Iran in deal to end nuclear dispute

[Libertarian Muslim]

Iran in deal to end nuclear dispute

TEHRAN

May 18, 2010

IRAN has agreed to send 1.2 tonnes of its uranium to Turkey for enrichment to resolve the international row over its nuclear program, a development that could undermine UN efforts to impose new sanctions on the Iranians.

Foreign ministers from Iran, Turkey and Brazil signed an agreement yesterday to ship Iran's low enriched uranium to Turkey to exchange with nuclear fuel for a Tehran reactor, an Iranian official said.

The ministers signed the agreement after talks between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Under the agreement ''Turkey will be the place to keep Iran's 3.5 per cent [low enriched] uranium'', Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said. He said Iran would officially notify the International Atomic Energy Agency of the agreement ''within a week''.

''The IAEA should inform the Vienna group [uS, France and Russia] of this proposal,'' he said of world powers that have wanted Iran since last October to accept a UN-backed deal to ship its enriched uranium abroad.

Under the initial deal, Iran would have been required to send its uranium stockpile to Russia to be further enriched and then sent to France to make nuclear fuel for a research reactor in Tehran. Iran had so far stalled on the deal.

''If the Vienna group accepts the agreement [made on Monday], there will be an exchange of 1200 kilograms of Iran's 3.5 per cent enriched uranium with 120 kilograms of 20 per cent enriched fuel,'' Mr Mehmanparast said.

''The uranium stockpile in Turkey will be under Iran's and the IAEA's supervision. We hope the other party accepts this proposal.''

If world powers agree, Iran would ship its uranium to Turkey ''during a period of one month'', the spokesman said.

AFP http://www.theage.com.au/world/iran-in-deal-to-end-nuclear-dispute-20100517-v9cu.html

[sbeaulieu]

Adonis,

Good to hear. Anyone know if the 120 kg is their full stockpile of uranium? I'd hate to see Iran send this abroad if it's only a portion of their uranium, keeping the rest at home and enriching the remainder themselves. While I'm always optimistic, I can easily see them presenting the image of compliance while cooking the rest behind our backs.

~ Shane

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Good to hear. Anyone know if the 120 kg is their full stockpile of uranium? I'd hate to see Iran send this abroad if it's only a portion of their uranium, keeping the rest at home and enriching the remainder themselves. While I'm always optimistic, I can easily see them presenting the image of compliance while cooking the rest behind our backs.

~ Shane

They're sending 120 Tonnes to Turkey and only getting 120 high grade back.

Also, I hope they're not sending all of it to Turkey because that'd be stupid.

[Brant Gaede]

Adonis,

Good to hear. Anyone know if the 120 kg is their full stockpile of uranium? I'd hate to see Iran send this abroad if it's only a portion of their uranium, keeping the rest at home and enriching the remainder themselves. While I'm always optimistic, I can easily see them presenting the image of compliance while cooking the rest behind our backs.

~ Shane

They're sending 120 Tonnes to Turkey and only getting 120 high grade back.

Also, I hope they're not sending all of it to Turkey because that'd be stupid.

Let them be stupid.

--Brant

[anthony]

Adonis,

Good to hear. Anyone know if the 120 kg is their full stockpile of uranium? I'd hate to see Iran send this abroad if it's only a portion of their uranium, keeping the rest at home and enriching the remainder themselves. While I'm always optimistic, I can easily see them presenting the image of compliance while cooking the rest behind our backs.

~ Shane

They're sending 120 Tonnes to Turkey and only getting 120 high grade back.

Also, I hope they're not sending all of it to Turkey because that'd be stupid.

Let them be stupid.

--Brant

Yes,

It's the opinion of a news commentator I heard that the Iran President is desperate to avoid further sanctions.

Like some US General said, "If you get them by the balls, their hearts will follow."

It's a bit early for celebrations of a peaceful outcome...which I gather Adonis is not 100% in favour of.

Explain your comment Adonis.

(Let me guess :- it is critical that Iran keeps its ace up its sleeve, just in case it needs to defend itself against those war-mongering, imperialist, Zionists.

Who, of course, have a long-range plan to turn the whole Middle East into a Jewish homeland.)

Power, force and veiled threats; same-old, same-old.

Tony

[Libertarian Muslim]

Yes,

It's the opinion of a news commentator I heard that the Iran President is desperate to avoid further sanctions.

Like some US General said, "If you get them by the balls, their hearts will follow."

It's a bit early for celebrations of a peaceful outcome...which I gather Adonis is not 100% in favour of.

Yes, because news commentators know how Iran's president feels.

No he's not desperate, Iran has been under sanctions from the US for the last 31 years and has become self sufficient, the next round of sanctions still wouldn't have been very damaging at all as the previous one only really targeted mostly offensive capable weaponry rather than defensive.

Also, why do you think I'm not in favour of a 100% peaceful outcome? Of course I want a peaceful outcome, there's no benefit to anyone if war occurs.

Explain your comment Adonis.

(Let me guess :- it is critical that Iran keeps its ace up its sleeve, just in case it needs to defend itself against those war-mongering, imperialist, Zionists.

Who, of course, have a long-range plan to turn the whole Middle East into a Jewish homeland.)

Power, force and veiled threats; same-old, same-old.

Tony

No, not at all. Iran have both made the mistake previously of completely halting research and development when made promises and signing deals which don't get fulfilled by other countries, leaving them at a loss for that period of time.

It would also be stupid to hand over 100% of your hard earned resources when there's no guarantee you'll get it back.

[anthony]

Yes,

It's the opinion of a news commentator I heard that the Iran President is desperate to avoid further sanctions.

Like some US General said, "If you get them by the balls, their hearts will follow."

It's a bit early for celebrations of a peaceful outcome...which I gather Adonis is not 100% in favour of.

Yes, because news commentators know how Iran's president feels.

No he's not desperate, Iran has been under sanctions from the US for the last 31 years and has become self sufficient, the next round of sanctions still wouldn't have been very damaging at all as the previous one only really targeted mostly offensive capable weaponry rather than defensive.

Also, why do you think I'm not in favour of a 100% peaceful outcome? Of course I want a peaceful outcome, there's no benefit to anyone if war occurs.

Explain your comment Adonis.

(Let me guess :- it is critical that Iran keeps its ace up its sleeve, just in case it needs to defend itself against those war-mongering, imperialist, Zionists.

Who, of course, have a long-range plan to turn the whole Middle East into a Jewish homeland.)

Power, force and veiled threats; same-old, same-old.

Tony

No, not at all. Iran have both made the mistake previously of completely halting research and development when made promises and signing deals which don't get fulfilled by other countries, leaving them at a loss for that period of time.

It would also be stupid to hand over 100% of your hard earned resources when there's no guarantee you'll get it back.

Oh, well played, sir!

I fell right into that one. You baited your trap so shrewdly with that enigmatic,and incendiary-seeming remark, knowing that some silly sap was going to take the hook.

Then you'd have a perfectly innocent sounding explanation all ready.

Crap. I am certain there is little innocent about you - and moreso, nothing innocent about the Iranian Pres.

Quoting your post#199 on the Islam thread:

"...the fact is that Israel's nuclear weapons do ensure its survival, but as I said previously, if it's okay for Israel, it should be good enough for Iran so that there could at least be Mutually Assured Destruction."

At least you are even-handed in your distaste for both Iran and Israel, to be prepared to see them both suffer. Very balanced and moral of you.

Btw, do you have a direct line to Tehran? You often speak very authoritatively about the Arab world's intentions, since you also said: "Even though Iran has no interest in building such weapons and would instead like a nuclear-free Middle East."

(Violins)

You appear to understand things much better than experienced observers and commentators. Please reveal your inside sources.

Tony

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Do you have any contacts inside Iran?

Do you speak or read Farsi?

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

Adonis: Thanks for that news release. How silly of us to distrust the peace-loving, freedom-loving Iranian leader. And here we thought that Iran was designing nuclear weapons when he just wants to supply atomic powerplants to relieve the suffering of oil-starved Iran. All he wants to do is save the world from Zionist domination and, oh,..convert the world to the TRUE faith of Mohammad (peace be upon him) so we can all enjoy the blessings that exist right now in Iran.

Whew! Thanks! I feel better already.

By the way, you are well-versed in presenting the case for Iran and for other varieties of Islam. At least from their, and I assume your, perspective. Would you be so kind as to once again explain your interest in Objectivism? Do you see any similarity or agreement between the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of Objectivism, and that of Islam? Any version of Islam. If you do not see any agreement, are you just trying to understand Objectivism better, or are you merely trying to explain Islam to us infidels? Or,...what?

Or, if you have already answered these questions, and do not want to state your opinion of Objectivism again, could you please indicate where (thread, posting number, etc.), in your voluminous postings on OL, you do explain your interest in Objectivism?

Thanks!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

Adonis lives in New Zealand and is a libertarian. In trying to network with other libertarians, but from a Muslim perspective, he ran into Solo Passion.

I commented here on OL on the baiting and bigotry I saw (what I saw was really ugly, too), someone alerted Adonis that there was a friendly voice more interested in ideas than in demonizing within our subculture, so he came here.

Since he has a perspective from the Muslim culture, is highly interested in liberty, is willing to talk about sensitive issues, is very intelligent, has good intention (albeit very different ideas), and stands his ground if he thinks he is right, I think it is a good idea to talk to him.

I sense he is a good person with good character, albeit with an enormously different set of ideas than we have. I believe he gets up every morning thinking about how to do good in the world, not evil. And he has spunk when baited. I also sense he has reach within the Muslim community to which he belongs.

Is there any place better to engage ideas?

Where do you think we should do intellectual work?

Do we, as intellectuals, want a better world or do we just want to throw mud at someone like Adonis when he shows up in our neck of the woods?

I am interested in understanding and in bringing facts to light, irrespective of how inconvenient they are for one side or the other. How on earth are we ever going to agree on anything if people refuse to look at a fact because they don't like--or fear--the person presenting it? I say reason demands we look--and we look objectively. And I also say that you can never judge something correctly if you don't know what it is. In technical jargon, I call this the cognitive before the normative approach, i.e., correct identification before value judgment.

I am not interested in aping Ayn Rand in overdrive during her moral denunciation mode as my epistemological system of understanding the world or my method of persuasion.

The point is, Adonis talks to people outside his culture. He is here talking to us. And he is willing to discuss hard issues that are stated clearly. He's even willing to respond to verbal abuse with a first-response attempt at being civil (and often second, third, etc.) before letting himself get heated. I've seen that time and time again.

Even if nobody agrees with him, they will hear why people in his culture think the way they do (at least the ones who think like he does), and they will hear it from a person who practices Islam, not from some armchair intellectual combing the Qur'an for verses in order to play the "Islam is evil" gotcha game.

I have learned a lot from reading his posts. And I know something about the Muslim culture from having lived in close contact with it for a few years in Brazil. I hope he has learned something from my posts.

I see his presence here on OL as an attempt at understanding, not an attempt at preaching (and this applies to both sides). I have been hoping to introduce him to some of Rand's work and ideas, but the yelling always makes sure that doesn't happen. (Great job, folks!)

Unfortunately, when the issue gets more sensitive and heated, the mind-reading accusations start--with both sides telling each other what garbage is bouncing around in the others respective skull when there is no way on earth either could know--and the insults follow.

When the bigotry level gets too high, regardless of who--Jews or Muslims--is being scapegoated, I intervene.

Still, I find great value in this attempt.

This is intellectual engagement I believe any freedom-loving intellectual needs to do, especially Objectivists. I sense a kindred intent in Adonis coming from his side of the river.

I hope it continues.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Oh, well played, sir!...You baited your trap [Post #7]

Tony, I've only read a small handful of Adonis's posts and in them he seems like an honest person. Even if I would disagree with many of his views.

Do you have some reason for implying "playing a game", insincerity?

Would you disagree that as a general rule it's best to *attack the idea not the man*, to not imply bad things you can't know about someone's hidden agenda or motivations?

[MSK makes some good points above in regard to this.]

Edited May 18, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

Adonis lives in New Zealand and is a libertarian. In trying to network with other libertarians, but from a Muslim perspective, he ran into Solo Passion.

I commented here on OL on the baiting and bigotry I saw (what I saw was really ugly, too), someone alerted Adonis that there was a friendly voice more interested in ideas than in demonizing within our subculture, so he came here.

Since he has a perspective from the Muslim culture, is highly interested in liberty, is willing to talk about sensitive issues, is very intelligent, has good intention (albeit very different ideas), and stands his ground if he thinks he is right, I think it is a good idea to talk to him.

I sense he is a good person with good character, albeit with an enormously different set of ideas than we have. I believe he gets up every morning thinking about how to do good in the world, not evil. And he has spunk when baited. I also sense he has reach within the Muslim community to which he belongs.

Is there any place better to engage ideas?

Where do you think we should do intellectual work?

Do we, as intellectuals, want a better world or do we just want to throw mud at someone like Adonis when he shows up in our neck of the woods?

I am interested in understanding and in bringing facts to light, irrespective of how inconvenient they are for one side or the other. How on earth are we ever going to agree on anything if people refuse to look at a fact because they don't like--or fear--the person presenting it? I say reason demands we look--and we look objectively. And I also say that you can never judge something correctly if you don't know what it is. In technical jargon, I call this the cognitive before the normative approach, i.e., correct identification before value judgment.

I am not interested in aping Ayn Rand in overdrive during her moral denunciation mode as my epistemological system of understanding the world or my method of persuasion.

The point is, Adonis talks to people outside his culture. He is here talking to us. And he is willing to discuss hard issues that are stated clearly. He's even willing to respond to verbal abuse with a first-response attempt at being civil (and often second, third, etc.) before letting himself get heated. I've seen that time and time again.

Even if nobody agrees with him, they will hear why people in his culture think the way they do (at least the ones who think like he does), and they will hear it from a person who practices Islam, not from some armchair intellectual combing the Qur'an for verses in order to play the "Islam is evil" gotcha game.

I have learned a lot from reading his posts. And I know something about the Muslim culture from having lived in close contact with it for a few years in Brazil. I hope he has learned something from my posts.

I see his presence here on OL as an attempt at understanding, not an attempt at preaching (and this applies to both sides). I have been hoping to introduce him to some of Rand's work and ideas, but the yelling always makes sure that doesn't happen. (Great job, folks!)

Unfortunately, when the issue gets more sensitive and heated, the mind-reading accusations start--with both sides telling each other what garbage is bouncing around in the others respective skull when there is no way on earth either could know--and the insults follow.

When the bigotry level gets too high, regardless of who--Jews or Muslims--is being scapegoated, I intervene.

Still, I find great value in this attempt.

This is intellectual engagement I believe any freedom-loving intellectual needs to do, especially Objectivists. I sense a kindred intent in Adonis coming from his side of the river.

I hope it continues.

Michael

I didn't suggest that he should not post, I asked him for clarification as to what extent that he agrees with Objectivism (and where he does not). Perhaps I should have asked to what extent has he read - studied - Objectivist philosophy.

You say he is a libertarian living in New Zealand. Great. Perhaps he could describe how he thinks libertarianism is doing in the Moslem Middle East where there is not one predominantly Moslem country that has a functioning democracy (partial exception to Turkey, which has a secular culture after it was forcibly installed by Kemal Ataturk). Is that just coincidence? Since he is highly interested in liberty, perhaps he could shed some light on that situation.

I have been reading many of his posts and the comments from others. They are all very interesting, but I do not see where he has expressed much interest in discussing how libertarian ideals can be applied in Moslem countries. Instead, he writes passionately in defense of various radical Moslem causes and lately has been vociferous of his defense of Iran's policies. O.K., that's fine, but how does that advance his understanding of libertarian or Objectivist principles and their application to the Middle East?

Other questions (I am assuming that he will be reading this at some point): How many of Rand's books are freely available to the populace in the Arabic (and Persian) Middle East? In English or in translation to Arabic? How about other libertarians? Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, Mises, Spencer? How are their ideas viewed in the Middile East (outside of Israel, of course, where these books can be bought and read)? Are there libertarian movements in these countries? How are they doing? What influence do they have?

This is your forum, Michael. You and Kat set it up. You guys own it, you make the rules. Fair enough. That's fine by me. But isn't the name of this forum called "Objectivist Living?" It's not entitled "Objectivist-and-all-other-philosophical-and-religious-Living". If you grant an advocate of one particular ideological/religious system, that is hostile to Objectivism, to primarily advocate for his system over and above Objectivism with no attempt to come to grasp with its principles - does that apply to other belief systems that view Objectivism as anathema? How about Marxists? Christian evangelists? Scientologists? fill-in-the-blank-ists? Just asking.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Mike Renzulli]

I wouldn't believe this claim as far as I could throw it. As it turns out, the L.A. Times published a story (link below) in 2009 stating that the IAEA concluded that Iran lied about it's nuclear facility construction.

As it turns out, the IAEA states that Iran began construction of it's first nuclear facility in 2002 despite claiming it started in 2007.

Despite the country's so-called agreement on this, it will not stop Iran from continuing to pursue nuclear technology and know-how behind closed doors.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/17/world/fg-iran-nuclear17

Adonis is either very smart or very naive. Due to his responses in this and other threads, I am concluding that it is the former.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't believe this claim as far as I could throw it. As it turns out, the L.A. Times published a story (link below) in 2009 stating that the IAEA concluded that Iran lied about it's nuclear facility construction.

As it turns out, the IAEA states that Iran began construction of it's first nuclear facility in 2002 despite claiming it started in 2007.

Despite the country's so-called agreement on this, it will not stop Iran from continuing to pursue nuclear technology and know-how behind closed doors.

http://articles.lati...-iran-nuclear17

Adonis is either very smart or very naive. Due to his responses in this and other threads, I am concluding that it is the former.

As a Muslim there is only so much Adonis, or those like him, can say without putting himself into physical danger, even in the relative safety of New Zealand. Basic apostasy seems to be a capital offense. He has well fortified himself by refusing to cross certain ratiocination bridges which might vitiate his premises just by visiting.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You say he is a libertarian living in New Zealand. Great. Perhaps he could describe how he thinks libertarianism is doing in the Moslem Middle East where there is not one predominantly Moslem country that has a functioning democracy (partial exception to Turkey, which has a secular culture after it was forcibly installed by Kemal Ataturk). Is that just coincidence? Since he is highly interested in liberty, perhaps he could shed some light on that situation.

Jerry,

Do you see the problem with your question?

Instead of falling into the "what common ground do we have so we can start there?" variety, it is in the "how can you be a libertarian since Islam is evil?" variety.

My question to you is, are you really interested? I mean truly interested in spreading ideas to Muslims instead of making moral denunciations of them?

I don't mean that in a hostile manner, either. It's something to ask yourself since you are discussing this with others.

I have been reading many of his posts and the comments from others. They are all very interesting, but I do not see where he has expressed much interest in discussing how libertarian ideals can be applied in Moslem countries.

Then you need to read more. There's plenty there for the reading.

You might be surprised to learn that Adonis thinks Islam is better suited to libertarian ideals than any other religion. It might be illuminating to discuss why with him. How's that for a common ground starting point? That is, which libertarian ideas align with which parts of Islam and which don't.

Interested?

Instead, he writes passionately in defense of various radical Moslem causes and lately has been vociferous of his defense of Iran's policies.

You might notice that he responds more than anything else. Take a look at the tone and just plain obnoxiousness of how many of the questions are made to him.

Doesn't that count for something?

You might be interested to know that I am in basic disagreement with Adonis on Iran's intentions--not Iran the country, but Iran's leadership. (And, despite this disagreement, we seem to get along just fine, although we communicate only sporadically.) He makes a good point that Iranians do not like certain kinds of weapons--like chemical warfare--and do not use them even when they are used against them. I see that as a good sign in terms of nuclear weapons, but it does nothing for my trust. Iran's leadership is also filled with liars and thugs and I just cannot bring myself to trust a liar and a thug.

The liar and thug tells me he wants the capacity to make and deploy nuclear weapons, but promises not to do so. I say hell no!

Does it look like Adonis's views have influenced me? Do you think they have influenced anyone around here? They actually do by providing information and a different perspective. But they do not make people trust Muslim politicians who have proven themselves to be unworthy of trust. So what's the problem with finding out what he thinks and why he thinks it?

O.K., that's fine, but how does that advance his understanding of libertarian or Objectivist principles and their application to the Middle East?

. . .

But isn't the name of this forum called "Objectivist Living?" It's not entitled "Objectivist-and-all-other-philosophical-and-religious-Living". If you grant an advocate of one particular ideological/religious system, that is hostile to Objectivism, to primarily advocate for his system over and above Objectivism with no attempt to come to grasp with its principles - does that apply to other belief systems that view Objectivism as anathema? How about Marxists? Christian evangelists? Scientologists? fill-in-the-blank-ists? Just asking.

Here is a common misunderstanding about OL.

We are not the Church of Rand nor are we preaching the Gospel of Objectivism. This is a discussion forum, not an advocacy center for saving the world in the name of Objectivist doctrine. Your observations has been made to me before, but by the fundamentalists. I'm not saying that you are the same as the fundies, but your questions do come from the same assumption--that an organization with the name "Objectivist" in it should be part of the "Objectivist movement." Thus it should adhere to a certain kind of doctrine.

I want no part of that.

This forum uses Objectivism as a starting point to promote individual thinking, not an end point to get everybody on board with the same doctrine. I believe most people will end up on the same fundamentals, but because the fundamentals are rational, not because people have been indoctrinated into accepting them. I do not imagine most people will ever agree on the details.

And I am painfully aware that each person takes his or her own time. I know this because I took mine--and it took years.

I reject certain techniques, too. Intimidation, for example, including being excluded, never worked with me to get me to think about--or agree with--anything other than to hate or hold contempt for the person doing the intimidating. As with me, I believe it is with others who think for themselves. Translated into forum policy, that means each person speaks for himsef/herself, not for any group--unless, of course, such group exists and such person holds a formal position of authority within it.

As to those who wish a religion or cult, or who don't mind being intimidated, I am not interested in interacting with them.

In the case of people who come here from other schools of thought, Objectivism is an identification for them to know who they are talking to and the ideas they can reasonably expect most active posters to hold and be familiar with. When such people come here, my idea Objectivism-wise is to acquaint them Rand's thought and ideas, not convert them to a new religion. They have to do their own thinking. I will not do it for them. And they have their own individual context, one which is not mine.

OL is nothing more than that. I do not consider OL to be part of any formal movement.

Part of the idea here is to question premises, even the premises of Objectivism. My view is if they hold, that only makes them stronger. If they don't, that makes us wiser when we find out.

If you look around, you will see other people promoting other schools of thought on OL. When outright preaching starts, especially when someone starts hogging the forum with his/her preaching, I intervene. But, otherwise, I understand that it takes a long time to grow up within a body of ideas. You don't just shrug them off from one day to the next, even if you are drawn to another body of ideas.

Also, I believe there are kernels of truth and wisdom in most all bodies of thought. I often get curious about how an issue is seen from another perspective. Just because someone says X or Y is how they think, that does not mean they will convince anyone. I see nothing wrong with looking at X or Y. From any quarter.

Here are some examples. We have a person schooled in General Semantics who questions everything from that perspective. We have several religious people--Christians and Jews, not just a couple of Muslims. We have several who think philosophy is stupid and science is all. We have some anarcho-capitalists. And I could go on.

My main criterion is character and goodwill, not adherence to any doctrine. If a person is committed to thinking for himself, does not engage in bullying others, is basically honest in presenting his or her views, I hold value for this person. Actually, I'm like a kid in a candy-shop. I want to see what is in his head.

This "other school of thought" thing does not include bigots, groups who want to conquer the world by force, and so forth. (For instance, there was a group called Samson Blinded who started posting some things here. I had them move on since they preach war of Israeli expansion in the Middle East, including Israel taking over all the surrounding countries including Saudi Arabia. On the Muslims side, radical jihadists are not be welcome. And so on.)

Other questions (I am assuming that he will be reading this at some point): How many of Rand's books are freely available to the populace in the Arabic (and Persian) Middle East? In English or in translation to Arabic? How about other libertarians? Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, Mises, Spencer? How are their ideas viewed in the Middile East (outside of Israel, of course, where these books can be bought and read)? Are there libertarian movements in these countries? How are they doing? What influence do they have?

These are good questions. Why not ask Adonis?

I'm also interested in how we can help him and others spread these ideas within the Muslim world.

I wish I had more time to explore this, too. But I will when I finish my present projects and I fully intend to.

I bet you won't be surprised to learn that I intend on making a huge profit doing so, too (not from sponsors, but from customers)...

Michael

[anthony]

> Oh, well played, sir!...You baited your trap [Post #7]

Tony, I've only read a small handful of Adonis's posts and in them he seems like an honest person. Even if I would disagree with many of his views.

Do you have some reason for implying "playing a game", insincerity?

Would you disagree that as a general rule it's best to *attack the idea not the man*, to not imply bad things you can't know about someone's hidden agenda or motivations?

[MSK makes some good points above in regard to this.]

Philip,

What else does one infer from the comment about hoping that not all semi-enriched Uranium is sent to Turkey, and Iran would be "stupid" to do so?

That some is held back, obviously.

For what purpose? To serve Iran's 'peaceful' use of Nuclear power, thus assuming that its President has never had a single thought concerning domination of the Middle East?

One would have to be either an idiot, or blind to believe this, and Adonis is neither.

All I've noticed that Adonis has done throughout the Palestine thread is to promote the 'Fear Factor'.

(I must add that he has been the model of equanamity and benevolent restraint in the Islam thread, when discussing his Faith - and only there - which makes his veiled, and explicit, belligerence about Israel and the West all the more contradictory.)

In parroting the boring 'hard line' that I, and other observers of Israel, have heard from 30-40 years ago, he is not doing himself any favours. In originality, or in show of good faith.

This is an observation:

The vast majority of Israelis essentially ask only one thing from their neighbours :-

Accept reality, and begin thinking for yourselves, and your own good.

Rational selfishness (if you will ), does not involve bombastic pride and dreams of revenge.

All else, peace and prosperity for the entire region, will follow from this. It is in Israel's deepest interest - but Philip, do you doubt that the Irans of the world never want this to happen, and will keep stirring the pot?

No, I distrust Adonis' sincerity. Apart from his repetitious cries for desiring peace, in the past months I have yet to see one conciliatory statement (on the political front), from him.

That there are thousands of other Muslims with independent minds, ethics, and good will, out there, to discuss this with, is a certainty; it would be excellent to hear their voices here.

And engage with their ideas.

Tony

[algernonsidney]

Adonis lives in New Zealand and is a libertarian. In trying to network with other libertarians, but from a Muslim perspective, he ran into Solo Passion.

Michael, I appreciate that you recognize the opportunity that we have here. I don't know what Adnois's interests are. But if he is sincerely interested in ideas, then there is nothing wrong with him being here.

I don't think some people here fully appreciate how difficult it can be to leave a religion that you have been raised in. You start by accepting it when you don't have the critical faculty to engage in the right questions. I actually remember that some of my critical factor was activated even when I was six years old. Still, I denied it and just went on believing. Religion has spent 2000 years setting up its own defense systems, and most people never get past those defense systems. It was only until I read Jefferson and de Sade that I seriously considered leaving the church. I also learned that you can not reason a religious person out of religion. For most religious people, the emotional investment that they have in it is too great.

While I credit Rand for clearing up some of my beliefs, I don't really give her any credit for my departure from the Catholic Church.

The point is, Adonis talks to people outside his culture. He is here talking to us. And he is willing to discuss hard issues that are stated clearly. He's even willing to respond to verbal abuse with a first-response attempt at being civil (and often second, third, etc.) before letting himself get heated. I've seen that time and time again.

In this case, he's already way ahead of the ARI crowd. A lot of them never talk to people outside their culture.

[algernonsidney]

I wouldn't believe this claim as far as I could throw it. As it turns out, the L.A. Times published a story (link below) in 2009 stating that the IAEA concluded that Iran lied about it's nuclear facility construction.

As it turns out, the IAEA states that Iran began construction of it's first nuclear facility in 2002 despite claiming it started in 2007.

Despite the country's so-called agreement on this, it will not stop Iran from continuing to pursue nuclear technology and know-how behind closed doors.

This sounds like another country that already has had nuclear weapons for at least 20 years and still pretends it does not have them. I'm talking about Israel, of course.

And by the way, this wonderful democracy, this great civilized nation, this freedom-loving paradise refused entry to the Jew Noam Chomsky. What a surprise!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/smart_jews_stupid_israeli_offi.html

Edited May 18, 2010 by Chris Baker

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't believe this claim as far as I could throw it. As it turns out, the L.A. Times published a story (link below) in 2009 stating that the IAEA concluded that Iran lied about it's nuclear facility construction.

As it turns out, the IAEA states that Iran began construction of it's first nuclear facility in 2002 despite claiming it started in 2007.

Despite the country's so-called agreement on this, it will not stop Iran from continuing to pursue nuclear technology and know-how behind closed doors.

This sounds like another country that already has had nuclear weapons for at least 20 years and still pretends it does not have them. I'm talking about Israel, of course.

And by the way, this wonderful democracy, this great civilized nation, this freedom-loving paradise refused entry to the Jew Noam Chomsky. What a surprise!

http://voices.washin...raeli_offi.html

I understand your concern about Israel considering the fact that Jews from Israel hijacked those airplanes on 9/11 and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. Fortunately, heroic Arabs on another plane forced it to crash in Pennsylvania before it got to the White House.

--Brant

[Leonid]

This is the main problem of Iran. Iran pumps a lot of oil but doesn't have a technology which needed to rectify this oil and to produce the petrol. So Iran has to sale its oil in order to import the petrol. Believe or not, but there is petrol shortage in Iran. Since Iran doesn't have any coal and has to sale its oil, the only Iranian energy's option is nuclear energy. Do you believe that country which unable to convert oil to the petrol will be ever able to put together nuclear bomb? I doubt it very much. So what this is all about? Iran wants to create an impression, mainly in the Muslim world that it is a nuclear superpower. Iranian main ambition is to pick up the position of leadership in the Muslim world which Egypt lost as result of its peace agreement with Israel. For the same reason Iran is playing Israeli-Jewish card. Iran also mercilessly oppresses any internal opposition to this course. These foolish and dangerous nuclear-anti-Semitic-totalitarian games may cost to Iran pretty dearly.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

MSK "Adonis lives in New Zealand and is a libertarian."

You cannot be serious. Did Adonis pull that much wool over your eyes that you became completely oblivious of the fact that he acts as spin doctor for the most abominable Islamists regimes -Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Besides, he entertains the idea of liberation of Palestine from the Jews. For the evidence read his latest posts on "Islam" thread. However, if your definition of "libertarian" can accommodate Adonis, then I agree with Peter Schwartz’s position on libertarianism. "Libertarianism is a version of moral subjectivism". With such a friend as Adonis libertarianism doesn't need any enemies.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You cannot be serious.

Leonid,

I am serious. What not ask the good folks in NZ?

Did Adonis pull that much wool over your eyes...

No.

But you sure like to blab on and on about what is in the head of other people...

Are you a mind reader?

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael "Are you a mind reader?"

No, I just read Adonis' posts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael "Are you a mind reader?"

No, I just read Adonis' posts.

Leonid,

Great.

Then I suggest you make your accusations--biased or otherwise--about what is in his posts rather than what you imagine is in his head. That is, unless you actually are a mind reader...

I, for one, think you're wrong about what is in his head. But then, I can't say for sure since I don't read minds. But I do base my standards on a person's statements and behavior, not just statements--not even on some lopsided and hostile interpretation of the Qur'an...

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael: Then I suggest you make your accusations--biased or otherwise--about what is in his posts rather than what you imagine is in his head. That is, unless you actually are a mind reader...

And this is exactly what I do. My assumption is that what is in his posts reflects his ideas and convictions. If I'm wrong I wouldn't know it, since I'm not a mind reader. If person knowingly makes false statements for example in regard to Hamas in order to beautify its position, then one can safely conclude that such a person is Hamas' spin doctor. If he advocates expulsion of Jews from Isreal who wouldn't agree to live as dhimmies in Hamas or Iran ruled Palestine, then he is a racist. If he endorses Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions,then he is dangerous Islamist.(see posts 214-216 on “Islam “thread). One doesn't have to be a telepath to figure out that. Simple unbiased common sense is sufficed. If you think that I'm wrong I'd like to know your reasons.

Michael:I, for one, think you're wrong about what is in his head. But then, I can't say for sure since I don't read minds. But I do base my standards on a person's statements and behavior, not just statements--not even on some lopsided and hostile interpretation of the Qur'an...

You can educate me about Adonis' behavior (whatever it means). I also would like to learn about your friendly interpretation of Qur’an-especially the part which endorses martyrdom.

Leonid

Edited May 22, 2010 by Leonid