Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
War between the West and Iran seems to be coming, maybe by 2010

By circletimessquare in Op-Ed
Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:35:25 PM EST
Tags: not pretty, not funny, not good, inevitable (all tags)

It's not going to be pretty folks.

Mr. Sarkozy praised the current diplomatic initiative by the world's powers, a two-pronged approach that threatens tougher United Nations-mandated sanctions if Iran does not stop enriching uranium for possible use in a nuclear weapon, but holds out the possibility of incentives if Iran complies.

That approach, he said, "is the only one that can enable us to avoid being faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."



From MichaelCrawford's comment:

Bush warns of 'holocaust' if Iran gets nukes.

And I blockquote:

"We will confront this danger before it is too late," vowed Bush, who has pressed for tougher international sanctions and said he hopes for a diplomatic solution but has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of force.

...

Some Western analysts have argued that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, helping Tehran to boost its influence in the region.

...

"There is no ... possibility of such an attack by the United States," Ahmadinejad told a news conference marked by his characteristic defiance.

"Even if they take such a decision, they cannot implement it," he said.

...

"Not one member of the IAEA has cooperated as well as Iran. So from our point of view, Iran's nuclear case is closed. Iran is a nuclear nation and has the nuclear fuel cycle," he said.

...

The US envoy to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, has dismissed the plan as having "real limitations," and claimed that Iran "is clearly trying to distract attention from its continued development of bomb-making capability."

Schulte insisted that the United States would continue pushing for a third round of sanctions, which diplomats said Washington wanted to happen in September.

(The IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as helping with the peaceful use of nuclear power.)

Please also note MichaelCrawford's tangential comments on the scary confluence of End Times enthusiasts in positions of power in Iran and the United States.

Note that I believe there WILL be a war on Iran. I do not believe there SHOULD be a war on Iran. I think Iran should be allowed to change on its own. But I don't think the West is going to wait.

Iran is no pushover. Iraq is a desert. You roll through it with a tank, you're in Baghdad by sundown. Afghanistan is easily divisible into ethnic units and warlord controlled areas, and you can play them against each other. But Iran? No: hardcore terrain, hardcore zealotry in defense of an ancient proud nation, and a glorious dollop of religious fanaticism on top. This shit ain't gonna be pretty.

And this shit is unavoidable. Iran wants the bomb. Simple national pride compels them to ask: "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have it?" And simple distrust of a fundamentalist theocracy that has spent the last 30 years chanting death to the decadent West compels the West to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

Additionally, Iran is isolated. Russia or China may come to their defense, out of purely strategic diplomacy, but they aren't going to send aid or troops. The Sunni nations all distrust and dislike Iran, and India is certainly no friend.

So you heard Sarkozy throw down the gauntlet: "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran." Good lord, nothing vague there. Wait until after the American elections in 2008. The lame duck Bush will be gone, and the new American President, whoever he or she is, already knows what is up. Sarkozy's sentiments are the sentiments of all of the American candidates:

Calling the crisis over Iran's nuclear program "the most serious weighing on the international order today," Mr. Sarkozy also reiterated his position that a nuclear-armed Iran was "unacceptable" for France.

American troops will not be coming home from Iraq. They will be joined by Germans, French, and British, and they are going to march on Tehran, from Kabul and Baghdad. And I simply don't see how it will play out any other way. Becase the clock is ticking, Iran is getting close to having something of critical mass.

The West is determined not to see a theocracy with nukes (for good reason). And Iran is an ancient proud country, who will not let the West tell them what it can and cannot do. And there you go: a simple recipe for war.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o It's not going to be pretty folks.
o MichaelCra wford's comment
o Bush warns of 'holocaust' if Iran gets nukes
o Internatio nal Atomic Energy Agency
o scary confluence of End Times enthusiasts in positions of power in Iran and the United States
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
War between the West and Iran seems to be coming, maybe by 2010 | 229 comments (221 topical, 8 editorial, 2 hidden)
Fighting a war to prevent a war (none / 1) (#1)
by alba on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:16:23 AM EST

is like fucking for virginity.
Only the US are stupid enough to do it.
Your are alone in your madness.

that's called shooting the messenger (none / 1) (#2)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:17:54 AM EST

i didn't say it was a good thing. i said it was an inevitable thing

okay, now try again


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

How do you call a messenger carrying a bomb? (none / 1) (#11)
by alba on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:17:10 AM EST

A terrorist.

It's about time to realize that "shock and awe" is military nonsense.
All that high-tech mumbo jumbo is a fine way to start a war.
But to win you need man-power.

How likely is a draft in the US?
How likely is an army of million drafted soldiers in the US?

Any plan requiring "sand niggers", "chinks" or "European cowards" to do the actually work while being supervised by some know-it-all member of a think tank is going to be spectacular failure.

You have been defeated.

[ Parent ]

i'm on record saying don't invade iran (none / 0) (#15)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:22:06 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/723

Please note something about my four examples: the most intransigent of cases only, where authoritarianism is longstanding, where change from within- bloody or bloodless, is near impossible, and where the actual amounts of atrocities committed by the kleptocracies are worse than the reasonable amounts of suffering caused by invasion. So there is no slippery slope. I am being very cautious in my determination. I am talking about those regimes, and only those regimes, where the illegitimacy of the government is well-agreed upon, by both those outside, and inside the country, by a large majority. It is "invade, only in the most hopeless and horrible and longstanding of cases", not "invade, at the slightest hiccup". I do not mention Iran or China for example. Change from within is a real possibility in those countries, and the suffering is abstract, not concrete.

oh wait, look at this gem, i forgot this, heh:

I Fucked Her, and Made Her a Virgin

It is a frequent refrain: "You can't fuck for virginity" as a call against waging war for peace. Except that, you CAN fuck for virginity. The real world is replete with phenomena that appears to be logical contradictions or enigmas on the surface, but make sense when you understand the dynamics of how the real world and real human nature works. In other words: you abort unwanted fetuses to help children. You allow gay marriage to strengthen family values. Both of these statements are true, and are liberal notions, and yet, are surface contradictions.

A mother who can't support an unwanted and therefore unloved child should be allowed the option to abort an unwanted fetus so that she can arrive at a more economically and emotionally supportive environment to bring into this world a wanted, loved child. She shouldn't be forced to support an unwanted mistake, while the father is simply unseen and allowed to get away with impregnation and then desertion. Likewise, a loving gay couple can raise an adoptive or alternatively conceived child in a superior fashion to plenty of heterosexual couples who, for many common reasons, make awful dysfunctional parents. Why should one be allowed to exist and the other denied? The bottom line is the raising of healthy, happy, well-loved children, not simple biology of conception.

And so the surface contradiction goes: peace is achieved by the outward exertion of ideologically superior ideas. Peace is not achieved when ideologically repugnant ideas like authoritarianism are allowed to exist and blossom unopposed. An ideology exerts an outward pressure, and blossoms, or it doesn't exert an outward pressure, and it dies. In other words, believe it or not, peace is served by war. You can fuck for virginity. Virginity is not a stable state of existence: you eventually have sex, just like never fighting for your beliefs is not a stable state of existence: your beliefs will be challenged some day, and you must fight for them, or change your mind, or submit to inferior ideas. People who never fuck die leaving no children, and fade from the earth. Just as those who don't fight for what they believe leave no ideological offspring, and fade from the Earth.



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Victor Davis Hanson on Bush and War in Iran (none / 0) (#3)
by insomnyuk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:31:38 AM EST

Victor Davis Hanson taught a few classes at Hillsdale College where I used to attend. I wrote about Victor Davis Hanson and Bush regarding the possible war in Iran on my blog:
Back to my main point. Hanson is one of those close advisers that has the ear of President Bush, making frequent trips to the Oval Office during the Bush II era. At one point during his class in 2006, Hanson related a story where he was in the Oval Office in December of 2005, discussing the matter of Iran and how the problem should be dealt with. Hanson closed his story by saying that Bush vowed to do something about Iran before his term expired. Now, in the Bush lexicon, `doing something' usually involves bombing something, and with the recent aggressive campaign by Dick Cheney to bomb Iran back into the stone age, and with the presence of carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, I personally predict that it is only a matter of time before the United States Government initiates some form of direct hostilities with Iran.

I think your prediction is way off. I think it will happen by 2009, January. Probably sooner.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken

bush doesn't have the political currency anymore (none / 0) (#4)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:40:17 AM EST

this has nothing to do with bush. whoever wins: giuliani, mccain, romney, obama, clinton, edwards: they are all going to do this. it has nothing to do with bush


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 1) (#7)
by insomnyuk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:12:20 AM EST

Lack of political capital is exactly why Bush will do this - he has nothing to lose.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
please put down the cannabis (none / 1) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:15:51 AM EST

starting a war is not about pressing a button in the oval office. it requires a lot of effort and consensus building. let's put it this way: even if bush had the political currency, he doesn't have the time. bush wanted to invade iraq on 9/12/01. when did the us invade iraq? figure it out


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
fuck you asshole, I am quite sober, and not drunk (1.66 / 6) (#17)
by insomnyuk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:26:14 AM EST

on stupidity and hubris like you are. Go fuck yourself, you stupid fucking cunt. Fuck you.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
you forgot the part (2.00 / 3) (#18)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:27:15 AM EST

where you are ignorant

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

nor the political authority (none / 1) (#112)
by Liar on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:11:35 PM EST

short of Iran attacking the U.S., he doesn't have the authority and Congress won't give it to him. Iran knows it so they can be as aggressive as they want as long as they don't kill any Americans for the next 17 months.

In short, this article details the rhetoric but the legal controls and willpower aren't in place to permit it. Politicians will say whatever they want, but seldom does it indicate what they actually do.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
the bomb? (none / 1) (#5)
by GrubbyBeardedHermit on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:02:48 AM EST

I thought they just wanted nuclear power?  Who doesn't these days, Sunny South Africa certainly does.  Whatcha gonna do when we start enriching uranium, again?  

GBH

yeah, tehran just wants a power plant (2.33 / 3) (#6)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:05:10 AM EST

and i just want your bank account number because the digits are pretty


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
economic development requires electricity (none / 1) (#8)
by GrubbyBeardedHermit on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:14:29 AM EST

of course, denying Iran and the middle east economic development is a perfectly legit reason for going to war.  I just wish y'all would come out and admit it, instead of trying to scare us with the evil Islam straw man.

GBH
[ Parent ]

ever hear of oil? (1.50 / 2) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:18:49 AM EST

if iran wanted electricity, they could have lots of it, quickly, if they built conventional power plants. they have tons of oil

but they want to try the more difficult slow more costly and ultimately less generating capacity nuclear route

duh


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm so sick of that argument (2.66 / 3) (#32)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:06:35 PM EST

I've heard it time and time again - "Iran is swimming in oil, so why would they possibly want to build nuclear power stations?" Wake up! Iran is doing what America should be doing - planning ahead to a time when oil is a wee bit more scarce than it is today. Nuclear power infrastructure doesn't go up overnight - it takes decades to build up. How much oil is going to be left underneath Iran in 2050? How about 2100? They're thinking long term.

Now, having said that, of course I believe that Iran is probably trying to develop nuclear weapons technology, which is bad for everyone, but that doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate reason to develop a civilian nuclear power infrastructure.

[ Parent ]
i don't get it (2.00 / 2) (#33)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:09:46 PM EST

why are you are arging with me? you agree with me

"Now, having said that, of course I believe that Iran is probably trying to develop nuclear weapons technology, which is bad for everyone, but that doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate reason to develop a civilian nuclear power infrastructure."

russia offered to control all of the nuclear fuel pipeline and help them with construction, knowledge, and tech, so iran would have it's reactors, without the plutonium byproduct. so iran would have had a massive leg up on getting a civilian nuclear power infrastructure in place, just without the plutonium for building bombs

iran declined


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I agree that they have an agenda (none / 1) (#36)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:19:49 PM EST

And that that agenda most likely involves them getting their hands on nuclear weapons tech. However, I'm sick of hearing people throw up their hands in exasperation saying stupid shit like "oh, why would Iran possibly want a civilian nuclear power program? They have oil!" It's a stupid argument. That pompous blowhard Glen Beck or whatever his name is was doing that same routine on CNN a while back and I almost put my remote through the screen.

[ Parent ]
every nation on earth has a right to nuclear tech (2.00 / 2) (#37)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:24:24 PM EST

but not every nation on earth can be trusted to do the right thing with it

as for "but they have oil!" it's a valid argument

if the goal is to have electricity, iran can get that:

  1. quickly
  2. cheaply
  3. with readily available know how
  4. on massive scale

or

  1. slowly
  2. with great expense
  3. with little knowledge or experience
  4. in a tiny boutique amount

i don't know why the argument bothers you so much


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
graaar! (none / 1) (#38)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:28:45 PM EST

Yes, they can quickly and cheaply generate electricity from oil in the short term, but how long will it last? And what becomes of their oil-based infrastructure/economy when it runs out? By slowly starting to build a nuclear infrastructure now, they will be in excellent shape when the supply of oil begins to dwindle. Yes, they have little knowledge or experience, that's why they're starting now so that they can build it up over time, before they need it!

[ Parent ]
you got me (3.00 / 4) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:32:06 PM EST

as i am actually a proponent of nuclear power. and it would be ethnocentric of me to say only the west would have this kind of foresight

you win da thread ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I am speechless... (none / 1) (#40)
by Just this guy on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:42:05 PM EST

Who the fuck are you, and what have you done with the CTS I know and love?

[ Parent ]
well because his argument is tangential (none / 1) (#41)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:48:56 PM EST

he agrees with me that tehran is pursuing nuclear tech to build bombs, which is the gist of what i am saying. so all that is left is the more hypothetical argument about the wisdom of pursuing nuclear tech for peaceful energy purposes. since tehran obviously isn't doing that, then the argument he is making is pointless to the more important point

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Waaaaait.... (none / 0) (#42)
by Just this guy on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:52:25 PM EST

Okay, now you're seriously starting to freak me out, bro. If you don't at least call me a stupid turd here pretty quick I may lose it.

[ Parent ]
i'm sorry, it's the ritalin talking (3.00 / 2) (#43)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:54:48 PM EST

you burbling twatstain


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Oh thank god. $ (none / 1) (#49)
by Just this guy on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:45:47 PM EST



[ Parent ]
and... (none / 1) (#208)
by vivelame on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:15:56 AM EST

"he agrees with me that tehran is pursuing nuclear tech to build bombs"
how exactly do you know that?
Because, for now, nobody has been able to come up with even one vague proof of that.
I mean, yeah, they're working on centrifuges, so.. what exactly?


--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Nope nobody has a right to nuclear tech (none / 1) (#109)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:14:35 PM EST

nuclear tech is not a right. It is an invention, and some civilizations are better off without it until they can learn to be responsible with it. So far Iran has not shown one iota of responsibility in anything I have seen.

Do you recall Star Trek's prime directive? The Federation came up with it, because they fucked up and gave some primitive civilization nuclear technology, and the primitive civilization took the nuclear power plants and enriched uranium with them and made nuclear bombs and committed genocide against their enemies with it and ruined their planet in the process. So the Federation made a rule of not to give high technology to primitive civilizations who didn't discover it yet, and who haven't been responsible for their actions and behaviors. That fits Iran to a tee. Iran hasn't developed the responsibility for their actions and behaviors yet and hasn't discovered nuclear technology yet on their own.

Russia, China, France, etc have all sold nuclear technology and advanced weapons and missiles to Iran and North Korea so far. In doing so, this violates the Prime Directive, and makes Iran and North Korea dangerous. It is like putting a 6 year-old behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler truck, or giving a machine gun to a convicted felon who is also a sociopath with a history of violence and an ax to grind with society.

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

you can't control technology (none / 0) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:15:42 PM EST

technology has positive and negative uses. it is not valid to deny mankind those positive uses because of the negative ones. even if you tried, you would not succeed. there will come a time when all nations have mastered nuclear tech, right down to vanuatu and barbados. and what can you do about that? nothing. but you can fight the NEGATIVE applications of the tech

don't fight the tech, fight the negative uses of it

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well, yeah. (2.00 / 2) (#207)
by vivelame on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:13:00 AM EST

they could build lots of oil-burning electricity plants, but that would be.. just plain stupid, at a time when
  • everyone (except you, american morons, that is) is trying to cut back on carbon emissions
  • oil is about the price of gold.

You want to know who started the iranian nuclear project? The Shah, urged by.. teh americans, who thought it made very much econnomic sense at the time...

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
so what if they want nukes? (none / 1) (#9)
by insomnyuk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:14:55 AM EST

As a sovereign nation don't they have the right to build nuclear weapons?

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
i think they do. but nobody trusts them (none / 1) (#12)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:17:13 AM EST

they are a fundamentalist theocracy that has spent 30 years chanting death to the decadent west


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You circumcised lunatics are all the same (2.00 / 2) (#14)
by alba on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:21:14 AM EST

Especially when it comes to the part where God is on their side.

[ Parent ]
dude, you need to learn a social skill (none / 1) (#16)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:24:06 AM EST

and that is, separate the weird fantasies in your mind from the nature of the people you are actually talking to

you're obviously quite caustic and stoked in anger about this subject matter. good for you. but you need to talk to me about what i actually say, and what i actually stand for, not what the weird demons in your brain are saying. you are basically attacking me for positions i do not hold

good luck with that!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Free Clue (2.00 / 2) (#25)
by Kingmaker on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:50:11 AM EST

Israel, Muslim nations, the United States. What do they have in common? They all put the dicks on the block and chop. They're also some pretty fucked up countries.

[ Parent ]
Free Clue (none / 1) (#26)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:51:21 AM EST

circumcision isn't popular anymore in the west

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
lolz i'm circletimedumbmotherfucker (1.33 / 3) (#28)
by Kingmaker on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:53:51 AM EST

the people in power in the US who actually make all these fucked up decisions are over 35. And almost all of them got their wallies whacked.

[ Parent ]
you heard it here first folks (2.00 / 3) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:59:21 AM EST

according to the massive brain trust of internet retards, dick whacking is the leading cause of bad diplomacy

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

oh wow (3.00 / 3) (#30)
by Kingmaker on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:03:21 PM EST

so this is the famous circletimesargumentdeflection. I've never experienced it firsthand.

[ Parent ]
i don't think you've experienced much first hand (3.00 / 3) (#31)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:06:31 PM EST

maybe you should talk more about dicks, since you like that so much


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
To be fair (3.00 / 2) (#142)
by V1m on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 07:33:49 AM EST

"according to the massive brain trust of internet retards, dick whacking is the leading cause of bad diplomacy

(snicker)"

It's as good an explanation as any other.
"A very special kind of stupidity"
[ Parent ]

Liberalism ala Uncle Tom (none / 1) (#27)
by alba on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:53:46 AM EST

Bitching and moaning about the conservative administration.
Talking loads of philosophical rubbish.
And yet backing each and every one of Bush's idiocies a hundret percent.

If you don't want to be grouped together with the Bible Belt Theocrats then be different, for once.

[ Parent ]

okay (none / 1) (#35)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:19:25 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/723

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
That's exactly what I'm talking about (none / 1) (#44)
by alba on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:08:58 PM EST

Granted, you don't quote the Bible. But your  obsession with moral right, ideological obligation, just war, legitimate violence, etc. is effectively the same nonsense. It does not matter whether you are entitled to shoot first.

On technical grounds the interesting questions are:
- will it work?
- how messy can it get if it fails?
- what will it cost?
- what else could you do with that resources?

But this already assumes that "it" is defined in technical terms, like controlling territory or strategic assets.

If you really believe in your agenda, i.e. bringing freedom and democracy, then the interesting questions are psychological.

What would you do if the US of Europe invaded the US of America to stop the unbearable violation of human rights called Capital Punishment? Would you really embrace your "liberators"?

[ Parent ]

darling (2.00 / 2) (#45)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:31:57 PM EST

you seem to have a very strong sense of belief

which is fine. no, in fact, i'm glad you do

now: do you fight for your beliefs?

you will argue but you won't go to force of arms?

well, a fascist asshole seizes your government

do you fight him then? or do you just argue with him? even if he is willing to simply have you assassinated rather than argue back at you?

the question, simply, is this: when threatened by physical force, do you yourself resort to the physical force you find so repugnant, or do you simply fade from the earth because it is so repugnant to fight, even if for the beliefs you find so passionately dear?

now, in fairness, to answer your hypothetical:

'What would you do if the US of Europe invaded the US of America to stop the unbearable violation of human rights called Capital Punishment? Would you really embrace your "liberators"?'

if the majority of citizens of the country being invaded welcomed it, if the majority of other countries hated the practice, if the practice was harming the populace greatly and concretely, then yes, i would support that

which is what i already said to you:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/723

Please note something about my four examples: the most intransigent of cases only, where authoritarianism is longstanding, where change from within- bloody or bloodless, is near impossible, and where the actual amounts of atrocities committed by the kleptocracies are worse than the reasonable amounts of suffering caused by invasion. So there is no slippery slope. I am being very cautious in my determination. I am talking about those regimes, and only those regimes, where the illegitimacy of the government is well-agreed upon, by both those outside, and inside the country, by a large majority. It is "invade, only in the most hopeless and horrible and longstanding of cases", not "invade, at the slightest hiccup". I do not mention Iran or China for example. Change from within is a real possibility in those countries, and the suffering is abstract, not concrete.



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
no, I don't see that as a right (1.66 / 3) (#51)
by khallow on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:50:38 PM EST

You know, I'm curious here. What do you think the "rights" of a sovereign nation are?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

good question - sure, they have a right to provide (none / 0) (#63)
by insomnyuk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:37:26 PM EST

for their defense the way the rest of the international community has. Do you think a nation's rights involve pre-emptively attacking another sovereign nation?

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
then how about this (none / 1) (#66)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:12:32 PM EST

it is not right for the usa to have nukes and iran not to have nukes

agreed

but the ideal situation is that NO ONE has nukes

how do we get to that point?

well, we OPPOSE iran getting nukes and PRESSURE the usa to give up its nukes

but letting iran have nukes because the usa has nukes is moving BACKWARDS

how's that work for you?

so when i say "no nukes for iran" i can say that without being pro-western, instead, i am simply for nuclear disarmament worldwide


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

One can argue (1.50 / 2) (#110)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:27:46 PM EST

that the USA only used its nukes once to end World War II, but that it should have tried a better way to end the war first. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki cities were devastated and show the horrors of what nuclear weapons can do.

Ever since then, the USA hasn't used their nuclear weapons since. Even during Korean and Vietnam conflicts and other conflicts in which they could have easily used them to end and win those conflicts.

The USA has developed a responsibility for the use of nuclear weapons, and in over the years has made progress in reducing the number of nuclear weapons that it has.

Iran has not shown the responsibility a nation needs to have nuclear weapons and has threatened to use nuclear weapons on Israel, Europe, the USA, and other parts west of it. This shows a high level of irresponsibility on Iran's part, and also proves why they don't deserve to have nuclear weapons.  

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

start by your backyard, fucktard.(nt) (1.50 / 2) (#194)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:22:06 AM EST



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
on this (3.00 / 3) (#79)
by khallow on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:31:10 PM EST

You ignore the matter of provocation. For example, the current two invasions by the US involve countries that have preemptively attacked other countries. Iraq under Saddam Hussein attacked both Kuwait and Iran preemptively (and there has been a few decades of other types of provocations include WMD development and use, and a recent history of obstructing UN resolutions)and Afghanistan supported Al Qaeda which has been attacking the US preemptively culminating in the 9/11 attacks.

Further, given the nature of nuclear weapons, we have legitimate concerns that irresponsible use of nuclear weapons or the disemination of the information can hurt third parties. What credible guarantees can a country like Iran put forth that it will use nuclear weapons in a responsible manner? At least, the US and USSR can point to six decades now of no nuclear war and low proliferation of the technology.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

they're a party to the NPT (none / 1) (#193)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:21:13 AM EST

you know, the non-proliiferation treaty.
Which states that, in exchange for renouncing to nukular weapons, they have an inalienable right to:
  • nukular civil energy
  • tech transfers from other NPT parties.
If the other parties of the NPT renege on their promises, maybe Iran should to, what do you think?

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
The Euros talk mean (1.33 / 3) (#21)
by achievingfluidity on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:43:56 AM EST

but when it comes down to it they will try negotiation and appeasement when hard pressed.

Iran's first target will be Israel. Euros will do nothing. Immediately following the nuking of Irael, Baghdad will be nuked and the Iranians will take control of Iraq. The Euros will do nothing.

The U.S. will do nothing because a Dems will have the presidency and more Dems in control of Congress and the U.S. will follow the Euros on this one because of this.

China will fall into this one as well because they will be the ones that receive most of the nuclear fallout from Iran popping off two nukes.

The scenarios that are possible are endless. Predicting what will happen is at this point an exercise in futility. It will be a different story when Iran successfully tests a nuke. THEN a reasonable prediction of what will happen can be made.

Right now governments are just saber rattling and positioning. The Knights Templar have yet to get fully organized. When they do, the Ark of the Covenant will destroy Iran in one fell swoop.

People will make note of that.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


so you're saying (none / 1) (#22)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:48:16 AM EST

indiana jones will save us?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
one problem with your theory (2.75 / 4) (#50)
by khallow on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:45:51 PM EST

Iran's first target will be Israel. Euros will do nothing. Immediately following the nuking of Irael, Baghdad will be nuked and the Iranians will take control of Iraq. The Euros will do nothing.

There won't be a second target. In fact, there's a good chance that if events evolve to the point that Iran thinks about nuking Israel or looks like they might be thinking about it, then Israel would nuke Iran first. Iran probably would get nuked, if there were mysterious nukes set off in Israel as well.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

more than 1 problem: (none / 0) (#104)
by Joe Sixpack on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:48:39 PM EST

China will fall into this one as well because they will be the ones that receive most of the nuclear fallout from Iran popping off two nukes.

How did you figure that one? Iran is not much closer to China than it is to Europe, considering that virtually all Chinese government/economy/industry is concentrated in Eastern China.

Also, you are over estimating the bomb they are likely to be able to produce, this would probably be closer to the Fat Man than to the Tsar Bomba.

---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

lolz (none / 0) (#23)
by Kingmaker on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:48:19 AM EST

Iran is eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil! This I know, cause my CNN told me so.

who said they were evil? nt (none / 1) (#24)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:48:59 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
U did (none / 1) (#48)
by Sgt York on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:40:00 PM EST

You said that Iran is "a fundamentalist theocracy." 2nd paragraph of the body.

Imagine that I cared enough to link each letter of "fundamentalist theocracy" to a comment in which you say that fundamentalism is evil, or something to that effect.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

uh... (none / 1) (#53)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:58:57 PM EST

Article 1

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of  Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic  justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic  calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic  calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of  eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji'  al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

>>>1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
<<<
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I wasn't (3.00 / 2) (#55)
by Sgt York on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:02:41 PM EST

disagreeing with your description of their system of government.

Kingmaker said "they're evil".

You responded by saying "I never said they were evil."

I responded by saying that because you called them a fundamentalist theocracy (which is true; they most certainly are) and you have repeatedly said that fundamentalism is evil, you pretty much said they're evil.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

ok, you got me there (2.00 / 2) (#56)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:06:27 PM EST

but then the question is, how would you characterize a fundamentalist theocracy as anything but evil?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Looking over history (2.00 / 2) (#57)
by Sgt York on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:10:23 PM EST

and judging evil by the effects it has on the world,

I wouldn't characterize one any other way.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

It depends on how you define evil. (none / 1) (#111)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:45:32 PM EST

"but then the question is, how would you characterize a fundamentalist theocracy as anything but evil?"

Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy, but even if it is, that doesn't make it evil. We judge things as evil by their actions and behaviors, not by their system of government and religion. Not by religion alone, or else fundamentalist secular humanists like Charles Dawkins would be evil by default as well, while some may claim that, by definition he is not evil, if he is evil it is because of his behaviors and actions, not of what he is or who he is, really.

Saying that fundamentalism in itself is evil, is pretty bigoted of you.

Iran could be a liberal secular humanist state, and still be considered evil if they have evil behaviors and evil actions.

Terrorism was invented in 12th century Persia, by the way, which is now know as Iran. By a group of people who called themselves Assassins, and wanted to assassinate anyone who wasn't a Muslim. From that is where Iran went wrong, and twisted and mismanaged Islam from a religion of peace into a religion of the sword.

Fast forward to modern day Iran, in the 1960's and up it was ruled by a Shah and the Shah was tolerate of other religions and nations. It was a Shahdom, made after the fall of the Ottoman empire after the Ottomans supported Nazi Germany in World War II. The Ottoman empire took up most of the middle-east.

Fundamentalist Muslims overthrew the Shah of Iran, and established the Fundamentalist Theocracy which is intolerant of other religions and had many christians and jewish people slaughtered as a result. That action was evil. Students of the new Fundamentalist Theocracy took US Citizens as hostage from the US embassy in Iran. That action and behavior was evil. The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who took control of Iran via a bloody revolution, regularly made speeches of "Death to the Infidels!" and talked about getting weapons to murder people with. Talked about the genocide of the jewish people and christian people and atheistic people. Those behaviors and actions are evil.

Start to detect a pattern here with Iran yet?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over as President in a faux democracy. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about getting nuclear weapons and using them to wipe out Israel, the USA, Europe, and other western nations who are mostly not Islamic. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports terrorist networks and funds them to do suicide bombings. Those behaviors and actions are evil.

Iran is not evil because it is a Fundamentalist Theocracy, it is evil because of the behavior and actions of its leaders and people, and always showing evil actions and behaviors.

Can anyone prove that Iran has nothing but good behavior and good actions all of the time? Guess not?

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

fundamentalism (none / 1) (#126)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:11:23 PM EST

is defined by a simplistic approach to life and human nature, and a zealous attempt to force human beings into this simplistic model

human nature, being complex, cannot conform to this simplicity without suffering involved (people forced to act in ways that do not adequately represent how they really feel, under force of punishment)

therefore, fundamentalism create suffering

therefore, fundamentalism is evil


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Life (1.50 / 2) (#129)
by Troll Hard on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:31:34 PM EST

is defined by a simplistic approach to life and human nature, and a zealous attempt to force human beings into this simplistic model

human nature, being complex, cannot conform to this simplicity without suffering involved (people forced to act in ways that do not adequately represent how they really feel, under force of punishment)

therefore, life creates suffering

therefore, life is evil

therefore, crimes are committed by the living, but not the dead

therefore, living is a crime, punishable by death, in which one cannot suffer or commit crime anymore

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

uh, you fail friend (none / 1) (#130)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:49:36 PM EST

take human sexuality. life is pretty complex on the issue. koran torah and bible thumpers are not

ergo: you fail


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

There is a difference between calling (none / 1) (#102)
by Joe Sixpack on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:41:05 PM EST

the government evil and calling the country or the people evil - especially for governments which aren't democracies.

---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

Certainly (none / 0) (#103)
by Sgt York on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:44:26 PM EST

But here I'm talking about Iran, the state.

Most people from Iran call themselves "Persians." If I were talking about the people, I'd say "Persians" or "Iranians"

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Now I see it. (1.50 / 2) (#34)
by Hiphopopotamus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:13:48 PM EST

That's why those comics of yours are so poorly written: bourgeois sensibility mixed with limited intelligence can only equal simple solutions done badly.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

Why America helps the Sunnis? (none / 0) (#46)
by United Fools on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:31:35 PM EST

The Iranians and the Shiites are the bloody enemies of al Qaeda, with so many Shiites killed by the Sunnis in Iraq. Why would Americans attack the enemies of bin Laden?

Unless the Americans are foolish. Well, of course they are, because we are they so we know.

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!

the world is slightly more complicated than that (none / 1) (#47)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:35:48 PM EST

for one, al qaeda does not represent the will of the sunni dummy


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Old Persian buddy of mine (none / 1) (#52)
by Sgt York on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:58:47 PM EST

A guy I used to work with was originally from Iran. He and most of his family got out when he was a toddler during the takeover. He was raised in the US Northeast, but he still has strong family ties "back home" and goes back whenever he can.

According to him, most young Iranians hate the Ayatollah and all his cronies, and they're getting bolder. One story is that at a concert by a certain famous Iranian singer, an imam was booed off the stage. The last time he went to Iran, many asked him why the hell the Americans stopped at the border.

That's not to say that a war in Iran would be easy, just that it may be possible to effect those changes without an invasion. It's possible that there will be civil unrest in Iran, especially if it's encouraged by the West.

Scenario: US pulls out of Iraq. Already existing civil war burns up to full force all over the nation. The common enemy is gone, and the gloves are off! Iranian nationals sympathetic to [group1] offer clandestine assistance over the border. [group2] finds out about it and tries to thwart that support through the use of high velocity heavy metals. Violence escalates, expanding the Iraq civil war into Iran. This acts as a foothold for [groupx] to create a "unified Islamic state"/"peaceful democracy". Of course, the US would stay well away from this and not interfere with the internal politics of another nation.

US out of Iraq => civil war in Iraq => war in Iran => end/postponement/cataclysmic-but-local end of the Iranian nuke program. It's not exactly a best case scenario, but it's certainly plausible.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.

i agree with you (none / 1) (#54)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:02:03 PM EST

but you're confusing my statement above that there WILL be a war on iran with a purported belief of mine that there SHOULD be a war on iran

i think iran should be allowed to change on its own

but i don't think the west is going to do that

oh fuck it, this is like the 3rd time i've said this to someone, time to edit the article...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I guess (none / 1) (#58)
by Sgt York on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:14:02 PM EST

my scenario is still "war in Iran", so it's not really a counter to your story. It's just a scenario in which it's possible that there is no Western invasion (the boots-on-the-ground, planes-in-the-air type).

There's no way we could keep our measly mitts off the situation, but we'd probably be able to do it without any of the other four columns.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

interesting (none / 0) (#59)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:17:30 PM EST

i never knew that terminology before, or derivation


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The problem (3.00 / 3) (#90)
by rusty on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:47:03 PM EST

The US government is committed (at least right now) to a policy of viewing the most hard-line elements of the Iranian state as THE Iranian state. We have no policy, and no apparent interest, in engaging any of the numerous people and groups who think the theocracy has to go and want to return to a prosperous westernized Iran. The Bush administration has basically got its fingers in its ears and is collectively going "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA AXIS OF EVIL."

The main upshot of bombing Iran would be to turn all those neutral and positive citizens of Iran against us, even if they share our desires for their country. It would be the best possible way to ensure that we can't actually accomplish anything useful in Iran for another two or three generations. It would accomplish nothing worthwhile besides that. The government would collapse and the vaccuum filled by something even worse than they have now, it would alienate everyone else in the region regardless of how they feel about Iran now, and it would drastically reduce whatever American security we have left.

It is also not necessary, and is not the best, or only, way to confront the problem of a nuclear Iran. China and Russia could both end the Iranian nuclear program any time they wanted, and we could fairly easily convince them it would be in their interests to do so. But that would be Diplomacy, and the kindergarteners running the show here have never got up to "D" in their dictionary. Or, possibly, are not sure how to find the D words.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 1) (#94)
by Sgt York on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:46:08 PM EST

They got to "D", but they're stuck at "De-". The part that starts "Department of..." keeps growing faster than George can read. Probably faster than I can read....

Still, those hardliners, while dwindling in number and eroding at the base, are the ones in control at the moment. And it's unlikely they will just step down. In the end, I think cts is right; there will be a nuclear armed Iran or there will be bloodshed. Or both. It may not be a West-backed invasion, but I don't see a peaceful coup in their future.

I agree that the US should not get involved. We should certainly not get involved directly (invasion, mass bombing). And even in the unlikely event that that we do keep out of it even in a clandestine role, everyone would assume we did anyway.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

what, you never heard of ron paul you retard? (none / 1) (#60)
by j1mmy on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:32:45 PM EST

he will win and we will not go to war with iran

nt

maybe we can nominate ron paul to grand ayatollah? (2.75 / 4) (#61)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:45:44 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You know, I seem to recall (none / 1) (#62)
by Kasreyn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:31:12 PM EST

someone telling me I sounded like a fool for even using the word "nuke" once while discussing this topic. And now... "this shit ain't gonna be pretty"?

Kurons, I say thee: circletimessquare!


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
lovely (1.66 / 3) (#64)
by zombie Colonel Kurtz on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:39:21 PM EST

let's make war on iran so CTS can have his hard on.


see the bold text up there darling? (2.33 / 3) (#65)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:08:57 PM EST

some people would wonder if the bold is necessary. anyone devoting 5 seconds of effort to reading what was written above would understand my sentiment

but then there are glorious retards like yourself, and that is why the bold text is necessary

for the same reason, we need labels on hemerrhoid cream reading "DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT AS TOOTHPASTE"

you know, for fucking retarded people like yourself who can't pay the slightest bit of attention before opening their ignorant mouths

here darling, some more intellectual charity for you, i'll even cut and paste what i wrote above for your cretinous mind:

I believe there WILL be a war on Iran. I do not believe there SHOULD be a war on Iran. I think Iran should be allowed to change on its own. But I don't think the West is going to wait.

do you understand darling?

all the love,
cts
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

He's Still Right On A Technicality (1.33 / 3) (#68)
by With The Radio On on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:36:19 PM EST

The fact is if a person believes that something will happen it means that on some level they want it to happen. It may be for no other reason than that everyone simply wants to be right. So the nigglet's criticism still obtains.

--
Micah 6:8
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee: surely to do justly, and to love mercy, and to humble thyself, to walk with thy God.
[ Parent ]
the iq in this thread is outstanding (2.00 / 2) (#69)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:55:42 PM EST

i get in a car accident on a bridge

as i'm plummeting towards the water, i come to believe i'm going to hit the water

therefore, i must want to die

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, you do (2.33 / 3) (#70)
by With The Radio On on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:17:24 PM EST

Imagine the alternative: that you were actually in a holodeck and the water is merely a holographic simulation of water. As the holodeck manipulates gravity to make you feel like you're falling you cross the threshold of the water and all of a sudden the simulation ends and you're in an empty holodeck. It would be quite a shock and disappointment to be wrong about dying. On the other hand the dominate feeling of relief at not dying would also be legitimate.

--
Micah 6:8
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee: surely to do justly, and to love mercy, and to humble thyself, to walk with thy God.
[ Parent ]
i believe you will die nt (2.50 / 2) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:11:51 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I Am A Man (2.00 / 2) (#73)
by With The Radio On on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:26:19 PM EST

All men are mortal
=
I will die.

I don't want to live forever.

--
Micah 6:8
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee: surely to do justly, and to love mercy, and to humble thyself, to walk with thy God.
[ Parent ]

you're a moron (2.00 / 2) (#74)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:27:44 PM EST

and the moronic nature of mankind is immortal


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
FAIL (nt) (1.50 / 2) (#115)
by dissonant on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:22:31 PM EST



[ Parent ]
This Is Why I Hope Hillary Gets Elected (2.33 / 3) (#67)
by With The Radio On on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:23:12 PM EST

We know that no matter which candidate is eventually the president that America will enter in to some kind of war with Iran. The question is then which candidate offers the best hope to secure the alliances and resources necessary to win? I don't believe that a Republican can do that right now since they'll lack credibility due to party affiliation, therefore it must be Democrat (since independents/third parties don't win).

So what is needed to achieve victory over Iran? America needs a multilateral coalition of willing nations who are committed to providing assistance to this effort. Therefore we need a candidate with foreign policy credibility. We also need someone who can convince America that to reinstate the draft and accept rationing for victory.

I believe that Hillary Clinton best meets this criteria. Because of her experience as first lady she has direct high level foreign policy experience and a husband who can be relied on to use his contacts. On the domestic side of winning this next war only Hillary can convince America that a draft is necessary to ensure that soldiers come from all backgrounds and not just the poor and rural people.

It comes down to this: support Hillary or I'm calling you out as an America hating traitor.

--
Micah 6:8
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee: surely to do justly, and to love mercy, and to humble thyself, to walk with thy God.

I don't want to be an Iranian Idiot! (1.50 / 2) (#71)
by Troll Hard on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:45:06 PM EST

Iranian Idiot is a song by "Weird" Al-Jihadovic who immigrated from Iran to the USA.

Don't want to be an Iranian idiot

Don't want to be some tea sippn' halal nut
and do I look like some sun burnt Mashhadi?
I never learned my alphabet from alef to ye

They all live on olive oil and goat meat
and they leave the caves packin' a lot of heat
never even bring their wives to the mall.
And you know what else is too funny?
Their stupid backward society.
Can't take 'em seriously at all..

Well Persian rugs and oil's what they export,
they treat beheading just like it's a real sport.
They think their silly language has some clout,
'can't understand a thing they're protesting about

Sure, they got their Islamic sharia law,
cheaper guns, and cut infidel heads off with a chainsaw..
Then again well they got Sheila Malek..
Eat their weight in Persian noodles
and dream of owning some poodles
all over the city of Arak.

Don't want to be an Iranian idiot.
Won't speak out against the infidels in Persian.
See the map Iraq is right next to Iran!
Tell you the truth it makes them kinda nervous..

Always hear the same kind of story,
break the UN's treaty and they'll just say 'sorry'.
Tell me what kind of freaks are that crass?
It's gotta mean they're all up to something!
So quick before they see it coming,
time for a parking lot made of glass.

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!

Those who would bring about The End Times (3.00 / 3) (#80)
by MichaelCrawford on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:19:24 AM EST

There are movements among Christianity, Islam and Judaism who feel not only that we are approaching The End Times, but who feel it is their duty to bring them about.

President Reagan was one of these people; I quote him in my essay Doomsday as saying:

For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean that they will be destroyed by nuclear weapons.

That essay is still a rough draft, and really has been barely started. I've done a lot of research, and have a lot of material I'm prepared to write about it, but I just had to put it down as working on it made me completely paranoid.

When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran, he spent millions sprucing up the city's civic and religious facilities for the return of Mahdi, whose job it will be to bring about the Muslim apocalypse.

He even made a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in which he prayed for Mahdi's return:

"Dear Friends and Colleagues, "From the beginning of time, humanity has longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace.

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace.

You might object that all the doomsday prophets are crackpots, and I would agree with you there, but many of these crackpots are in positions of political, religious and military power, and are possessed of weapons of awesome destructive force. And they all feel it is their duty to use them soon.

I wrote a diary a while back that discusses Muslim eschatology in more detail. Reading it will puut the fear of God into anyone with any sense.

I've mentioned the Christians and the Muslims, I mustn't leave out the Jewish people: there are lots of them, in Israel and elsewhere, who believe that their Messiah will come soon, and who will rebuild Jerusalem's temple.

One problem with that is that Jerusalem's temple mount is also the site of The Dome of the Rock, where Mohammed made his journey to Heaven to consult Moses and God on the text of Islam's daily prayers. The Jewish Messiah would have to tear it down, you see.

I said myself that nuclear war is coming soon, though it seems my timing was off. I'd be digging a fallout shelter, but it seems my new office is just a couple blocks from The Blue Cube: a large, windowless building surrounded by large satellite dishes.

Properly known as Onizuka Air Force Station - be sure to click the link, you'll get a nice surprise! - it's one of the facilities that's used to control the United States' spy satellite network.

When I told a friend of mine that I was working near The Blue Cube, he said "We always called that ground zero."

I might need an extra zyprexa to get to sleep tonight...


Looking for some free songs?


Right idea, wrong tactics (none / 1) (#81)
by godix on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:25:54 AM EST

Iran is no pushover.

Actually it is a pushover, for the US at least. Iran and Iraq fought a war for years that was, basically, a stalemate. That should tell you Iran and Saddam era Iraq were roughly equal in military might. Iran's military hasn't gotten vastly more powerful since then. Now look at the initial invasion of Iraq, either time, to see how easy it was for the US to utterly defeat a military roughly the level Iran's is at. Hell, Iran's main motivation for getting a bomb probably stems from they know how powerless their military would be against US forces so they need some other form of deterrence.

American troops will not be coming home from Iraq. They will be joined by Germans, French, and British, and they are going to march on Tehran, from Kabul and Baghdad. And I simply don't see how it will play out any other way.

Here's another way. First we'd launch attacks from the carrier groups we've moved into the area to gain total air domination. That wouldn't take long, Iran's air force is pretty weak. Once we have air domination we bomb the holy fuck out of Iran, with special attention paid to making sure they wouldn't be able to move forces to the Iran/Iraq border. We'd step up patrols of the border but, for the most part, our land forces would remain focused on Iraq. Then that's the news for the next month or two, we just keep bombing the fuck out of Iran. Once we think we've bombed them enough they can't make nukes, play a role in Iraq, or threaten Israel we quit bombing and call it done. There wouldn't be a major ground campaign, just some special forces missions to take out key targets. Any effort to rebuild would be, at best, an ineffective token. More likely is we'd ask Europe to do it or tell Iran to rebuild themselves.

Some factors into why I think this is the most likely way we'd fight Iran:

We've move carriers into the region so we have air forces sitting around that are not tied up in Iraq missions. Our ground forces are, if anything, being even more tied up in Iraq missions than they were previously. I've seen no effort to free up any ground troops for an Iranian campaign.

Air campaigns tend to have few casualties, are much shorter duration, are easier to plan an exit strategy, and are far more popular domestically since Americans like a war as long as we're easily kicking ass in it.

We're already stating what the goals of an Iran war would be and none of them require ground troops or long term involvement. All the anti-Iran talk has been focused on their nuclear program, their involvement in Iraq, and to a lesser degree their potential threat to Israel. Not a damn word about 'liberating' Iranians.

Some claim a ground invasion would be required because Iran has buried their nuclear facilities in bunkers hardened against bombs. Keep in mind that's protection against A bombing. We'd be bombing them day after day after day until those sites were nothing but a smoking crater. You can't defend a stationary target against a prolonged air attack once anti-air defenses have been knocked out. So any talk about ground troops being required isn't accurate. And even if troops were needed, that's the job of special forces. They'd be in and out, a ground invasion wouldn't be required.

Bush's track record and personality indicate he would do something like this. ESPECIALLY if a democrat wins the presidential election. He'd probably start the thing within a month of the election so that it'd be all over before someone he thought unwilling to use military force was in charge.

Note: I don't support this, it's just how I think things will go.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.

meh (2.33 / 3) (#85)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:50:41 AM EST

i don't want to strategize. the whole concept gives me indigestion. i don't know how you can sound so gung ho and certain


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Amusing (3.00 / 2) (#114)
by godix on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:47:00 PM EST

You bitch at others for ignoring what you wrote then turn around and ignore 'Note: I don't support this' to claim I'm gung ho about it. Cute.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
yes (none / 1) (#122)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:30:09 AM EST

welcome to politics


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
bomb bomb bomb bomb Iraaaaan (3.00 / 2) (#192)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:16:33 AM EST

"Once we have air domination we bomb the holy fuck out of Iran, with special attention paid to making sure they wouldn't be able to move forces to the Iran/Iraq border."

Well... That's a nice plan, i would very much love to see it acted upon.
As to how it would work, well..
Let's just say that the people your government handed Iraq to have a very special relationship with Iran, considering they're Shia muslims, have spent quite a few years sheltered from Saddam in Iran, received training and support there, are still receiving training and support (SCIRI, Badr Brigade, and so on..). The funniest part? Some iraqis don't like teh Iranians that much, but there's a catch: those iraqis are nationalists, and they just so happen to be the ones your military is busy mowing down (sunnis, and Sadr's ahdi Army).
Soooo. Considering the fact that all the US lines of supply run through southern Iraq, aka Shia Country, an attack against their iranian brethrens might, well... I'm already loving it!! (and let's just wait until them shia militias receive MANPADs, and tons of fun will be had!)

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]

Frightening News Arcticle (none / 1) (#83)
by MichaelCrawford on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:49:00 AM EST

And I blockquote:

"We will confront this danger before it is too late," vowed Bush, who has pressed for tougher international sanctions and said he hopes for a diplomatic solution but has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of force.

...

Some Western analysts have argued that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, helping Tehran to boost its influence in the region.

...

"There is no ... possibility of such an attack by the United States," Ahmadinejad told a news conference marked by his characteristic defiance.

"Even if they take such a decision, they cannot implement it," he said.

...

"Not one member of the IAEA has cooperated as well as Iran. So from our point of view, Iran's nuclear case is closed. Iran is a nuclear nation and has the nuclear fuel cycle," he said.

...

The US envoy to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, has dismissed the plan as having "real limitations," and claimed that Iran "is clearly trying to distract attention from its continued development of bomb-making capability."

Schulte insisted that the United States would continue pushing for a third round of sanctions, which diplomats said Washington wanted to happen in September.

(The IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as helping with the peaceful use of nuclear power.)


Looking for some free songs?


thanks mc, that's going in the article (none / 1) (#84)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:38:15 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
There already is a theocracy with nukes: (1.83 / 6) (#86)
by Enlarged to Show Texture on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:48:21 AM EST

The United States of America.

+1FP FOR THE COMMENTS


"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
what's the religion? (none / 1) (#87)
by khallow on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:04:18 PM EST

Christianity? Secular humanism?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Christianity (2.20 / 5) (#89)
by rusty on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:30:32 PM EST

The US is one of theworld's least secular and least humanist societies. Check out stats on religion in the US compared to, say, anywhere in Europe.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
hey asswipe (none / 0) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:22:37 PM EST

ever hear of separation of church and state?

how about freedom of religion

compare and contrast with france

compare and contrast with great britain

or howabout this asshole:

Article 1
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of  Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic  justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic  calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic  calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of  eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji'  al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

>>>1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;<<<
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html

so why don't you consider the fucking obvious before opening your ignorant mouth next time you ignorant fuck


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

lol (3.00 / 2) (#119)
by rusty on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:30:27 PM EST

No, as an American, I have tragically little experience with separation between church and state. I have heard that's the intent here, but it's awfully hard to tell in practice. All I see in the government is fundies and bible thumpers, a hollerin' about the End Times.

But that's just life here in our One Nation Under God. In God We Trust, I suppose. So let's just get the opening prayer out of the way and get this thread started.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

darling (none / 0) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:27:06 AM EST

they have police in tehran about what you can wear

they stone people for adultery

the fucking CONSTITUTION says that god fucking LEGISLATES

now you can put a bible thumping end timer in the white house, but he's gone in 4 years, and if he wants to push the little red button on the wall that nukes moscow, he has to convince a few other people that it's for a reason other than god told him too

in iran, the ayatollahs are the ultimate authority, and those grumpy old men are CERTAIN they speak for god

so you have some complaints about the insinuation of religion in positions of power in your country

ok

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD YOU FUCKING HAVE IT

you want it to be better than it is in this country

fair enough

but stop and reflect on how it compares

show a little intellectual honesty fuckwad

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're saying (3.00 / 1) (#124)
by rusty on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:42:15 AM EST

that if thing X is a thousand times worse than thing Y, thing Y is OK. I'm saying it's not.

The theocracy in Iran is quite a bit worse than the one we have here. I agree. I merely point out that that's irrelevant.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

um... irrelevant? what is the story subject here?$ (3.00 / 2) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:49:19 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
compared to Europe (3.00 / 3) (#93)
by khallow on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:30:16 PM EST

The US fares better when you compared to other continents like South America, Africa, and Asia. Also, we ignore the degree of religious belief. I grant that the US has more strongly religious people than Europe does, but they don't form a majority of the US except perhaps in Utah and the Bible Belt.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

The western world's maybe (3.00 / 2) (#95)
by Joe Sixpack on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:54:22 PM EST

But we're still less than a 1/5 of the world's population even in the most generous estimates ~700mil in Europe, ~300mil in North America, <100mil misc (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc..).

---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

uhh, what (none / 1) (#107)
by Delirium on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:22:06 PM EST

The U.S. is one of the world's most secular and least religious societies. Check out the stats on religion in the US compared to, say, anywhere in South America.

[ Parent ]
hell, the U.S. is even comparable to Europe (none / 1) (#108)
by Delirium on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:40:45 PM EST

If the U.S. were a European country it would fall into the same rough tier as Portugal, Ireland, Poland, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Romania. Proportion of the population that believes in the existence of some sort of god, as opposed to "some sort of spirit or life force" or neither:
  • Romania: 90%
  • Cyprus: 90%
  • United States: 82%
  • Greece: 81%
  • Portugal: 81%
  • Poland: 80%
  • Italy: 74%
  • Ireland: 73%


[ Parent ]
yeah, that whole separation of the church of state (2.00 / 2) (#91)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:18:44 PM EST

that whole freedom of religion: just crazy talk

versus

Article 1
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of  Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic  justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic  calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic  calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of  eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji'  al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

>>>1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;<<<

5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What about Isreal? $ (none / 0) (#106)
by Scott Robinson on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:48:11 PM EST



[ Parent ]
what about it? nt (none / 0) (#121)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:29:33 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
A pity, (none / 1) (#96)
by Joe Sixpack on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:03:48 PM EST

Iran is a fascinating country, I definitely would have visited if they'd let go of the Muslim fundamentalism bullshit.

---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]

badness emphasis: FUNDAMENTALISM, not muslim (none / 1) (#98)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:10:42 PM EST

nothing wrong with islam, nothing wrong with christianity, nothing wrong with judaism

everything wrong with fundamentalist islam. everything wrong with fundamentalist christianity. evertything wrong with fundamentalist judaism

i know that's what you meant, but you always have to clarify that point, because people always seem to take the most retarded and hysterical interpretation of your words, and react to that instead of the more levelheaded one

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sure fundamentalism is the worse part, (none / 0) (#101)
by Joe Sixpack on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:29:44 PM EST

but I consider religion in general to be pretty destructive in all but its most liberal forms. Even non-fundamentalist muslims/jews/christians are more likely to be conservative and less receptive of logic/science than secularists.

I know otherwise reasonable people who believe the world was created 6000 years ago by a bearded man in the sky.

---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

get used to it (none / 1) (#118)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:46:58 PM EST

if you waved a magic wand, and christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, sikhism, scientology, etc. all magically disappeared from the face of the earth and in all history books, other religions would spring into being and fill the void

religion, for better or worse, is just part of the human condition

there is no destroying religion

however it can be herded, and the evil fundamentalist wings of it can be clipped


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Easy enough (none / 0) (#128)
by Corwin06 on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:47:42 PM EST

Make science the religion, the scientific method the liturgy, every proven or disproven theory an epiphany, peer review the priesthood, evolution as creation story, Stephen Hawking as Grand Meghene, Richard Dawkins as Chief Living Prophet, and canonize I. Newton, G. Galilei, A. Einstein, A. Paré, L. Pasteur, R. Ingersoll, N. Copernic, C. Darwin, and people Hell with Plato, Aristotle, every theologian and priest ever, S. Freud, and the like.

Could be managed to work out ... needs more thought :-)

"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
(rolls eyes) (none / 1) (#135)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:17:58 AM EST

darling. religion is about faith. faith is based on what should be. science is about what is. science makes no judgment about what could be or should be. ergo, science can never be a religion. religion is dynamic and active and is about humanity's future behavior, how he should behave, according to some rules. science merely statically describes what has already happened


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Hm. Not the same sense then. (none / 0) (#138)
by Corwin06 on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 12:00:16 AM EST

Then you have a different view (relative to mine) of what religion is. I see it as a dangerously delusion-inducing way of explaining how the world works, why it is here, why we are on it, how it came about, what will happen to it ultimately, and to people personnally, and such.

You see it as based on faith. Well, yes, faith is the mechanism that religion invented to use to defend its delusions against reality.

Funny to see the difference in our ways of thinking.

"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
say you replaced religion with science (none / 1) (#140)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 12:59:21 AM EST

well, people would need to wake up in the morning, and would need questions answered science doesn't have answers too:

why are we here? what's the whole point? why get out of bed?

the answers to these questions are answers based on faith. the exertions of mankind working toward a goal

you HAVE to answer these questions for people. maybe it is to make a rocketship to get off the earth in case an asteroid hits. well then what? stop the heat death of the universe, or whatever it is you think is worthy

the point is, whatever the answers you pose to these questions are, you will find yourself weaving a religion, based on faith, having nothing to offer in those answers that anything of genuine science, which is just a description of what has happened, extapolated into a theory of what will happen, without any intervention by this crazy thing called human behavior

do you believe in free will?

then right there you yourself have a religion

you're probably just a garden variety humanist, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's commendable

but it's your religion

get used to religion. even you have it


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Answers to the Eternal Questions (none / 0) (#187)
by Corwin06 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:33:08 PM EST

Read the FAQ.
"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
darling, that's a religion nt (none / 1) (#202)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:21:21 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Not by my definition. Re-read comment #135 (none / 1) (#212)
by Corwin06 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:22:03 AM EST

My point is you don't need faith to believe things that are self-evident. And since science says, for everything that's been mathematically proven to be exact in a field, the fact that it is exact in that field is proven by the fact that it is self-evident that 1+1=2.

My definition of faith is that you don't need faith to know that 1+1=2. You need faith to accept the idea that there exists something that can't be proven. Do you challenge that?

Exempli gratia :

Why is there something rather than nothing?
    The universe arose spontaneously, through self-organizing evolution, based on the self-evident principles of variation and natural selection.

Answer to the First Question. How is THAT based on faith? It is NOT, because it is very possible for an human to understand the LOGIC behind the findings, in the form of mathematical models, of SCIENCE. And mathematics is true because 1+1=2. (Oversimplified enough that it might be considered wrong in, say, non-euclidean spaces. Might be, but non-euclidean spaces are mathematical tools used to not have to calculate using one more dimension, which complicates computation, and using that kind of argument to say my reasoning is not sound will prove I'm right.)

"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
Not only (none / 0) (#185)
by nidarus on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:29:09 AM EST

Religion explains two things:

1. How things should be.

2. Why things are they way they are.

Get science to replace 2, and philosophy to replace 1.

It never happened yet, but the world is changing: I don't think there were ever so many atheists in the world. I still have hope.

[ Parent ]

Philosophy? (none / 0) (#186)
by Corwin06 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:53:29 AM EST

Not that good an idea. Philosophy in that sense can be replaced by The Common Human Ideal : food, safety, kids, house. ("Work" left out intentionnally.)

How things should be? Free for everyone, of course. Free as in "there's no one on that piece of land, let's build a factory or herd cows right there"

Science has a philosophy, in some sense. "Describe How All Works With Mathematical Models" so that we can use that knowledge to build things that make our lives easier.

For example, science has solved the problem of hunger : just build hydroponic plants that will grow tons of food on small surfaces. Costs what, time and energy? Africa's been starving for over a century and they still haven't gotten around to grow enough food and they buy what, knowledge and materials? No! Guns! To kill their neighbours as poor as themselves and take their empty lands that they don't even think of exploiting themselves, letting the rest of the world happily loot their resources. -"Why don't you begin to build infrastructures and industries?" -"Because (tax, aid, whatever) money is for me first and then for my tribe."

Back on topic : My opinion is that philosophy is worse than useless, because all problems can be solved by cost-benefit problem-solving. My only rule is An You Harm None Do What Thou Wilt, and it replaces everything philosophical.

"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
pffft (none / 1) (#203)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:22:25 AM EST

religion is more than a trite pithy saying

you have no fire in your belly brother. your approach to the topic is useless


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Of course I've got no fire in my belly. (none / 1) (#211)
by Corwin06 on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:06:24 AM EST

The Sacred Fire, yeah right, fuck that, I think before I act, and I have moral reasons for everything I do, every choice I make. I don't need no Holy Fire to guide me in the Way of the Righteous, brother. I learn. I think. I make things.  That's what I do. I manage to survive, in my way. I'd like some things to change, yes. I am making them change, slowly, because I can suffer the things wrong for a long time still, and they'll change before I really notice all I'll have had to do. And by that time I'll have new things to do, and solve new problems. Slowly, because suffering wrong things is so much easier than spending mucho effort so as to enact rapid change. And it makes me learn, too.

Woohoo. Stoned writing at my finest. I'll hope it will still make sense when I read it again later. I'll have to try to make a song from that...

"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
or rather (none / 1) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:18:49 AM EST

surely, we both wish the abrahamic faiths to go down in flames. too virulent and dangerous. the dharmic and taoist faiths are generally benign and inert

so i can say, tangentially to what you say: religion can be as mumbo jumbo magic cling clang illogical as it always has been. like a quanit parade in a mountain town about irrational cultural traditions. harmless

but religion must be toothless

which, in today's world, basically means judaism, christianity, and islam must come to an end

and considering the venom of the abrhamic faiths, they won't go out with some fiery damage


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

-1 title needs more hedging (none / 1) (#97)
by Phssthpok on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:08:45 PM EST


____________

affective flattening has caused me to kill 11,357 people

i was more direct, below said change it nt (none / 1) (#100)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:26:20 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
WTF? (none / 1) (#152)
by Sgt York on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:36:05 AM EST

Is this circletimesquare or something?

Someone asked you to tone it down and you.....you toned it down?

That normally just results in sputteringly creative profanity.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

"this shit aint gonna be pretty" (1.50 / 2) (#99)
by loteck on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:14:45 PM EST

+1fp compelling, insightful cts writing as usual.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

-1, Ignorant fearmongering and warmongering$ (1.50 / 2) (#105)
by V on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:09:24 PM EST


---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
Questions: (3.00 / 2) (#131)
by codejack on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:54:45 PM EST

Attacking Iran would presumably require more soldiers; Where are we going to get them?

You say that neither Russia nor China would defend Iran; are you suggesting that Russia's recent military buildup is just for show? Even if it is, would they not be willing to sell conventional arms to Iran since they need oil, too? Even if they aren't, do you think they're going to let US waltz in and take it?

"Death to the West" is often touted as reason to distrust anything and everything middle-eastern, yet it is a religious motivation tied to political dissatisfaction; are our attempts at intimidation not just feeding the fire?

"The West is determined not to see a theocracy with nukes" Can you say "Israel"?


Please read before posting.

i don't think you understand the world you live in (none / 1) (#133)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:13:56 AM EST

  1. soldiers: in afghanistan, iraq

  2. russia: not going to defend iran with military. russia is interested in defending iran for geopolitcal diplomacy, paying lipservice... but not with force of the blood of its citizens. way too fucking far. as for the us waltzing in and taking iran's oil, this is a wonderful delusion: a. it's not the motivation for going in. b. if the usa were there, they don't suddenly own the oil. it gets sold, like it always does, and the money goes to the locals, like it always does. example: iraq

  3. "death to the west" is what iran chants. why is the west responsible for iran's bigotry? bigotry is an original sin of every nation and ehtnicity directed against every other nation and ethnicity. if you hate me, i am not responsible for that, you are. as for my actions based on you hating me, that's your fault. it's not my fault you hate me!

  4. israel is not a theocracy. read the fucking constitution of israel, read the fucking constitution of iran. ultimate power in israel is the people. democracy. it's in their fucking constitutiotn. ultimate power in iran is grumpy old men who speak for god. theocracy. it's in their fucking constitution. end of fucking story


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
We must be living in different worlds... (3.00 / 3) (#136)
by codejack on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:42:41 PM EST

Because that's all just nonsense. You must watch FAUX news.

  1. We're not going to pull troops out of Iraq for anything, we want the oil. We want Iran's oil, too, but we're going to need troops from somewhere else. Does anyone feel a draft?
  2. Great, they'll just "sell" them advanced weapons to fight us off with, you know, like the CIA did to them in Afghanistan? And yes, it's about us getting the oil; or rather, it's about the oil not really going anywhere to drive the price up, and to make sure that it keeps on being sold in dollars and not euros. Did you miss the bill we were insisting the Iraqi parliament pass, and they refused? They weren't allowed to read it before they voted.
  3. An American accusing someone else of bigotry. Amusing. Typical thinking, too; the century of western imperialism and exploitation of the entire region couldn't have anything to do with why they're mad at us, right? They must just be racists.
  4. The constitution of Israel? Do you just make this shit up? Israel has no constitution; the first prime minister decided it would be too difficult to reconcile the religious differences, so he just tabled it. And yes, it is democratic if you mean that the largest group controls everything, and any Jew in the world can go there and get citizenship; who do you think the largest group is? All of their schools and organizations are strictly segregated by religion, the few non-jews allowed in the military are barred from most units, and what laws they do have only apply to jews in practice. The Law of Human Dignity and Liberty, for example, guarantees freedom to enter and leave the country, but Palestinians are refused these rights. The whole damn place was set up by Jewish terrorists in the aftermath of World War II, fucking asshole Menachem Begin was celebrated for ordering the King David Hotel Bombing, 2/3 of a million Palestinians were driven out of the country to ensure a Jewish majority; oh, sorry, I forgot that you aren't allowed to say anything bad about them because of the holocaust. My fucking bad.



Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
i hate faux news, i am a liberal (none / 1) (#139)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 12:51:23 AM EST

  1. the us is motivated by things besides oil. in your mind, the lowest common denominator cynical derivation of other people's motivations might fill in the holes in reality for you, in a simpleton's way, but out in that reality, there are actually people who believe in going into these countries for ideas they believe in. those people could be wrong. those people could be making a mistake. those people should possibly be defeated by you. but if you are going to defeat them, you need to actually understand how they actually think, their real motivation. instead of picking the stupidest b-grade hollywood villain's motivation and labelling people with it. understand fruitcake?
  2. what are you talking about they will sell them advanded weapons? what the hell do you think goes on all the time in this world? want a weapon? have some cash? here you go: china, russia, france, great britain, the usa: they'll trip over each other getting it to you
3, well, what i see are a bunch of sunnis and shiites killing each other. having to do with a succession dispute going back a millenium. but if that's the usa's fault, that's some fancy time machine i guess. i mean we all know that when an american picks up a gun, it's motivated out of pure imperial oppressive racism. and when anyone else picks up a gun, it's only to save a rape victim of said evil american. please, don't choke on the propaganda friend
4. asshole: i don't care about israel. fuck israel. but like point #1, if you are going to dislike someone, kindly dislike someone for a real reason, not your paranoid schizophrenic ravings on the last bad movie plot you just saw. israel is not a theocracy. it's not. that was the fucking point i was disputing you. capisce? want to see a real theocracy's constitution? here ya go wilbur:

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html

you know: theocracy. you know, grumpy old man, says he speaks for the will of god. you know: head of state. picks who can run for president, ahs the final word on all matters. theocracy, know what that is yet you dumbkoff? i mean in reality, not your raving propaganda

again, asswipe: FUCK ISRAEL. i don't care about israel. BE MY GUEST, HATE ISRAEL!

but if you are going to hate israel, why don't you hate it for real actual truthful things that israel does wrong, rather than your stunted propaganda?

your problem, moron, is that you are drowning in propaganda. beleive it or not, other people than americans create it. i know, that's a really wacky concept of mine. i'll hope that in the furthest edge of your imagination you might come to the realization that governments other than the usa's lies. i know, a really crazy idea of mine there

i mean, we could talk about truth, but the hell with that right? why not just fling partisan lies at each other? pffffffffffffft


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What the hell are you talking about? (none / 1) (#143)
by codejack on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 11:14:06 AM EST

  1. Yes, there are people who genuinely believe that we can bring democracy to people who don't want it. There are people who believe in the tooth fairy, too. If you think Bush is not overwhelmingly influenced by the oil industry, though, you need to look at the fortune 400: Who's #1?

  2. You have no idea what you are talking about; sure, Iran could buy whatever they want, whenever they want, but they don't for a number of reasons: They have a significant domestic arms industry, they don't want to fuel the arms industries of potentially hostile nations, and they have a powerful enough army already to deter any sane nation from dicking around with them. They're hardware is antiquated by our standards, though, and we're sure as hell not going to sell them first line technology. If we decide to invade, however, they'll start buying Russian weaponry (the only stuff that has a chance against us), thereby giving Russia's economy a huge boost. This is only one aspect of the overall picture, but it's enough for our discussion

  3. This is an example of your INCREDIBLY eurocentric view of world history; our tradition of war because of minute religious differences (the crusades, the protestant reformation, English civil war, etc.) causes us to look for these reasons in any conflict. Islam, however, is different: Unlike Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and all those guys, Mohammed is an historical figure. His life is well documented in both religious and secular records, he left a clear line of descent, and, while Christian religious sects tend to be divided by ludicrous misinterpretations of bad translations of delusional rantings, Moslem sects are split on political issues based on historical fact. Imagine if there were actual historical records of Jesus, with disagreements as to what he said at the sermon on the mount; how much worse would our religious conflicts have been? That's what we're dealing with: religious fervor enhanced by political unrest.

    I don't buy the propaganda, but you do; Americans aren't any worse than anyone else, but we're no better, either, and we need to quit acting like it. We "bring democracy to a benighted land", and it's insulting. Certainly we should encourage democracy, but when people come to associate "democracy" with people pointing guns at them, it's not going to work.

  4. You said that we can't let a theocracy get nukes; Israel doesn't stop being a theocracy just because you say so, and they have nukes. This is sheer hypocrisy. I never said Iran wasn't a theocracy, I was merely pointing out that Israel, despite their propaganda, is in fact a theocracy.



Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
i would respond to you (1.33 / 3) (#147)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:15:38 PM EST

but you didn't even listen to me. you looked at me vaguely through the veil of your propaganda, and went right on spewing it out, untouched, safe in your coccoon of your partisan viewpoint, oblivious and immune to novel thought

but don't mind me man. i'm obviously a neocon crusader, right?

pffffffffft


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Your claims about Israel (none / 1) (#144)
by nidarus on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 01:32:51 PM EST

have nothing to do with the claim it's a "theocracy".

You want to say that Israel is an evil racist apartheid death camp, ruled by death-worshiping baby-eaters (or whatever)? Even if it's true, this has nothing to do with it being a "theocracy".

[ Parent ]

"theocracy" (none / 1) (#145)
by codejack on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 02:45:54 PM EST

From the American heritage dictionary:

Theocracy - 1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A state so governed.

A theocracy doesn't mean that a priest or whatever has to actually be in charge; it just means that religion overrides reason in the government apparatus. Israel, while technically a democracy, is ruled by plurality, and the plurality are right-wing religious ideologues.

Again, I don't hate Israel, or Israelis in general, or really even these sad, naive kids on both sides (all sides?) that get brainwashed by religion and commit atrocities; I pity them in the same way I pity a rabid dog, and for the same reason.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
How is Israel subject to *religious* authority? (none / 1) (#146)
by nidarus on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:26:44 PM EST

None of your arguments talk about it.

What does the (alleged) segregation of Israeli schools or the fact that Mencahem Begin blew up the King David Hotel (after issuing a warning that the Brits chose to ignore) has to do with religion? Absolutely nothing.

Most of Israel's population is secular, and it's ruled by secular people (unlike the US, for example). There was not a single religious (kippa-sruga or haredi) prime minister in the history of Israel. Some, such as Ehud Barak, are more or less openly atheist. Israel's 3 major parties: Kadima, Labor, and The Likkud are openly secular. Saying that Israel is ruled by right-wing religious ideologues only reveals your ignorance of Israeli politics.

I won't respond to your bizarre claims that you don't hate Israel (oh, you just pity them like you'd pity a "rabid dog".. how enlightened of you). I'll just leave you with this thought: did you ever think about what makes you feel so strongly about Israel? Unless you're somehow personaly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's just a random small country, involved in a random regional conflict.

[ Parent ]

The law of return (none / 1) (#149)
by codejack on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:25:41 PM EST

Any Jew in the world can go to Israel and get immediate citizenship; this added to the orchestrated campaign to terrorize Palestinians allowed enough Jews to migrate to Israel so that they could outvote the native Arabs while still keeping up the pretense of a democracy. This is also one of the sticking points in the peace process: Any Jew can return to Israel, but Palestinians driven to flee the country in fear of their lives are not allowed to return.

Segregation of schools is the easiest way to maintain racial and ethnic tensions while also discriminating against minorities; why do you think we had such an issue with it in the 1950's and '60's? And every argument Israel makes sounds like a southern sheriff after a lynching.

And atheist or not, Israel's leaders are acknowledged as being Jewish; the label is almost more ethnic than religious. Regardless, they have more rights than Palestinians based on their nominal religion. If you want to quibble over the definition, have it your way and I'll call it like it is; holocaust. Ethnic cleansing.

They've stolen the Palestinians land, reduced them to second-class citizens in their own country, and have spent 60 years steadily abusing them. The terrorist groups that grew out of this oppression are maligned for the the exact same behavior that Begin and Ben-Gurion are celebrated today. The Israeli's are poking a wasps' nest and complaining when they get stung.

My concern with the Arab-Israeli conflict is that one of the most powerful lobbies in U.S. politics is AIPAC, while the largest amount of U.S. foreign aid money (about a third) goes to Israel. Basically, we are paying Israel money to give back to our politicians as bribes to continue to support Israel's goals, and it leads us into awkward situations, such as when we attack a country for violating a U.N. resolution, when Israel is in violation of more U.N. resolutions than any country in the world. Number 2 on the list is the U.S.A.

None of this is propaganda, these are all easily verifiable facts. Take a step back and think about what we did to the Indians, and then think about these things being done in your name. Honestly, it makes me sick to my stomach.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
I don't have to think (none / 1) (#153)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:45:38 AM EST

about what you did to the Indians. The latest Iraq war and its aftermath killed roughly 2-10 times more people than the whole Arab-Israeli conflict (that is, every single armed conflict Israel was involved in since its inception).

Anyway, The Law of Return is not a religious law. It was created as a mirror image of the Nuremberg racial laws - so that everyone who was persecuted for being a Jew, could find refuge in Israel.

The rest of your accusations have nothing to do with religion. Jews are a nation, a people (just like Arabs, or Han Chinese), and not just a religion. All of the "easily verifiable facts" you've mentioned are about a national, not religious conflict.

Just because you think Israel is eeeeeevil, doesn't make it a Theocracy.

[ Parent ]

WTF? (none / 1) (#155)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:13:04 AM EST

I'm upset about what we're doing to the Iraqis as well; we've been consulting the Israelis on how to deal with them. Like they would know!

So if the law of return had to do with the Nuremburg trials and the holocaust, why does it only apply to Jews? What about the other half of the people persecuted by the Nazis? And based on that or not, the fact still remains that they have used it to effectively disenfranchise an entire nation of its own sovereignty over religious differences.

The whole "Jews are a nation" bit is convenient, isn't it? You can even join them...if you are willing to convert. How is that not a religion?

I have never called Israel evil, although many of their leaders clearly are. Split hairs all you want, we all know perfectly well that one group of people is oppressing another over their religious backgrounds, and the laws are set up to allow them to do it. These people have delayed writing a constitution for 60 years because they know they'll catch hell if they don't stick a freedom of religion clause in it, and they don't want to do that.

Call it what you want, my point still stands.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
My point was: get some perspective (none / 1) (#156)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:06:36 AM EST

More or less every single country in the world did/does worse shit than Israel. Frothing at the mouth and comparing Israelis to Nazis and rabid dogs has no logical justification.

Jews are a nation with their own unique religion. You can't "convert", you can only "join the Jewish nation". If you do, you can no longer be an Arab, Han Chinese, Russian or whatever. Only Jewish.

You think that's too "convenient"? Well, nobody's asking you. That's how Jews define themselves, and just because it's too complex of a concept for you, doesn't make it any less true.

And why the hell should the law of return apply to other nations? It's a law of the Jewish nation of Israel. My only explanation for this bizarre idea of yours is that you didn't get my point. So, I repeat: the law of return is not based on the Jewish religion (and it's neither a subset or a superset of the Halakhaic law) but on a (secular) Nazi law.

Also, you seem to imply that since Israel has no constitution (as a result of some nefarious scheme, no less), it has no freedom of religion. This is simply untrue.

[ Parent ]

Bullshit (none / 1) (#157)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:41:29 AM EST

The entire point is that if you want to have full citizenship in Israel, you have to join their religion. Most of the people who have been living their for centuries are either Muslim or Christian, and they are being oppressed because of it. How is that freedom of religion?

Certainly other countries have done worse; our own treatment of the Native Americans, for example. That doesn't excuse Israel, and it doesn't excuse us.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
Not true (none / 1) (#159)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:41:32 PM EST

A non-Jew can vote, be elected, join the army (as many Bedouins and Druze do), worship openly, and, indeed, receive government funding for his religious institutions - be it a synagogue, church or mosque.

Also, remember that "Non-Jew" doesn't mean "Arab". Israel also has a large population of Christians and atheists who immigrated according to the law of return (which, btw, puts another dent in your flimsy "law of return is a religious law" claim). None of them have to deal with the discrimination that Arab Israelis face.

And I didn't say that other nations' crimes excuse Israel. I just said that Israel ranks very low on the world-wide atrocity chart. And yet, it constantly comes up when "eeevil countries" are mentioned.

Israel is a scapegoat. It's a shame you don't understand this.

[ Parent ]

Bullshit 3 (none / 1) (#161)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:20:53 PM EST

The "christians and atheists" are descendants of Jews, which is how they qualify under the law. You have yet to refute this one, single truth: the law of return is based on religious differences, and its intent is to disenfranchise the Palestinians leaving them a single loophole to regain full rights in their own country: convert.

This is one of the key points of contention holding up the peace process, and the bullshit you keep spouting is pure propaganda, the same shit Israel puts out to justify their oppression of the Palestinians. Religious fanatic terrorists steal a country, and you say it's a nationalist movement! Double plus ungood!


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
Calm down (none / 1) (#163)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:39:06 PM EST

And stop using the words "bullshit" and "propaganda" as if you know anything about Israel that you didn't learn from anti-Israeli propaganda.

And yes, these are either descendants of Jews, or people with Jewish family members. Therefore, it is not based on a person's religion. It's based on the person's connection to the Jewish people.

The people who founded the state of Israel (including Ben-Gurion and Begin, whom you hate so much) were secular people. Mainstream Zionism in general is secular. It's a plain historical fact. You can say it's a racist movement (and you'd be an idiot), but saying it's a "religious fanatic" movement only shows your ignorance.

You know what, I'll make it easier for you: the Nazis weren't religious. They were a "nationalist movement". In fact, early Zionism was deeply influenced by German (as well as Ukranian, and Russian) secular nationalism! Yay! You can really hate Israel without claiming it's a "theocracy" (and looking like a complete moron)!

[ Parent ]

Once more for the cheap seats: (none / 1) (#164)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:01:25 PM EST

I don't hate Israel; I question its right to exist, and particularly the means it employs to secure its existence, but mostly I view them as tragically short-sighted fools. Impute what you will from this, but quit trying to put words in my mouth.

As for what I know, most of it comes from significant primary source material I have access to from my Middle East history course last year; go on, tell me about the liberal bias at the University of Tennessee.

As for the "connection to the Jewish people", this is still discrimination over religious differences. Cut it up, twist it around all you like, it doesn't change the facts. Hamas has lost all support (from everyone but Israel) in large part because they compromised on refugee return, a watered-down, Palestinian version of the law of return.

Which is it going to be? Is Israel a homeland for the Jews, in which case it is a theocracy; or is it a homeland for an oppressed ethnic group, in which case point out their identifying characteristics other than common religion.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
You know, it's very hard to debate (none / 1) (#166)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:35:33 PM EST

With people who know a lot about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but still really hate Israel. They know all of the facts, but using some very twisted logic and a very unique view of morality, they manage to present Israel as a horrible monster.

But you? It's like debating astrophysics with a four-year-old.

Basically, your ignorance of the basic facts of the conflict, such as Jews being a people as well as a religious group or that Zionist is a generally secular movement, makes me wonder if I should argue with you, or just send you back to your "significant primary source material" to study a little bit more.

Basically, I made my argument. You still claim that a "homeland for the Jews" means a theocracy, which shows that you ignore my main point: Jews are a people and not just a religious group. This is when the discussion becomes pointless.

For the record: I'm Israeli. I know people who immigrated using the Law of Return. I know Israeli Arabs. I know actual Israeli religious fanatics. I read Israeli papers and sites, including extremist post-Zionist ones. I vote for a liberal, pro-Peace, pro-Arab, pro-gay (etc etc) Israeli party.

And obviously, I know much more about Israel than you.




(and before you bring up "appeal to authority" and make yourself look like a moron, think for a second about what it actually means)

[ Parent ]

Again, you've got this wrong (none / 1) (#168)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:27:31 PM EST

I do not hate Israel. To be honest, I don't really care that much, but I certainly do not hate it.

Jews [are] a people as well as a religious group
So we have an ethnic group that anyone can join, but they have to convert to Judaism first; the exceptions are that if any of your ancestors converted, you can believe whatever the hell you want, and if you were ever related to a Jew, you can then be counted as a Jew. But it's not a religion for the purposes of calling a government they run a "theocracy". Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Zionist is a generally secular movement
Let me get this straight: The Zionist movement is dedicated to creating a homeland for the Jews, an ethnic group that, like it or not, is based on belief in a certain religion, but it's a "secular movement". Is your brain missing a logic circuit here, or have you never bothered to actually analyze the propaganda?

I'm glad you support peace, and some progress seems to have been made in the last few years, but it seems as if your "religious fanatics" are usually running Palestinian policy. I don't doubt that you have a better idea of what's happening there than I do, but we're not arguing over the facts, but the definitions.

My point is that if you have a country effectively controlled by a single organized group (check) based around a shared religion, however low the bar is set for membership (check), enacting laws to benefit their group to the detriment of other groups (check), etc, then I have absolutely no problem calling that government a theocracy.

I am curious about one thing though: Was having Israel called a theocracy worse than comparing it unfavorably to Iran? I mean, I can understand national pride; I love my country, despite many of its less savory aspects, but I also harbor no illusions about them. The truth is that my country is getting dangerously close to theocracy, and I am very worried about it.

This is minutiae anyway, as the original point was the relative desirability of Iran getting the Bomb. Are your religious fanatics better than theirs?


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
You're wrong to think (none / 1) (#170)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:56:29 AM EST

That there's any significant debate about the question of the Jews being a nation or Zionism being a secular movement. Especially that latter - I mean, the secular nature of Zionism is why the most religious (Haredi) Jews object to Zionism.

But, come on, do you even know the difference between a Haredi, a Kippa Sruga and a Mesorati? Just... read more about it (or ask an actual Israeli), that's all. Your elaborate hand-waving leads to nothing.

And no, I don't think being a theocracy is that bad. I just think it was the subject of the debate. You were trying to constantly derail it to the good old "Israel - evil or Nazi-evil?" argument, and I was trying to stick to the subject.

I am often worried that Israel could slip into a theocracy. Especially with the religious minority (usually, a Haredi-Arab coalition) trying to pass all kinds of bizarre anti-porn or anti-gay laws. That's why I vote Meretz, after all.

But it's still much further away from being a theocracy than the US. And the US, unlike what you may think, is still pretty far from being Iran.

[ Parent ]

No significant debate?! (none / 1) (#171)
by codejack on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:59:34 AM EST

Maybe there's no significant debate among Israelis, but everyone else in the world considers Zionism a religious movement since it is based on the goal of finding a homeland for a religious group. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

Now, you can mince words all you like, but the fact remains that Judaism is a religion, and anyone who calls themselves a Jew can expect to be considered religious, whatever their actual beliefs.

But let's make this simple: From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Theocracy - 1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A state so governed.

Israel has laws that discriminate against people based mostly on their religion.

Now, you can try to argue that the definition is wrong (in which case, you need to provide one yourself); or you can deny that there are laws that discriminate based on religious affiliation (good luck); the only other option is to admit that Israel is a theocracy.

Quit twisting words around and trying to have a double standard when it comes to Jews being a nation or a religion; you can be both, but then you are subject to the definitions of both, as is argued in "Wrath of Jonah: Crisis of Religious Nationalism in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" by Rosemary R. and Herman J. Ruether.

No significant debate my ass.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
Who's "everyone else in the world"? (none / 1) (#174)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:36:33 PM EST

Sure there are some people who claim this. Some people also claim that the Earth is 6000 years old or that the holocaust never happened. But that doesn't make it a "significant debate".

If Zionism is religious, then why is there a separate Religious Zionist movement? Why the mainstream Haredi objection to it (I'm not talking about HaEda HaHaredit and their ilk right now)? Do you even know how these three movements are related? Hell, do even know what they are?

[ Parent ]

Changing the subject? (none / 1) (#175)
by codejack on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:44:17 PM EST

And twisting words again. All you are saying tis that there is no significant debate within the Israeli community about this. There is a huge debate about this in America, although our news never says anything about it, as well as most countries in Europe and of course, all of the middle east except Israel. I don't have figures on much of Asia or Africa, but you can probably guess where the lines are drawn.

As for the minutiae of internal Israeli politics, I thought the whole idea was to be so obfuscatory that no one knows what's going on; personally, I don't really care. You have yet to challenge any of my facts, and the definitions speak for themselves; I would even admit that my own country has certain ambiguous laws pertaining to religion, but our latest case of religious discrimination was the widow of a killed Wiccan soldier being excluded from a meeting with George Bush. I won't put it rudely, but Israel is culpable for quite a bit worse than this, and quite recently.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
I have yet to challenge any facts (none / 1) (#177)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:40:57 PM EST

Because I had exactly the same discussion with people who knew much more about it than you do. I simply don't feel like going there again. That's why I choose to stay on the subject.

Israeli politics are too complicated for you? Well, boo hoo. This is what this discussion is about. Israeli politics. If you don't know, if you don't care about it, then you should shut up and listen.

You know what, this is going nowhere. I feel like I'm telling a grade-schooler about the theory of general relativity, and he's arguing about what he thinks time is. Explaining the math and physics behind it is completely impossible in any reasonable time-frame, so you just give up and tell the kid to talk to you again when he's in college.

All I have to say to you is: study more about this issue. Don't study to prove the opinions you already have. Don't read only the people you agree with. Don't be quick to form strong opinions. Always keep an open mind.

That is all.

[ Parent ]

LOL (2.00 / 2) (#179)
by codejack on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:59:32 PM EST

"shut up and listen"

"Nevermind"

Hilarious.

I am suggesting that YOU know less than you think you do about the situation, especially if you have no idea how other people, including Palestinians, view Israel. You haven't read the history, analyzed the propaganda, or even bothered to think critically about what you are saying. You compare me to a child, but all your responses boil down to is "Is not!" without any supporting evidence of any kind.

You can split hairs and bait-and-switch all day long, but in the end, you have a choice: Jews are both a religion and a people, and therefore subject to terminology including both; or Judaism is one or the other. You cannot tell me that Judaism is a religion for purposes of identifying members, but not a religion when the members form a government based on the religion.

I have repeated this a dozen times now, and you have yet to address it in any way other than by changing the subject. You want to stay on point, then 'fess up one way or the other.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
What makes you think (none / 1) (#181)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:40:53 PM EST

that I don't know about how the Palestinians view Israel? What makes you think it's in any way relevant to this debate? Is it some pathetic attempt to show that I don't know way, way more than you about the issue?

You know, I wrote the previous comment because I really wanted this discussion to end. Basically, anything I say about Israel is news to you, but instead of admitting that you learned something new, you just argue against it on some hastily-made-up semantic grounds. But what's really annoying is that for the most of the debate, you were busy bashing Israel without any connection whatsoever to "theocracy" - and then blaming me for changing the subject. This is incredibly frustrating.

But I'll give it a final(!) try:

  • Jews are an ethnic group with a unique religion. However, secular, national movements like Zionism deal only with the ethnic element, ignoring the religious part.
  • Israel is a Jewish nation, but it is not based on any kind of belief in God. This is because it was founded by the aforementioned secular (usually socialist) Zionists.
  • The Israeli legal system is not the Halakha or some version of it. Israeli law can directly contradict the Halakha, and often does.
  • Israel's parliament and government are elected in a free, open elections. Unlike in Iran, religious figures don't have any power to veto candidates or political parties. The only way they can participate in the political process is by forming their own parties and running just like the rest. In fact, they did just that, leading to the creation of the small SHAS and Agudat Israel parties.
  • Israel's parliament and government are mainly composed of secular people, and that includes the PMs. Historically, Israel was never ruled by clerics, or even overtly religious people (unlike the US, that is currently run by a proud religious fanatic). The only influence Rabbis have on the political system, is through the power they have over the religious minority and their parties.
  • Israeli citizens have the freedom of religion. Any Israeli - Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Druze, is free to worship openly, build temples, get days off on his religious holidays, and get state funding for his places of worship and priests.
  • There is certain discrimination against Arabs in Israel, and this is a topic for another, complex debate. However, non-Arab gentiles (like the families of Jewish immigrants) do not face any of this discrimination.
  • Israel isn't a "nation of believers", it doesn't claim to be based on "the belief in the one true God", "the holy Torah" or anything like it. On every official level, it defines itself simply as "the Nation of the Jewish People", and a "Western Democracy". This is important, as all other theocracies I can think of are very proud of being run according to "the holy laws".


[ Parent ]
dear giant gaping asshole: (none / 1) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:48:57 AM EST

in iran, there is a holy dude. and the holy dude has the power, as written in the fucking constitution, to exert power over the people in the government

do you understand that amazing concept?

do you understand that there is no such thing in israel?

please, hate israel. enjoy yourself, be my guest, fuck israel, whatever

but hate israel for real reasons, not the ones that float in your ignorant pickled head


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yes, they can die for Israel (none / 1) (#191)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:04:11 AM EST

but they can't buy land.
How curious..

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
You're going off-topic (none / 0) (#197)
by nidarus on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:55:56 AM EST

As I noted before: it's about nationality, not religion.

Anyway, I guess you mean the JNF lands (~13% of Israel's territory). there is some dispute about this, but currently non-Jews can buy land from the JNF due to a supreme court decision. In fact, the head of the JNF is an Arab.



[ Parent ]

well, no.. (none / 1) (#205)
by vivelame on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:50:21 AM EST

no, it's not nationality, since arab israelis ARE, you know, israelis. But they happen to be "non jewish". So they mostly can't buy land.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
I meant the "Jewish" nationality (none / 0) (#209)
by nidarus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:41:44 AM EST

Not "Israeli".

[ Parent ]
alas, (2.00 / 2) (#213)
by vivelame on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:13:24 PM EST

that's not a nationality.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Alas, it is. (none / 0) (#216)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:00:18 AM EST



[ Parent ]
moron: it's not a theocracy (1.00 / 3) (#148)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:18:48 PM EST

but you keep on with your bad self. why go with truth and evidence when you have stubborn pride?

you lose. admit it

or don't. twist some more in the wind like a hysteircal retard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Split hairs as fine as you like (3.00 / 2) (#151)
by codejack on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:53:29 PM EST

The best argument you can come up with is that Israel should be allowed nukes because their oligarchs aren't really religious, they're just using it as an excuse to exploit half their population? You don't address my points, you just change the subject.

Please, go read some history; hell, wikipedia is probably good enough to give you a general idea of what's going on, but make sure to look up the Irgun and the Lehi.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
He's not splitting hairs. He won. (none / 1) (#154)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:07:57 AM EST

You said that Israel is a theocracy. cts said that it isn't. This is the only subject.

You didn't bring one argument that proves Israel is a theocracy.

And now you're talking about Israel exploiting half of it's population, and about Irgun and Lehi (completely secular, nationalist organizations), as if it was the original subject of debate.

Guess what? By doing that, you're just admitting that you lost.

[ Parent ]

Bullshit 2 (3.00 / 2) (#158)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:43:48 AM EST

So the requirement that you must convert to Judaism in order to have full rights as a citizen in Israel doesn't prove that it is a theocracy? That the laws are different for different religions proves nothing? Tell me, what do they have to do to be called a theocracy? Let me guess, they'd have to be Muslims.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
You don't have to convert to Judaism (none / 1) (#160)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 01:07:23 PM EST

In order to have full rights as a citizen in Israel.

Anyway, it's a national conflict, and Jews are a nation, and not just a religion, even if this concept is too hard for you to grasp. I'm a Jew. I'm a complete atheist. There's no contradiction.

You see, the thing with theocracies - they are proud to be theocracies. Iran or Saudi Arabia certainly don't try to hide it. They think that they are better than everybody else because they are theocracies.

Israel is proud of not being a theocracy. It's proud of being a liberal democracy.

Therefore, the difference between cts's claim that Iran is a theocracy and your claim that Israel is a theocarcy is the difference between an obvious, well established fact, and a baseless, propaganda-inspired conspiracy theory. And, indeed, you couldn't bring a single credible argument that supports your claim. Instead, you chose to ramble on about Jewish terrorism and segregated schools.

Btw, your quip about theocracies only being Muslim (or, rather, claiming that I think so) is moronic.

[ Parent ]

Oh, man, I've been waiting all day for this (none / 1) (#162)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:45:09 PM EST

I've been dying for someone to walk into this one:

MSNBC poll about conspiracy theories

Note that, despite the ridiculous phrasing of the questions, that basically 2/3 of the country believe in conspiracy theories. Factor out the guilt trip and appeal to authority (does anyone follow the link in my sig?), and "conspiracy theory" suddenly becomes glaringly obvious reality. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't me they're not after me.

As for the law of return, have you bothered to read it? There are 2 ways to qualify:
  1. Be Jewish
  2. Have a Jewish parent or grandparent
While some may grumble about it, converts to Judaism are generally accepted under this rule, and it is this which changes it from being a quaintly bigoted oligarchy into a theocracy.

Better yet, you tell me who has it worse: a Jew in Iran or a Muslim in Israel?


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
OK, let's say that (none / 1) (#165)
by nidarus on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:02:02 PM EST

2/3 of Americans believe in that particular conspiracy theory. Poll about UFOs or Creationism, and you'll get interesting results as well. So fucking what?

The 3rd paragraph is a complete mess. Guilt trip? Appeal to authority? Do you even understand what "appeal to authority" means? What does it have to do with my (rather simple) argument? Yeah... I sure walked into that one (wtf?!).

Anyway, there's one more way you can become a citizen according to the law of return - if you're related to a Jew that qualifies under any of the previous sections. Even if you ignore that, the 2nd way means your claim is bullshit. Jewish grandparent != follower of the Jewish religion. It's that simple.

I won't answer your last question simply because I don't know about Jews in Iran beyond what I could find in wikipedia. If I base my opinions on that, I would be no better than you.

[ Parent ]

Reading comprehension (3.00 / 2) (#167)
by codejack on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:27:55 PM EST

You tried pulling the old "call it a conspiracy theory and never have to answer the question", and walked into the fact that no one buys it anymore.

The guilt trip and appeal to authority were built into the poll, specifically how the questions were phrased, to try to invoke an emotional response to vote against the conspiracy theory.

Your "simple argument" seems to boil down to the fact that I can't compare Iran to Israel because Israel pretends to be a secular democracy, when in fact it is a religiously-divided oligarchy that is in violation of more U.N. resolutions than any other country, mainly relating to its treatment of ethnic/religious minorities.

As for minorities in Iran, they pay a special tax, roughly equivalent to the standard tithe, but are otherwise left pretty much alone. There was a little scandal that our papers covered a couple of years back over a proposed law to "make Jews wear markings, like the Nazis made them wear"; in fact, it was a law to make all citizens wear a colored stripe denoting their religion to assist in social affairs.

Fortunately, I don't have to rely on Wikipedia; I'll start giving you citations if you like, but are you really going to hoof it down to the library to look it up?


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
My simple argument: (none / 1) (#169)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:32:41 AM EST

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You failed to bring even mediocre evidence. You lose.

I'm not going into that stupid debate about Iranian Jews with you. I don't know anything about it, and you? Well, if you relied on the same sources you take your information about Israel from, then you know even less.

[ Parent ]

Not even bothering with discussion anymore? (none / 1) (#172)
by codejack on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:08:40 AM EST

What extraordinary claims have I made? Why do all the facts I cite not count as "even mediocre evidence"? What, I lose because you say so? That's not how the game works, friend.

I know about Iranian Jews because I have friends who are from Iran; most are Muslims, but many are Christians and, yes, Jews. I also have a course in middle eastern history, Durant's "History of Civilization", and Hourani's "History of the Arab Peoples" to draw from. For Israel, I have Oren's "Six Days of War", Ruethers' "Wrath of Jonah: Crisis of Religious Nationalism in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", and Sachar's "A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time", as well as both Palestinian and Israeli friends.

Do you have any suggested reading, or is this one of those "you're not one of us so you'll never understand" type of things?


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
You made an extraordinary claim (none / 1) (#173)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:00:30 PM EST

That Israel is a theocracy, as opposed to the claim that Iran is a theocracy. Iran openly admits to be a theocracy, so no "proof" is required. On the other hand, Israel considers itself a Liberal Democracy. Open an atlas, an encyclopedia, the evening news - they all say "Israel is a democracy".

You could try and prove that Israel is a theocracy, but, trust me, you have to try much harder that this.

Most of your claims, like the ones about Jewish terrorism, or about Jews "stealing Arab land" have nothing to do with religion. So they can't be considered as "arguments".

Your only claim (as I see it) is that Judaism is a religion, so everything that deals with "Jews" has to be religious (which makes the Holocaust an act of religious persecution, I guess). You could make that statement, but only after you know enough about the Jewish religion, and about the Zionist movement. Currently, you're just trying to solve it by hand-waving. Guess what, this issue is much more serious than you think.

Unfortunately, I can't suggest specific books (especially in English), because I never needed an introduction to Judaism or modern Israeli politics. All I can advise you is to read much more about Judaism (the religion), several books/articles about the 1948 war (including from the Arab, mainstream Israeli, religious Zionist and Lehi extremist perspectives), and try to read HaAretz or Ynet online (they have English editions). Other than that, you should ask your Middle Eastern studies professor and Israeli/Palestinian friends.

[ Parent ]

Um (none / 1) (#176)
by codejack on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:53:17 PM EST

I hate to tell you this, but pretty much everyone in the USA considers the holocaust an act of religious persecution, roughly descending from Constantine's persuasive arguments in favor of conversion through the Spanish Inquisition and on into the Eugenics movement and Hitler.

And you have left out the essential fact: anyone can convert to Judaism and become a Jew. We'll go multiple choice here:

By expressing belief in their deity, you can join a _________.

A. Soccer team.

B. Religion

C. Ethnic group

D. My little pony fan club

Hint: The ponies are atheists.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
OK, Captain Logic (none / 1) (#178)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:52:45 PM EST

How can I express disbelief in any deity and still be a part of a theistic religion?

Hint: things are more complicated than you think.

btw, your question only betrays your ignorance. You could have full faith in the Jewish God and in every single word of the Tanakh, and still be a Goy. You will have to follow only 7 laws, instead of 613, and that would be just fine with G-d, but you will not be a Jew.



[ Parent ]

All I can say (none / 1) (#180)
by codejack on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:51:59 PM EST

Is that the bar appears to be set pretty low, and changes according to who you talk to.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
gigantic huge moron: (none / 1) (#182)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:38:49 AM EST

the point is, israel is not a theocracy

all the rest doesn't mean shit

ready to cry uncle now loser?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yes, you do have to be jewish (none / 1) (#190)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:59:47 AM EST

to,you know, for example, buy land.


--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Again, matter of nationality (none / 0) (#195)
by nidarus on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:42:46 AM EST

Not religion.

You don't have to be a practicing Jew, or even believe in God in order to buy land from KKL.

[ Parent ]

no, you just need (none / 1) (#196)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:50:15 AM EST

to be a jew.
Not an israeli, mind you.. A jew.
Arab israelis, for example, mostly can't buy land.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Jews are a nation (none / 0) (#198)
by nidarus on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:47:04 AM EST

aside from being a religion. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant to the topic.

Also, it's simply not true. Read my other comment.

[ Parent ]

i read your other comment. (none / 1) (#204)
by vivelame on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:48:26 AM EST

Denying the uncomfortable reality won't make it somehow "untrue".


--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
So (none / 0) (#210)
by nidarus on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:56:41 AM EST

You're saying that there was no supreme court decision?

You don't think Mazuz or Barak were sincere in their decisions?

Or maybe you just don't know shit about the whole thing (aside from the "ARABS CANT BUY LAND IN ISRAEL!!1" part you read in jewwatch), and now, when presented with clear, obvious arguments against it, you try to shrug it off with some silly cliche.

Fuck off, idiot.

[ Parent ]

no, no... (none / 0) (#214)
by vivelame on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:44:31 AM EST

jew isn't a "nation". It's an ethnic group, and/or a religion.
Israel is a nation.


--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
A. Wrong. Read the dictionary, moron. (none / 0) (#215)
by nidarus on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:57:34 AM EST

B. Even if I did use the wrong word (and I didn't), you're still admitting that Jews are an ethnic group, and not just a religion. Ergo, you lose, and you may shut the fuck up.

[ Parent ]
maybe *you* should read a dictionary. (none / 0) (#218)
by vivelame on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 08:42:54 AM EST

from teh merriam-webster:
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah b : ISRAELITE
2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century B.C. to the first century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism

note that 1) and 3) are ethnic, 2) refers indeed to a nation, but, well, it was, what, twenty centuries ago, no living being can apply, and 4) is religious.

Mihu Yehudi? It's still debated in Israel, your simple answers are meaningless. Nonetheless, here's the short version: it's at the same time ethnic and religious. You're a jew if you're born in the ethnic group (and, for some, haven't renounced Judaism) (a jewish grand-parent is enough to qualify wrt to the Law of Return, but isn't
wrt to the rest of jewish law), or converts to Judaism.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]

Are you trolling, or are you actually that thick? (none / 0) (#220)
by nidarus on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 11:22:48 PM EST

I was talking about how one of the meanings of "nation" is "an ethnic group".

Anyway, you obviously agree with me on the main point: Jews are an ethnic group (also called "nation" or "people") as well as a religion. Therefore, this debate is pointless.

[ Parent ]

Joined? (3.00 / 2) (#141)
by V1m on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 07:30:46 AM EST

"American troops will not be coming home from Iraq. They will be joined by Germans, French, and British, and they are going to march on Tehran, from Kabul and Baghdad. "

I can tell you this: there won't be any British soldiers there unless Iran does something utterly outrageous. People here are REALLY pissed off at being lied to over Iraq; any government here which went ahead and invaded Iran too would have large scale civil protest to deal with, and possibly some quite uncivil protest as well.

Oh, and the small matter of rendering itself unelectable for a decade or so.

The old "Yeah uh they have WMDS, or something. Anyway, some nasty shit which we can't give you any details on right now, but we PROMISE you that we're right this time. Really." line ain't gonna fly here.
"A very special kind of stupidity"

that's alright (1.25 / 4) (#150)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:26:19 PM EST

we revolve our european allies in and out year by year

dependent upon each state's desire to be proven independent from the rest of europe (the limey's motive for 2003 iraq), and how much russia is rattling it's sabre at the time (driving the euros into the usa's bosom)

so sure, this time around the frogs will replace the limeys, and when it is time to march on pakistan and saudi arabia in 10 years, the frogs will be exhausted and we can revolve in a fresh crop of limeys

europe: unreliable and schizophrenic, but in the usa's geopolitical camp in spite of themselves


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

There won't be any french troops either (none / 1) (#189)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:56:36 AM EST

btw.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Big problems, big solutions (none / 0) (#184)
by cdguru on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:37:32 PM EST

Lots of people point to Iran having nuclear weapons not being a big deal.  After all, it would be suicidal to start a nuclear conflict with either the US or Israel following up strongly in kind.

The problem is that Iran, like China in many ways, considers the population to be sort of a necessary evil when compared with the leadership.  Deterrence depends on not wanting to lose the massive industrial base, the civilian infrastructure and the population.  Russia was unwilling to consider being bombed back to the 1700's or so.  Upon close inspection, Iran is already back in the 1700's in much of the country.  What do they have to lose, if the leadership is adequately protected?

Iran is currently playing public relations games.  They are publicly executing people for crimes such as adultery, promiscuity and other things the West does not even see as criminal.  Iran would very much like to be attacked by Israel in a pre-emptive move and constantly threatens Israel to push this agenda.  An attack from Israel would unite the Arab states with Iran against Israel and the West.

Much of the Iranian population isn't very happy with the current leadership.  They had a taste of Westernization and by all accounts until 1979 they liked it.  A significant challenge for the Iranian leadership is keeping the population in check.

The face Iran is presenting to the West - the rabid nutjob Ahmadinejad - isn't the real power in Iran.  It is with the clerics who are far more secretive.  There are training camps for hundreds of martyrs ready to blow themselves up, likely as not done with the approval and guidance of these clerics.  Do we really believe that these people would not "enforce martyrdom" on their population?

MAD only works when the other side fears destruction.  I do not believe the Iran leadership has any such fear.  Should the US or UN enforce a blanket prevention on other states having nuclear weapons?  Of course not.  However, everyone should be concerned about a state which has no fear of retaliation possessing nuclear weapons.

How long would it take for Iran to independently develop a nuclear bomb?  The figure of at least 5 to 10 years has been passed around and it is highly probable it would be at least that.  But, the key is if they have nuclear material, would they have to develop such a bomb in isolation?  Would they be able to acquire a bomb mechanism from another state?

i agree with you 100%, but (none / 1) (#200)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:49:09 AM EST

i come to the opposite conclusion

we both agree iran is a rabid unhinged nutjob that would love to bring about armageddon via a self-fulfilling prophecy

but this is not a reason to back away from them

this is a reason to wipe that insane leadership off the map asap

a situation like that doesn't miraculously heal itself and become sober and sane

a situation like that merely gets more rabid, and more unhinged, and more willing to launch nukes to bring about the advent of the Mahdi

iran right now is a 50 pound weaking waving a rusty knife

in 5-10 years, iran will not be a sober 50 pound weakling

iran will be a 100 pound madman waving a bazooka

so take the fucking insane leadership of iran now. more time != better situation. more time = worse situation


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

War with Iran is coming sooner than expected (none / 1) (#188)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:55:25 AM EST

according to "unnamed sources" inside government and intelligence agencies.
Mind the gap, and brace for impact!

That's why, btw, while i was against this Glorious Iraq Adventure, i think that the US military must stay bogged down in the sands of Iraq, bleeding. This tool is too powerful and dangerous, children should not be allowed to play with it.
And since, as far as i can see, all the 2008 Democratic contenders with a remote chance to win the party nomination are advocating "bombing Iran back to the stone age", you should not be allowed to GTFO of Iraq.


--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."

darling, let me ask you something (none / 1) (#199)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:43:13 AM EST

children shouldn't play with knives, ok

howabout theocracies with nukes?

or it's only the west that does bad things with heavy weaponry

you take a very dim view of western military adventurism

ok

but nukes in the hands of grumpy old men who speak for god, as constitutionally written... this doesn't make you soil your pants?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well, yeah. (none / 1) (#206)
by vivelame on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 08:56:16 AM EST

i take a very dim view of ANY military adventurism, actually.
I, you know, actually took a very dim view of teh USSR "adventure" in Afghanistan too, at the time.
What's your point?
If you're so afraid of a theocracy with nukes, you should do right now everything you can to have your government take custody of pakistani nukes, because teh Mullahs are coming, and they're coming hard. That's far far more pressing than "ZOMG MAYBE TEH IRANIANS WILL BUILD NUKES WITH THEIR NUKULAR REACTORZ!!!11111ONE".

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
pakistan isn't a theocracy darling nt (none / 0) (#217)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:22:31 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
no, it's a dictature (none / 0) (#219)
by vivelame on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 08:45:52 AM EST

and soon, it'll be a theocracy.
Just like, mmh
let me see...
'79 Iran?

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
oh i got it (none / 0) (#221)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:51:07 PM EST

my analysis is based on reality

and yours is based on what might be someday if things happen according to your prejudices about how they should happen

man you got me beat


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude, you're too far gone for therapy. (none / 0) (#222)
by vivelame on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 06:07:19 AM EST

"my analysis is based on reality"

My, that's rich, considering the constant beat of the drums of war to the sound of "teh iranians MAY be trying to build 'em some nukular wipe-ons !!!111!!ONE" bleated by a horde of headless chickens with no evidence of that "reality" what-so-ever.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan..

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]

yes, i am too far gone (none / 0) (#223)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:50:50 AM EST

and along with me in the too far gone category seems to be the leadership of france and the usa

considering that, you need to leave the planet, as the people who live here, "too far gone" seems to be what they call intelligence


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Eh! (none / 0) (#224)
by vivelame on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:39:19 AM EST

Bush is a moron, and so is Sarkozy.
It doesn't mean you have to be one too.
Just sayin'..

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
yes, all the leaders are morons (none / 0) (#225)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:36:56 PM EST

and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius

pffffffffft

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ah! (none / 0) (#226)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:00:15 AM EST

i'm glad you came to your senses and finally agreed with what i've been saying all along.
Someday i'll have the Nobel prize for "winning pointless internet arguments".

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
troll scratches head (none / 0) (#227)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:12:49 AM EST

troll thinks fud says funny things

troll eats funny food anyways

(gulp)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Brilliant (none / 1) (#228)
by Corwin06 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:39:42 AM EST


and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius

I think I'm going to .sig that...
"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
shit. someone is reading this ;-P nt (none / 0) (#229)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:52:58 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
War between the West and Iran seems to be coming, maybe by 2010 | 229 comments (221 topical, 8 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!