Expectations of World War

[Libertarian Muslim]

Ahh, man. I'm not sure if I want to sympathise with that innocent

ignorance of yours, or combat your terrible cynicism.

It is obvious you're a victim of your own propaganda.

One question: Why would Israel seek war with Iran?

Put another way: How would it be in their self-interest?

It's not in Israel's interest or anyone else's interest to have a war with Iran but since when do the interests of a nation get in the way of the minority of decision makers who can find huge benefits in launching unjust wars on innocent parties?

[Mikee]

"..minority of decision makers who can find huge benefits in launching unjust wars on innocent parties?"

Where is this more true than in Iran? Or any of Israel's enemies? If you cannot admit this you are truly blind.

[Brant Gaede]

Ahh, man. I'm not sure if I want to sympathise with that innocent

ignorance of yours, or combat your terrible cynicism.

It is obvious you're a victim of your own propaganda.

One question: Why would Israel seek war with Iran?

Put another way: How would it be in their self-interest?

It's not in Israel's interest or anyone else's interest to have a war with Iran but since when do the interests of a nation get in the way of the minority of decision makers who can find huge benefits in launching unjust wars on innocent parties?

The Obama Administration is demonstrating so much political incompetence I'm beginning to think they can't even do a Clinton--i.e., launch a few missiles, celebrate and stop. Israel has over a year now because the PM has consolidated his power--i.e., to go to war off that base. Israel is going to do something. The question is, this year or next?

--Brant

[Selene]

LM:

Is your contention that the Iranian state has not oppressed its own people over the last several years?

Additionally, is it your contention that the Iranian state is not a theocracy?

Finally, is it your contention that the Iranian state has no interest in developing a nuclear arsenal, which, as you have noted in past discussions, it has the absolute right to develop, as any country has the right to develop weaponry to defend itself?

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Finally, is it your contention that the Iranian state has no interest in developing a nuclear arsenal, which, as you have noted in past discussions, it has the absolute right to develop, as any country has the right to develop weaponry to defend itself?

end quote

Good point, Adam. Everybody knows what their true intentions are: as they have said, to get the bomb and immediately use it to destroy Israel . . . Does LM still deny that? For Israel to go to war with Iran without the U.S. as a participating ally would be tough as LM has noted. An Israeli strike on their nuclear capacities could be over quickly but the retaliation from Iran and its proxies would be staggering on little Israel. What would Egypt do?

A recent replay of a “60 Minutes” segment showed how relaxed and “European” the people of Tel Aviv are. Yet, I saw in the news today that there were riots in Israel to get less than 100,000 illegal Sudanese refugees / immigrants out of the country. Turmoil begets an atmosphere of turmoil. So, can Israel “afford” to not KNOW? Knowing that the second Iranian target will be Washington DC can America afford to not know?

America can also keep the collateral damage down in Iran, and browbeat other Muslim countries to not join in on any attacks on Israel. There is always speculation that Hillary will replace American Vice President Biden on the Democrat ticket in September or October, IF, Obama is trailing Romney. And there is always the possibility of a Clintonesque bombing of Iran as was done in Serbia if the incumbent is still trailing in the polls. However, due to our current military prowess after two recent wars and excess of air force assets, I foresee a more thorough thrashing of Iran including an overwhelming precision, assault from the air, and briefly, boots on the ground. Attacking Iran is a rational necessity due to their monstrous political morality. An attack is also politically expedient, unless Obama is leading in the polls up to the November 2012 election.

Peter

[dennislmay]

..due to our current military prowess after two recent wars and excess of air force assets,...

What excess of Air Force assets is that? The Air Force is slated to be smaller that it has been

any time since it was the Army Air Corp in the 1930's.

Dennis

[anthony]

Ahh, man. I'm not sure if I want to sympathise with that innocent

ignorance of yours, or combat your terrible cynicism.

It is obvious you're a victim of your own propaganda.

One question: Why would Israel seek war with Iran?

Put another way: How would it be in their self-interest?

It's not in Israel's interest or anyone else's interest to have a war with Iran but since when do the interests of a nation get in the way of the minority of decision makers who can find huge benefits in launching unjust wars on innocent parties?

LM,

Can you name one "huge benefit" in this war, for Israel?

An expansionist reason? Iran's natural resources?

Can you visualize any government (of shadowy "minority decision-makers") willingly

leading their small country into a war against one of the strongest militaries in the ME?

Your statement was:

"Israel seems to be doing everything they can to make it happen."

You have yet to provide one good cause for them to do this.

(A clue - could it be Israelis actually believe they are under threat of attack?

They can't have taken Ahmadinejad's and the Ayatollah's promises of annihilation

seriously, can they? We know Iranians are only big talkers, not so?)

[Libertarian Muslim]

LM:

Is your contention that the Iranian state has not oppressed its own people over the last several years?

Additionally, is it your contention that the Iranian state is not a theocracy?

Finally, is it your contention that the Iranian state has no interest in developing a nuclear arsenal, which, as you have noted in past discussions, it has the absolute right to develop, as any country has the right to develop weaponry to defend itself?

Adam

Adam,

1. No, it's not my contention that Iran hasn't oppressed its own people over the years. Having said that, it's not a justification to launch war on Iran.

2. Iran is a theocracy but again, this is not a reason to launch a war on it.

3. I don't know for sure whether Iran has the intentions of building a nuclear arsenal but I do sincerely believe that they have the right to develop one as a means of deterrent to stop other nations from attacking them. If that stops the US and Iran from attacking then great. Attacking Iran is not only a bad idea tactically, but also logically, to expect positive change to occur after bombing a country is silly. The US and other nations should open up trade with Iran and allow the ideas of liberty to spread naturally because nothing brings hardliners into power in Iran than the threat of war against them. The people are proud and won't accept Western interference.

LM,

Can you name one "huge benefit" in this war, for Israel?

An expansionist reason? Iran's natural resources?

Can you visualize any government (of shadowy "minority decision-makers") willingly

leading their small country into a war against one of the strongest militaries in the ME?

Your statement was:

"Israel seems to be doing everything they can to make it happen."

You have yet to provide one good cause for them to do this.

(A clue - could it be Israelis actually believe they are under threat of attack?

They can't have taken Ahmadinejad's and the Ayatollah's promises of annihilation

seriously, can they? We know Iranians are only big talkers, not so?)

Again, I never stated the huge benefit was for Israel as a whole, in fact the only thing that will benefit Israel as a whole would be a just peace agreement between themselves and the Arabs but they've still not come around to having one.

The assertion that they'd only launch a war if it were in their benefit is counter to what's happened in the past 60 years. How many years have been fought over the last 60 years that were unnecessary and didn't benefit the nations as a whole that were engaged in them? Most of them had that as the case.

Israel may feel under threat from Iran but that doesn't reflect the truth and is not a justification for launching a war on Iran.

Also, in terms of Israel feeling threatened?

[Selene]

LM:

Is your contention that the Iranian state has not oppressed its own people over the last several years?

Additionally, is it your contention that the Iranian state is not a theocracy?

Finally, is it your contention that the Iranian state has no interest in developing a nuclear arsenal, which, as you have noted in past discussions, it has the absolute right to develop, as any country has the right to develop weaponry to defend itself?

Adam

Adam,

1. No, it's not my contention that Iran hasn't oppressed its own people over the years. Having said that, it's not a justification to launch war on Iran.

2. Iran is a theocracy but again, this is not a reason to launch a war on it.

3. I don't know for sure whether Iran has the intentions of building a nuclear arsenal but I do sincerely believe that they have the right to develop one as a means of deterrent to stop other nations from attacking them. If that stops the US and Iran from attacking then great. Attacking Iran is not only a bad idea tactically, but also logically, to expect positive change to occur after bombing a country is silly. The US and other nations should open up trade with Iran and allow the ideas of liberty to spread naturally because nothing brings hardliners into power in Iran than the threat of war against them. The people are proud and won't accept Western interference.

LM:

Thanks. I wanted to be certain that you had not wandered away to mysticland.

I am very close with a number of Persians who are working hard to change the government.

Are you in favor, as I am, of supporting those revolutionary cadres inside Iran?

Good to see that you are in good health.

The chances of the Peter Principle President hitting Iran before mid-September or mid-October are rising as his re-election is becoming more and more in doubt.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

LM:

Thanks. I wanted to be certain that you had not wandered away to mysticland.

I am very close with a number of Persians who are working hard to change the government.

Are you in favor, as I am, of supporting those revolutionary cadres inside Iran?

Good to see that you are in good health.

The chances of the Peter Principle President hitting Iran before mid-September or mid-October are rising as his re-election is becoming more and more in doubt.

Adam

Thank you Adam, I hope you're well aslo.

I support change within Iran definitely. But what kind of government would they like to put in place and how are they trying to achieve it?

[Selene]

I support change within Iran definitely. But what kind of government would they like to put in place and how are they trying to achieve it?

LM:

Well, as usual, that is not as clear to either, me, or the folks that I know. Certainly some form of democratic plural government would be their desire.

However, as you know, there are severely entrenched power bases that go back at least 1, 200 or more years. Some that go back to pre-Alexander times. We are dealing with a genetic pool that can be traced back to Central Asia, Tajikstan; Uzbekistan; Afghaniztan; parts of Western Pakistan; Northern Iraq; Eastern Turkey and all throughout the Caucasus Mountains.

The answer, as in Egypt, Syria etc. is who knows what will replace the current regime.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

LM:

Well, as usual, that is not as clear to either, me, or the folks that I know. Certainly some form of democratic plural government would be their desire.

However, as you know, there are severely entrenched power bases that go back at least 1, 200 or more years. Some that go back to pre-Alexander times. We are dealing with a genetic pool that can be traced back to Central Asia, Tajikstan; Uzbekistan; Afghaniztan; parts of Western Pakistan; Northern Iraq; Eastern Turkey and all throughout the Caucasus Mountains.

The answer, as in Egypt, Syria etc. is who knows what will replace the current regime.

Adam

What I support for Iran is a change from Wilayat al Faqih to Wilayat al Ummah.

[Selene]

LM:

Well, as usual, that is not as clear to either, me, or the folks that I know. Certainly some form of democratic plural government would be their desire.

However, as you know, there are severely entrenched power bases that go back at least 1, 200 or more years. Some that go back to pre-Alexander times. We are dealing with a genetic pool that can be traced back to Central Asia, Tajikstan; Uzbekistan; Afghaniztan; parts of Western Pakistan; Northern Iraq; Eastern Turkey and all throughout the Caucasus Mountains.

The answer, as in Egypt, Syria etc. is who knows what will replace the current regime.

Adam

What I support for Iran is a change from Wilayat al Faqih to Wilayat al Ummah.

Is this what you mean and is it an accurate reflection of the idea?

Mohammad Baqir Al-Sadr's political philosophy, known as

Wilayat Al-Umma

(Governance of the people), set out his view of a modern day Islamic state. Using his mastery of the Quran and his innovative subject-based approach to

Quranic exegesis

, Al-Sadr extracted two concepts from the Holy text in relation to governance:

khilafat al-insan

(Man as heir or trustee of God) and

shahadat al-anbiya

(Prophets as witnesses). Al-Sadr explained that throughout history there have been '…two lines. Man’s line and the Prophet’s line. The former is the

khalifa

(trustee) who inherits the earth from God; the latter is the

shahid

(witness).'.

[3]

Al-Sadr demonstrated that

khilafa

(governance) is ‘a right given to the whole of humanity’ and explained it to be an obligation given from God to the human race to ‘tend the globe and administer human affairs’. This was a major advancement of Islamic political theory. Al-Sadr stated that the legitimacy of a government in an Islamic state comes from the people, and not from the clerics. Al-Sadr explained that throughout history there have been '…two lines. Man’s line and the Prophet’s line. The former is the

khalifa

(trustee) who inherits the earth from God; the latter is the

shahid

(witness)'.

[3]

[Libertarian Muslim]

Exactly.

I believe that there are some Ma'soom people, that is, people who have no intention to commit sins who were mandated by God to have authority over the government but they are far and few between and we believe that the Prophet Muhammad, His son in law Ali ibn abi Talib and his two sons Hassan and Hussein were such people and I would have no problems whatsoever giving full authority or power to someone like that.

But there is no one like that apparent today and so I am not comfortable however, giving such authority to clerics who are fallible and therefore, it becomes necessary to have a separation of the powers of government so as to prevent tyranny from taking place and thus it becomes necessary for the people to hold that power and to protect it.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard should be there to protect the people's rights, not keep a bunch clerics in power.

[Richard Wiig]

"but I do sincerely believe that they have the right to develop one as a means of deterrent to stop other nations from attacking them."

You may as well say that, Charles Manson, has the right to arm himself.

[BaalChatzaf]

Exactly.

I believe that there are some Ma'soom people, that is, people who have no intention to commit sins who were mandated by God to have authority over the government but they are far and few between and we believe that the Prophet Muhammad, His son in law Ali ibn abi Talib and his two sons Hassan and Hussein were such people and I would have no problems whatsoever giving full authority or power to someone like that.

But there is no one like that apparent today and so I am not comfortable however, giving such authority to clerics who are fallible and therefore, it becomes necessary to have a separation of the powers of government so as to prevent tyranny from taking place and thus it becomes necessary for the people to hold that power and to protect it.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard should be there to protect the people's rights, not keep a bunch clerics in power.

An Iranian Shi'ite would not know a right if it bit him in the ass.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Richard Wiig]

Exactly.

I believe that there are some Ma'soom people, that is, people who have no intention to commit sins who were mandated by God to have authority over the government but they are far and few between and we believe that the Prophet Muhammad, His son in law Ali ibn abi Talib and his two sons Hassan and Hussein were such people and I would have no problems whatsoever giving full authority or power to someone like that.

But there is no one like that apparent today and so I am not comfortable however, giving such authority to clerics who are fallible and therefore, it becomes necessary to have a separation of the powers of government so as to prevent tyranny from taking place and thus it becomes necessary for the people to hold that power and to protect it.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard should be there to protect the people's rights, not keep a bunch clerics in power.

An Iranian Shi'ite would not know a right if it bit him in the ass.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We've seen democracy in action in the Islamic world already, and in each case it's brought the voting public closer to Islamic theocracy. I guess that does, by Islamic standards, bring them closer to a corruption free world. Burying someone to their neck and stoning them for apostasy isn't corrupt. It's Islamic.

[Libertarian Muslim]

We've seen democracy in action in the Islamic world already, and in each case it's brought the voting public closer to Islamic theocracy. I guess that does, by Islamic standards, bring them closer to a corruption free world. Burying someone to their neck and stoning them for apostasy isn't corrupt. It's Islamic.

No, a democracy was Iran in the early 1950's when they democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh. It was the CIA and MI6 who launched Operation Ajax and overthrew him despite the fact that he was friendly to the West and Western educated.

What is happening in Iran today and the style of government there eis due to the interference of the West, it gets the hardliners support because they don't want foreign powers ruling their country. As soon as the West leaves Iran alone, positive change will occur.

If the Soviet Union had overthrew the US government in the 70's and installed a dictator, and then the people rose up against this dictator and pushed him and his cronies out, what type of government do you think the US would elect? It would most definitely be hardline.

[Richard Wiig]

That depends on what is in American minds, LM. This is what is in some American minds, and it is as ugly as any Islamic fundamentalists. It would impose tyranny even though the Soviets never implemented any authoritarian regime:

Islam is a force that is independent of American policy, and independent of dictators. There's a difference between deposing a dictator to usher in freedom and deposing a dictator to usher in Islam. Which one is going to be the case isn't determined by the dictator.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Islam is a force that is independent of American policy, and independent of dictators. There's a difference between deposing a dictator to usher in freedom and deposing a dictator to usher in Islam. Which one is going to be the case isn't determined by the dictator.

I don't see ushering in freedom as being mutually exlusive from ushering in Islam. But that's just my point of view as I understand Islam differently to many people. I think what we'd all like to avoid is a Wahhabist system like Saudi Arabia's or worse being implemented but I don't think it will.

[anthony]

Islam is a force that is independent of American policy, and independent of dictators. There's a difference between deposing a dictator to usher in freedom and deposing a dictator to usher in Islam. Which one is going to be the case isn't determined by the dictator.

I don't see ushering in freedom as being mutually exlusive from ushering in Islam.

LM,

But as libertarian, you surely believe in a clear distinction between Mosque and State?

[BaalChatzaf]

But as libertarian, you surely believe in a clear distinction between Mosque and State?

For a true Muslim there is no such distinction. The only true guide is the Holy Q'ran and the Hadiths.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

So long as Islam is a religion and treated as such, I think it is just as good as any other religion. I happen to believe there is a lot of good in it (qua religion), as I do for all the main religions.

The problem comes when Islam is promoted by fanatics as a social ideology to take over the world, say like communism does. Then I believe it loses its religious characteristic for a lot of people and they see it as a threat.

There is nothing better than separation of church and state for legal issues.

Michael

[jts]

Craig Winn's book "Prophet of Doom" is free of charge and is in readable form and in audio form.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

Islam in Muhammad's Own Words

Prophet of Doom is the best-documented, most comprehensive, presentation of Islam's five oldest and most reliable scriptural sources. Ishaq's Biography of Muhammad, Tabari's History of Islam, and Bukhari's and Muslim's Hadith, were used to reorder the Qur'an chronologically and to set its surahs into the context of Muhammad's life. When this evidence is evaluated systematically, the only rational conclusion is that Islam's lone prophet was a ruthless terrorist, a mass-murderer, a thief, slave trader, rapist and pedophile.

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence.

The critics of this work will claim that

Prophet of Doom

is offensive, racist, hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree - but I didn't write those parts. They came directly from Islam’s scriptures. If you don't like what Muhammad and Allah said, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.

Also check out his radio interviews. He is fun to listen to because of his strong statements against Islam and Muhammad.

http://prophetofdoom.net/Radio_Interviews.Islam

[Richard Wiig]

Shariah is beyond liberty. Allah decides the actions of Muslims, not muslims themselves.