power
5) The population would not stand for a President to deploy nukes. Ever. And with our checks on power, they would not be launched.

The government has the power to let the whole Middle East conflict escalate to a point where using nuclear weapons would seem to be justified before the checks on power were to be put into serious effect.

I don't believe it, but it could be made plausible just like the Hojjatieh rumor.

they shouldnt have nukes.

I don't want them to have nukes either. But as of yet, I find the suggestion that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program for basic geopolitical reasons to be a lot more plausible than the hunch that he's doing it to bring the apocalypse and therefore Mahdi's return upon the world.

We had no reason to want to mess with them before the nukes. We have only involved ourselves with Iran after Ahmadinejad made it his personal crusade to get nukes into Iran. If he was a little less on the rhetoric, I doubt most countries would even be raising much a stink. That isnt the case. Everyone doesnt want them to have them.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain not true. Bush dubbed Iran part of the Axis of Evil as early as 2002, over three years before Ahmadinejad was elected. Negative American interest for Iran predates Ahmadinejad's electoral victory.

It sure would explain a lot of his actions.

Rational reasons do the same.

My brother is a bigger politician than I but we agree on one thing: "Iran is using nucleur fuel just like we did. They don't have the technology or skill to make warheads like we did, or the funding. They are at perfect liberty to use nucleur power for, well, power. We don't have to worry about nucleur weapons for some time."
My bro is a political genius, but a little heartless and i agree with him wholeheartedly.)my spelling suxs)

At 9/2/06 07:46 PM, lapis wrote: It's the work of humans that leads up to the Rapture.

You left out what happens first. THE ACTUAL RAPTURE. That stuff all happens later. It is God started and God ended. Humans only have a bit part in the Rapture.

When the nation wasn't administered by evangelical Christians.

Our nation is a whole hell of a lot more than "evangelicals." You wouldnt even be able to say a 1/3 of Congress is evangelicals. And you would have an even tougher time (read impossible) of connecting our foreign policy with the Bible.

The government has the power to let the whole Middle East conflict escalate to a point where using nuclear weapons would seem to be justified before the checks on power were to be put into serious effect.

That would take quite an extreme set of circumstances that would ALSO involve the nations in the Mid East (or wherever) doing really dumbassed things also. It would not be wholly American initianted.

I don't want them to have nukes either. But as of yet, I find the suggestion that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program for basic geopolitical reasons to be a lot more plausible than the hunch that he's doing it to bring the apocalypse and therefore Mahdi's return upon the world.

I dont know either way. In any case, I think Ahmadinejad has proven himself much to religious and much to crazy and much to instable to allow his country to pursue nuclear technology. So stopping them from having nuclear technology, considering the curcumstances, is wholly needed.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain not true. Bush dubbed Iran part of the Axis of Evil as early as 2002, over three years before Ahmadinejad was elected. Negative American interest for Iran predates Ahmadinejad's electoral victory.

Words are just that, words. We have no intention of invading Syria, of invading, Cuba, of invading North Korea. Hell, we are now even "friends" with Libya. They were stupid words but nothing more.

Rational reasons do the same.

The man is not rational. His outbursts have proven that. So you take what he says at face value and consider the curcumstances.

Iran has about as much right to possess nuclear capabilities as a criminal deserves to own a semi-automatic gun on his parole.

At 9/3/06 03:09 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: You left out what happens first. THE ACTUAL RAPTURE. That stuff all happens later. It is God started and God ended. Humans only have a bit part in the Rapture.

I've had little luck finding the "Left Behind" series on the internet in it's entirety, I read this excerpt on Wikipedia where it says that the invasion happens a few weeks before the Rapture, but to avoid Wikipedia being my only source, here's the Rapture Index. "The Rapture Index is by no means meant to predict the rapture, however, the index is designed to measure the type of activity that could act as a precursor to the rapture. (...) The higher the number, the faster we're moving towards the occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture. " Most of the points on the list are the work of humans, like the Economy, Moral Standards and Liberalism.

And you would have an even tougher time (read impossible) of connecting our foreign policy with the Bible.

The US devotion to aiding Israel even when it's not in their best interests could be explained using religion. Israel is a key player in the End of Days and it should therefore be kept alive at any cost, and them besetting Muslims could expedite the Rapture.

That would take quite an extreme set of circumstances that would ALSO involve the nations in the Mid East (or wherever) doing really dumbassed things also. It would not be wholly American initianted.

The US government is powerful enough to provoke reactions from the leaders of the Muslim World, especially when considering that the people they administer are sensitive and ready to scream Jihad whenever American aggression seems apparent to them.

So stopping them from having nuclear technology, considering the curcumstances, is wholly needed.

Yeah, but I unfortunately see no real effective course of action. Diplomacy won't have any real effects, military means to end Iran's nuclear program are inadequate and international willingness to impose stringent sanctions seems absent, especially since Iran accounts for a huge sum of Western oil imports.

Words are just that, words.

Sure, but they are bound to alarm the Iranians. Ahmadinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map was also rhetoric but I can't blame Israel for paying extra attention to the Iranians and taking precautionary measures to avert an invasion.

The man is not rational.

I think he's rational enough to not want to sacrifice his entire country for the sake of the apocalypse. But nobody can know for sure.

What is everybody's problem??? Is it not obvious? t iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium PERIOD! Nobody in their right mind could possibly think otherwise. Any nation whose leader advocates the ANNIHILATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL should not be allowed the opportunity to develop nucleur weapons!!!

Yes, because a country that has already been at war with the US and which is currently testing long range delivery platforms for their nukes, are not the imminent threat. Iran, which will get nuclear capacity in about 10 years if it goes unchecked, and capacity to deliver the nukes even later, must be dealt with first. Right.

At 9/3/06 03:53 PM, lapis wrote:

At 9/3/06 03:09 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

I think he's rational enough to not want to sacrifice his entire country for the sake of the apocalypse. But nobody can know for sure.

Not to press anything, but few people, even protestants believe in the rapture.

Hell, I think evangelicals are the only ones that believe in it.

And they by far give Christianity a bad name.

Lets just hope they all take each other out without doing any lasting damage to the rest of the "sane" world.

Okay dear readers, here is my thoughts and opinion on what needs to happen with Iran.

First of all we must all stop and think about Iran's position. We like to call it a "rogue regime". This implies that they are bad and there is a short in their logic circuit. This former is true, but the latter isn't necessarily. A rogue regime is one that acts in a manner contrary to international opinion as well as breaks international law. For example, the DPRK (N. Korea) is a rogue regime for actually pulling out of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, one must look at the logic from a Iranian standpoint:

1) In 2002 President Bush listed Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with Iraq and the DPRK.

2) Almost five years later Hussein has been overthrown, Kim Jong-il has not.

3) It was known the DPRK was either close to having the bomb or actually had the bomb. Iraq did not have the bomb or was close to having the bomb.

4) Therefore, a nation once listed as being part of the Axis can avoid US military action by developing a nuke.

This means that nations like Iran on our short list may actually start pulling out of the NPT is they think it is vital to the preservation of their state. This will be a horrible set-back to non-proliferation efforts. The framework won't totally collapse since many nations will most likely see that compliance will bring with it favors from Washington, and a few other countries in Europe or in a particular reason.

Another logical reason for Iran to develop the bomb is that they can read a map. The US has a strong military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whereas Kim Jong-il only has the US to his South, Tehran is surrounded by the US. This type of situation does not necessarily lend itself to clear thinking or diplomatic reasoning.

So then if it is logical for Iran to develop the bomb is there anyway to stop it?

YES!

1) The US in particular along with Israel should agree that they will not exercise any "first strike" option.

2) The US should seek to provide Iran with light-water nuclear reactor technology. This is actually problematic since the first G. W. Bush administration withdrew from a similar deal with the DPRK. We may have to agree to the transfer of Western nuclear technology from the EU or the UK. We can pay for it, but we can also make a deal for access to Iranian oil.

3) Start working towards normalizing relations with Iran. As mentioned earlier, Iran is in the grips of a severe economic crisis. This is not bringing the regime closer to a collapse, instead increased pressure and a perceived threat of imminent US military action is only galvanizing the Iranian population's support for the Mullahs. What you do to decrease the resonance of religious extermism here is to encourage economic growth and stabilization, this gives the people hope in something other than the rewards of the afterlife. In a country that has oil reserves (when you include the Caspian sea basin's wealth of oil) that could put the rest of the region to shame, this should not be that difficult. Furthermore, it is only logical for the US to do so.

Finally there is the issue of sanctions. They simply will not work. Period. We are playing on a chessboard here that kings, emperors and now presidents and chancellors have been playing (and soldiers have been dying) on since the earliest times of recorded human history. Russia is seeking to restore at least some of the glory of its imperial apex. China is also seeking to satisfy the increased demand for oil by its growing middle class. Even multi-national corporations such as Halliburton are doing business with Iran. In short there is a ton of money tied up in Iran ($200 Billion from China alone). Too much money for these nations and organizations to support anything that will endanger their interests.

Therefore, I think the administration should listen to me. If they do not their options is to 1