Living with the 'Taliban'

[Libertarian Muslim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3G8RkKdXhc

Edited August 20, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Mike Renzulli]

Adonis,

Do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Edited August 22, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Ah the age old question.. Does one condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization? I had a feeling someone might ask..

I hope you're not looking for a Yes or No answer to that..

I believe there are more than 100 different definitions for terrorism out there so to respond to you with a yes or no, would be unbecoming of anyone that has any intellect. Unless of course, you're a shock jock on the radio or Bill O'Reilly and in those cases the general public seems to accept it.. Which is just stupid and simply a game I don't wish to play.

In an article for the NY Times Bruce Hoffman noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."

So as you can see it's a loaded question that takes on the assumption that a terrorist organization has a specific meaning..

However, if we're looking at terrorism as a specific tactic. That is, a type of guerrilla warfare aimed at harming the infrastructure that is used by a government, army or organization as it was used in the US War of Independence to gain freedom for Americans from the British and establish the USA. Which was a good thing.. Or as it was used in Afghanistan to push the Communists occupiers out of that country.. Or as it was and still is taught to Western intelligence agencies like MI6 and the CIA as well as special forces units like the British Special Air Service and the US' Delta Force to use on Russia should Russia ever attack then that is, in my opinion, a legitimate tactic of warfare.

So the question is, when is this tactic justified to be used? I believe it is justified when the tactic is used to try and destroy, impede or remove the ability for a government, army or organization to wage an unjust oppression against innocent people..

I can also say very clearly that even though I am not a part of the military apparatus of New Zealand nor even a citizen here, if New Zealand (God forbid) were to ever be attacked and invaded then I would most certainly resist such an invasion and would definitely employ those 'terrorist' tactics against the occupying army, its infrastructure and any puppet government they tried to set up here.

Of course, that is conditional.. It's not just a free for all.. In any type of warfare, including this type of guerrilla warfare I do condemn and would never support nor partake in any attack intended at harming unarmed civilians not engaged in warfare against me and believe the most utmost care should be taken to avoid casualties of unarmed civilians.. That would include condemning attacks that are directed at harming unarmed Israelis..

Edited August 22, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is how to imagine the Taliban and the Wahabi. The Taliban and the Wahabi are the chimpanzees. The Sufi and the Bahai are the bonobos. Just an analogy not to be taken literally.

The fact that there are offshoots of Islam that are compatible with human existence is a ray of hope.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

Here's a good question.

To preface, the Taliban is at war with the USA. Even though there has been no formal declaration by the USA, what we did was a de facto war. Now the question:

Is Hamas at war with Israel?

If it is not a terrorist group and claims to the world that it is unfair to treat it that way, but instead it is an armed enemy at war, Israel and the world should acknowledge this openly and deal with it that way.

Is it fair to say the following?

The local government in Gaza is at war with Israel--a de facto war.

The current conceptual fog surrounding this issue that is constantly presented in the news and discussions only serves to allow bad people to do bad things and get away with them. (That means all sides, too, but the focus here is on Hamas performing acts of terrorism against civilians and trying to call it something else.)

As to the Taliban in the video, it's good to get a look at the personal stories of the people fighting in order to realize that they are human beings, not just ciphers. It's also good to see what happens when you limit a person's intellectual choices in his culture.

Those dudes in the video are nice people until they pick up their weapons. And, from what I have seen in the video, they have no doubts at all about what their course of action should be. It is a "not to be questioned" evaluation of the world and events as taught to them by others. They are perfect vessels for any history--true or false--their leaders want to pour in so log as a consistent scapegoat is part of the mix.

This, I believe, was the kind of mindset of the Nazi prison guards at concentration camps.

This mindset is why intellectual warfare bearing the banner of truth--and a rich offering of intellectual choices--is so important.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The fact that there are offshoots of Islam that are compatible with human existence is a ray of hope.

Bob,

You almost made me believe in God just now.

That fact that you said that is a clear indication that miracles do exist. And I don't know how to logically reconcile miracles metaphysically with the rest of reality.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> The Taliban and the Wahabi are the chimpanzees. The Sufi and the Bahai are the bonobos. Just an analogy

Baal, do you always have to make your points in the most offensive way possible?

[BaalChatzaf]

> The Taliban and the Wahabi are the chimpanzees. The Sufi and the Bahai are the bonobos. Just an analogy

Baal, do you always have to make your points in the most offensive way possible?

Why are you offended? I thought the analogy was rather apt. Chimpanzees are nasty warlike killer apes and bonobos would rather make love than make war. The analogy is very apt. I never said that anyone was literally an ape and I went to some length to indicate that I used the analogy or metaphor in a non-literal manner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

So does that mean you find it okay when southern racists were referring to blacks as "apes"?

What about if someone were to call jews "monkeys"?

Just an analogy, right?

Edited August 22, 2010 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

So does that mean you find it okay when southern racists were referring to blacks as "apes"?

What about if someone were to call jews "monkeys"?

Just an analogy, right?

Do you know the difference between analogical and literal? Apparently not. You are so Politically Correct you will not use a reference to one of the great apes and an Afro-American in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence. You should pay attention to what people say on not so much on how you take what they say. When I write, I write specifically what I mean. Please do not read into what I write what I did not write in the first place.

chimp/bonobo == wahabi/sufi is a perfectly apt analogy. Why? Chimps are nasty and murderous and bonobos are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

Hm! I do not see an answer to my question. Perhaps my question was not clear. I will ask this way.

One of the heads of Hamas was quoted recently saying he opposed the end of Israel because it would make it easier for his organization to hunt down and kill the Jews. So you support this policy or are you against it?

Adonis,

Do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Ah the age old question.. Does one condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization? I had a feeling someone might ask..

I hope you're not looking for a Yes or No answer to that..

I believe there are more than 100 different definitions for terrorism out there so to respond to you with a yes or no, would be unbecoming of anyone that has any intellect. Unless of course, you're a shock jock on the radio or Bill O'Reilly and in those cases the general public seems to accept it.. Which is just stupid and simply a game I don't wish to play.

In an article for the NY Times Bruce Hoffman noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."

So as you can see it's a loaded question that takes on the assumption that a terrorist organization has a specific meaning..

However, if we're looking at terrorism as a specific tactic. That is, a type of guerrilla warfare aimed at harming the infrastructure that is used by a government, army or organization as it was used in the US War of Independence to gain freedom for Americans from the British and establish the USA. Which was a good thing.. Or as it was used in Afghanistan to push the Communists occupiers out of that country.. Or as it was and still is taught to Western intelligence agencies like MI6 and the CIA as well as special forces units like the British Special Air Service and the US' Delta Force to use on Russia should Russia ever attack then that is, in my opinion, a legitimate tactic of warfare.

So the question is, when is this tactic justified to be used? I believe it is justified when the tactic is used to try and destroy, impede or remove the ability for a government, army or organization to wage an unjust oppression against innocent people..

I can also say very clearly that even though I am not a part of the military apparatus of New Zealand nor even a citizen here, if New Zealand (God forbid) were to ever be attacked and invaded then I would most certainly resist such an invasion and would definitely employ those 'terrorist' tactics against the occupying army, its infrastructure and any puppet government they tried to set up here.

Of course, that is conditional.. It's not just a free for all.. In any type of warfare, including this type of guerrilla warfare I do condemn and would never support nor partake in any attack intended at harming unarmed civilians not engaged in warfare against me and believe the most utmost care should be taken to avoid casualties of unarmed civilians.. That would include condemning attacks that are directed at harming unarmed Israelis..

[Darrell Hougen]

Adonis,

Thanks for the video. It is interesting to watch the Taliban in action. Watching them almost makes them look like sympathetic characters. And, it was very sad that two of the leader's children were killed in a raid by Special Forces.

It was interesting to hear the leader ask, "Why are Americans here?" "Are they being oppressed?" He asked it as if the Americans had no justification for being in Afganistan and as a way to motivate his men. Of course, his rhetorical question completely ignores the issue of 9/11. It ignores the fact that the Taliban had opened their doors to the creation of terrorist training camps, that the 9/11 terrorists had trained in Afganistan, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden had been given refuge there.

But, it shows the difficulty of waging a war in a place like Afganistan. It is hard to convince the fighters in the hills that the U.S. is there to bring peace, order, civility and real freedom to the people of Afganistan in the hope that the Afganis won't allow their country to be used as a staging area for attacks on us in the future.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

I think a definition of terrorism is in order.

Terrorism is the use of attacks on innocent civilians for the purpose of frightening the populace into turning against its leaders.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Well, if it aided and abetted suicide bombings --- people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up on buses or in crowded markets or restaurants --- then, yes, Hamas qualifies as a terrorist organization.

People that attack military or government targets are not terrorists. Ambushing a military convoy is not an act of terrorism because the targets are not civilians. Therefore, the American revolutionaries were not terrorists. Attacking the enemy's military is an act of war, but not an act of terrorism.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Adonis,

Thanks for the video. It is interesting to watch the Taliban in action. Watching them almost makes them look like sympathetic characters. And, it was very sad that two of the leader's children were killed in a raid by Special Forces.

It was interesting to hear the leader ask, "Why are Americans here?" "Are they being oppressed?" He asked it as if the Americans had no justification for being in Afganistan and as a way to motivate his men. Of course, his rhetorical question completely ignores the issue of 9/11. It ignores the fact that the Taliban had opened their doors to the creation of terrorist training camps, that the 9/11 terrorists had trained in Afganistan, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden had been given refuge there.

But, it shows the difficulty of waging a war in a place like Afganistan. It is hard to convince the fighters in the hills that the U.S. is there to bring peace, order, civility and real freedom to the people of Afganistan in the hope that the Afganis won't allow their country to be used as a staging area for attacks on us in the future.

Darrell

You have no way of knowing how much was bs in that video.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

You have no way of knowing how much was bs in that video.

--Brant

True. I was giving the creator the benefit of the doubt.

Darrell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hm! I do not see an answer to my question. Perhaps my question was not clear. I will ask this way.

One of the heads of Hamas was quoted recently saying he opposed the end of Israel because it would make it easier for his organization to hunt down and kill the Jews. So you support this policy or are you against it?

Which head of Hamas said that? And when? And do you have the direct quote that I can either listen to or read in Arabic?

Also, I did answer the question.. I condemn all attacks intending to harm unarmed Israelis..

Adonis,

Thanks for the video. It is interesting to watch the Taliban in action. Watching them almost makes them look like sympathetic characters. And, it was very sad that two of the leader's children were killed in a raid by Special Forces.

It was interesting to hear the leader ask, "Why are Americans here?" "Are they being oppressed?" He asked it as if the Americans had no justification for being in Afganistan and as a way to motivate his men. Of course, his rhetorical question completely ignores the issue of 9/11. It ignores the fact that the Taliban had opened their doors to the creation of terrorist training camps, that the 9/11 terrorists had trained in Afganistan, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden had been given refuge there.

But, it shows the difficulty of waging a war in a place like Afganistan. It is hard to convince the fighters in the hills that the U.S. is there to bring peace, order, civility and real freedom to the people of Afganistan in the hope that the Afganis won't allow their country to be used as a staging area for attacks on us in the future.

Darrell

Well, firstly, I don't think they're Taliban, which is a problem as the Americans and rest of the world tend to heap all of the resistance groups that are against the occupation into the Taliban category which is incorrect..

Secondly, the Taliban explicitly forbade Osama bin Laden from launching operations against the US and using Afghanistan as a base for it. That was a condition of him being able to stay there. In addition to that, after the attacks when the US Government demanded the Taliban hand bin Laden over, the Taliban asked for the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks and said they'd even hang him themselves if they found it were true that he did that.. But the US Government supported by most US Citizens, in all their arrogance simply wanted blood and revenge.. There was no wish for real justice and unfortunately this seems to still be the case for most Americans today.. So they essentially said to the Taliban, "We're America, we don't need to give evidence even though we'd expect evidence to extradite an American indicted on crimes in another country so hand him over" (paraphrased).

And the Taliban did the right thing by refusing to hand Osama over, I even agree with that action of theirs because no matter how backwards their understanding and practice of Islam is and no matter how much I despise Osama, they stuck to the Islamic thing to do and that was to ask for evidence first to ensure that no person was going to be held accountable for crimes that they didn't commit.. That is what proper American justice should have been.. It's embarrassing that some 'cave dwellers' had to show the Americans this lesson..

That is what justice is.. Almost ten years of war which will have all been wasted as a failure that cost the American tax payer billions could have all been avoided if the US Government and the people demanded justice rather than blood.. But of course, the 9/11 attacks weren't the real reason the US Government had decided to go into Afghanistan was it? Of course not.. The decision was to do so was made before 9/11.

Also, the Afghan people have never really liked occupiers, they've tolerated them on occasion when having them benefited them but eventually they are all opposed and run out.. I said from the beginning of this war in 2001 that this was the most retarded of all decisions ever made, did the US Government not learn from the British Empire and Soviet Union's failed attempts to occupy this country? They should have at least learnt from the Soviet's experience because they assisted the Afghan people against them.

They thought they'd go in there and it'd be all over but clearly that's not the case, and even as they routed the Taliban I said, it's guerrilla warfare which they've had thousands of years practice at, they head to the mountains and fight from there the best way they know how.. And everyone around me was gleeful at the false idea that the US was somehow successful in taking Afghanistan.. What utter nonsense.. The US and ISAF will leave with their tails between their legs just like the rest.. Afghanistan can never really be taken..

I think a definition of terrorism is in order.

Terrorism is the use of attacks on innocent civilians for the purpose of frightening the populace into turning against its leaders.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Well, if it aided and abetted suicide bombings --- people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up on buses or in crowded markets or restaurants --- then, yes, Hamas qualifies as a terrorist organization.

I would say according to your definition, that during the period that Hamas did carry out suicide bombings they most certainly were a terrorist organization.. However, this is no longer the case, they no longer use this tactic and their attacks are no longer directed at harming unarmed Israeli citizens therefore, according to your own definition that would mean that Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization.

Also, according to your definition Israel is a terrorist state due to its blockade (an act of war) which is targeted mainly at the Gazan population to force to turn against their elected leaders (Hamas).

[anthony]

Hm! I do not see an answer to my question. Perhaps my question was not clear. I will ask this way.

One of the heads of Hamas was quoted recently saying he opposed the end of Israel because it would make it easier for his organization to hunt down and kill the Jews. So you support this policy or are you against it?

Which head of Hamas said that? And when? And do you have the direct quote that I can either listen to or read in Arabic?

Also, I did answer the question.. I condemn all attacks intending to harm unarmed Israelis..

Adonis,

Thanks for the video. It is interesting to watch the Taliban in action. Watching them almost makes them look like sympathetic characters. And, it was very sad that two of the leader's children were killed in a raid by Special Forces.

It was interesting to hear the leader ask, "Why are Americans here?" "Are they being oppressed?" He asked it as if the Americans had no justification for being in Afganistan and as a way to motivate his men. Of course, his rhetorical question completely ignores the issue of 9/11. It ignores the fact that the Taliban had opened their doors to the creation of terrorist training camps, that the 9/11 terrorists had trained in Afganistan, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden had been given refuge there.

But, it shows the difficulty of waging a war in a place like Afganistan. It is hard to convince the fighters in the hills that the U.S. is there to bring peace, order, civility and real freedom to the people of Afganistan in the hope that the Afganis won't allow their country to be used as a staging area for attacks on us in the future.

Darrell

Well, firstly, I don't think they're Taliban, which is a problem as the Americans and rest of the world tend to heap all of the resistance groups that are against the occupation into the Taliban category which is incorrect..

Secondly, the Taliban explicitly forbade Osama bin Laden from launching operations against the US and using Afghanistan as a base for it. That was a condition of him being able to stay there. In addition to that, after the attacks when the US Government demanded the Taliban hand bin Laden over, the Taliban asked for the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks and said they'd even hang him themselves if they found it were true that he did that.. But the US Government supported by most US Citizens, in all their arrogance simply wanted blood and revenge.. There was no wish for real justice and unfortunately this seems to still be the case for most Americans today.. So they essentially said to the Taliban, "We're America, we don't need to give evidence even though we'd expect evidence to extradite an American indicted on crimes in another country so hand him over" (paraphrased).

And the Taliban did the right thing by refusing to hand Osama over, I even agree with that action of theirs because no matter how backwards their understanding and practice of Islam is and no matter how much I despise Osama, they stuck to the Islamic thing to do and that was to ask for evidence first to ensure that no person was going to be held accountable for crimes that they didn't commit.. That is what proper American justice should have been.. It's embarrassing that some 'cave dwellers' had to show the Americans this lesson..

That is what justice is.. Almost ten years of war which will have all been wasted as a failure that cost the American tax payer billions could have all been avoided if the US Government and the people demanded justice rather than blood.. But of course, the 9/11 attacks weren't the real reason the US Government had decided to go into Afghanistan was it? Of course not.. The decision was to do so was made before 9/11.

Also, the Afghan people have never really liked occupiers, they've tolerated them on occasion when having them benefited them but eventually they are all opposed and run out.. I said from the beginning of this war in 2001 that this was the most retarded of all decisions ever made, did the US Government not learn from the British Empire and Soviet Union's failed attempts to occupy this country? They should have at least learnt from the Soviet's experience because they assisted the Afghan people against them.

They thought they'd go in there and it'd be all over but clearly that's not the case, and even as they routed the Taliban I said, it's guerrilla warfare which they've had thousands of years practice at, they head to the mountains and fight from there the best way they know how.. And everyone around me was gleeful at the false idea that the US was somehow successful in taking Afghanistan.. What utter nonsense.. The US and ISAF will leave with their tails between their legs just like the rest.. Afghanistan can never really be taken..

I think a definition of terrorism is in order.

Terrorism is the use of attacks on innocent civilians for the purpose of frightening the populace into turning against its leaders.

Is Hamas a terrorist organization? Well, if it aided and abetted suicide bombings --- people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up on buses or in crowded markets or restaurants --- then, yes, Hamas qualifies as a terrorist organization.

I would say according to your definition, that during the period that Hamas did carry out suicide bombings they most certainly were a terrorist organization.. However, this is no longer the case, they no longer use this tactic and their attacks are no longer directed at harming unarmed Israeli citizens therefore, according to your own definition that would mean that Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization.

Also, according to your definition Israel is a terrorist state due to its blockade (an act of war) which is targeted mainly at the Gazan population to force to turn against their elected leaders (Hamas).

Hi Adonis,

I do think you live in a dream world, and do believe your own words.

I don't think you have the slightest idea of the sheer power that the USA - or Israel, for that matter - could unleash, IF they ever decided to declare full-out war against any country.

Presently they are both constrained for various reasons, the ethical one being paramount.

Which means that what we are seeing thus far is little more than policing actions.

I've seen you gloating about Israel's 'defeat' against Hezbolla in South Lebanon, its 'terrorism' by 'targeting innocents' in Palestine, and the difficult campaign by the US in Afghanistan.

Leaving aside the irrationality of all of these conflicts, and the wrong premises involved, what do you really think would happen if a declaration of war was formally made by the antagonists?

Even Iraq was a limited action against Saddam, not a war.

My advice, don't "go there". You really have no concept of what will occur if this can of worms is ever opened.

Also, don't presume too far upon the reluctance and self-constraint demonstrated this far by Israel and the US. Trying to root out a tiny number of real enemies amongst huge civilian populations does not indicate their total capability.

Like I say, police actions.

Tony

(but do pass the hashish over. B) )

[Mike Renzulli]

I have tried looking for the actual source but am unable to find it. However, I do recall hearing or reading somewhere that a Hamas leader made such a statement. Yet your answers, while condemning attacks don't seem to be the same as condemning terrorism neither have you condemned Hamas specifically.

You see, a Fox News reporter pressed a representative of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a recent news report to condemn Hamas but he would not. The CAIR rep instead side-stepped the question stating that CAIR denounced terrorism and I believe Hezbollah but not Hamas.

It has been discovered by an FBI investigation that CAIR has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Thanks to President Obama, the USDOJ bagged a prosecution or investigation into the matter further.

Your answers to mine seem vaguely similar to the CAIR spokesperson's answer.

So I will ask you once again: do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization and the statement made by the group's leader that I quoted geared to kill the Jews?

Which head of Hamas said that? And when? And do you have the direct quote that I can either listen to or read in Arabic?

Also, I did answer the question.. I condemn all attacks intending to harm unarmed Israelis..

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hi Adonis,

I do think you live in a dream world, and do believe your own words.

I don't think you have the slightest idea of the sheer power that the USA - or Israel, for that matter - could unleash, IF they ever decided to declare full-out war against any country.

Presently they are both constrained for various reasons, the ethical one being paramount.

Which means that what we are seeing thus far is little more than policing actions.

I've seen you gloating about Israel's 'defeat' against Hezbolla in South Lebanon, its 'terrorism' by 'targeting innocents' in Palestine, and the difficult campaign by the US in Afghanistan.

Leaving aside the irrationality of all of these conflicts, and the wrong premises involved, what do you really think would happen if a declaration of war was formally made by the antagonists?

Even Iraq was a limited action against Saddam, not a war.

My advice, don't "go there". You really have no concept of what will occur if this can of worms is ever opened.

Also, don't presume too far upon the reluctance and self-constraint demonstrated this far by Israel and the US. Trying to root out a tiny number of real enemies amongst huge civilian populations does not indicate their total capability.

Like I say, police actions.

Tony

(but do pass the hashish over. B) )

I think you're the one in the dream world here whYNOT..

If the US Government were to ever employ WMD's against Iran, the ultimate loser in the war would not be Iran, it would be the US because in the process of trying to achieve some short lived victory, they'd have sold their souls.. The US population would not support a war against Iran which brought home the body count that will occur, and the use of WMD's would only infuriate Americans..

Aside from the use of such weapons, Iran knows exactly how to make sure that US military commanders are forced to put boots on the ground and when they do put boots on the ground, the Iranians will be waiting for them..

The Iranian military is not a push over like Saddam's was..

First you have to deal with the more than 500,000 members of the Iranian Army, Airforce and Navy.. All are well armed and well trained in conventional warfare and who are armed well enough to tie the American forces down.. Now this isn't a force that has low morale and has just finished a 10 year long war like Saddam's military did in the first Gulf War, nor have they been suffering from crippling sanctions like Saddams military did in the second Gulf War..

Then, as you're dealing with those, you have to deal with the more than 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.. Made up of a Naval, Ground and Airforce in addition to the Missile Corps and the the Qud's force.. All Iranian Revolutionary guardsmen are dedicated fighters who see their role as defending the 'Islamic Revolution'.. They are highly trained in guerrilla warfare and will attack targets not only in Iran, but everywhere and use their proxies like Hezbollah to do the same. In addition to that, the Quds members that are in Iraq will activate any cells they have there and start major attacks on bases still occupied by Americans.. That also doesn't take into consideration the forces they have in other places in the Middle East and the World.

In addition to dealing with them.. You'll have to deal with 90,000 full time members of the Basij and more than 11,000,000 Basij reservist men and women who've been trained to fight that'll be armed and ready within 48 hours of any attack..

Such a war will never be easy for the US.. The Iranians are the home team and are a proud people.. Yes, they don't all like their government but just as Americans don't all like Obama, if the US was attacked or invaded most Americans would fight against that attack..

The fact is that they are prepared and ready for a long and bloody war.. Is the US? I doubt it.. The US population would never take another draft and that's what it would require and even then, the US would still be unsuccessful in that war..

I have tried looking for the actual source but am unable to find it. However, I do recall hearing or reading somewhere that a Hamas leader made such a statement. Yet your answers, while condemning attacks don't seem to be the same as condemning terrorism neither have you condemned Hamas specifically.

So you're giving me a phantom quote which you recall hearing or reading somewhere that a Hamas leader made this statement..

You've not stated which Hamas leader has stated it which could be one of two being either Ismail Haniya and Khaled Mashaal and might also include Mahmoud al-Zahar.

You also have failed to provide a source for your comments, claiming that you either heard it or read it.. Which one was it? Did you hear it or did you read it? Where did you read it or hear it?

Before I condemn any person I definitely prefer to have much more information because neither of the two leaders of Hamas speak like that.

You see, a Fox News reporter pressed a representative of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a recent news report to condemn Hamas but he would not. The CAIR rep instead side-stepped the question stating that CAIR denounced terrorism and I believe Hezbollah but not Hamas.

Because the question is a fallacy.

It has been discovered by an FBI investigation that CAIR has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Thanks to President Obama, the USDOJ bagged a prosecution or investigation into the matter further.

Oh please, this has been alleged long before Obama came into office and CAIR was not prosecuted under the Bush administration either.. It's easy to accuse people of such crimes but not so easy to prove it..

The FBI has been keeping tabs on CAIR for a very long time and still no evidence has been found..

Your answers to mine seem vaguely similar to the CAIR spokesperson's answer.

Because your questions are a fallacy. Blanket condemnation is a silly idea because what exactly are you condemning about Hamas? It's resistance to the occupation of Palestinian lands? The attacks against the Israeli military? The suicide bombings etc? You have to be more specific.

So I will ask you once again: do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization and the statement made by the group's leader that I quoted geared to kill the Jews?

During the time that Hamas was promoting suicide bombings I most certainly condemned their organization and their tactics.

However, since the changes of leadership in the organization which brought with it the commitment to come to a peace agreement with the Israelis and the change of tactics used in both trying to avoid harming unarmed Israeli civilians in addition to the cessation of suicide bombings I have no more reason to condemn them..

I believe that an organization never stays in one state and evolves, especially with changes in leadership.. At one point they can be an organization definitely worth condemning but later on, if they change their ways they can be free from such condemnation.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[blackhorse]

So the question is; WHY all the problems, in-fighting, tribalism, threats, and individual oppression associated with islam? You don't see this type of despicable behavior in most of the western world - other than the statist countries. This is a pattern in islam.-and the short answer is; philosophical. The religion of islam ideologically allows for groups like the Taliban and Hamas to come forth. "By their fruits you shall know them". Muslims in the USA can condemn the Taliban all they want, but that is just one issue in a much larger ideological arena. There are still a legion of other moral issues that form the morally perverse core of ethics that islam cannot seem to move away from, ie burqa's and the repression of women, fatwa's, no images allowed of mohammed, etc etc etc...The reality is - regardless of what one may choose to tolerate or not - a man and/or a woman could never live in a nation like Afghanistan and be free, happy, and secure in the protection of the government of their rights. Islam will always supersede any move towards natural law and the use of reason to est. and maintain a free society.

[Libertarian Muslim]

So the question is; WHY all the problems, in-fighting, tribalism, threats, and individual oppression associated with islam? You don't see this type of despicable behavior in most of the western world - other than the statist countries. This is a pattern in islam.-and the short answer is; philosophical. The religion of islam ideologically allows for groups like the Taliban and Hamas to come forth. "By their fruits you shall know them". Muslims in the USA can condemn the Taliban all they want, but that is just one issue in a much larger ideological arena. There are still a legion of other moral issues that form the morally perverse core of ethics that islam cannot seem to move away from, ie burqa's and the repression of women, fatwa's, no images allowed of mohammed, etc etc etc...The reality is - regardless of what one may choose to tolerate or not - a man and/or a woman could never live in a nation like Afghanistan and be free, happy, and secure in the protection of the government of their rights. Islam will always supersede any move towards natural law and the use of reason to est. and maintain a free society.

Most of the problems you have mentioned there are not due to Islam, rather they are a product of a lack of proper understanding of Islamic theology which is understandable when we consider the fact that, as mentioned previously.. Very few Muslims, especially those within the Middle East are actually properly educated Islamically, this lack of proper education coupled with the tribalism and culturalism of Muslims in these regions such as Afghanistan only leads to the disasters that are the Taliban's rule etc..

To be frank with you, I openly condemn the Muslim world for the disaster that was the rule of the Taliban.. The reason for this was because of the lack of organization of the Muslim world that allowed for their rule to continue without intervention..

However, it brings into question in particular within the Middle East as to how the intervention would take place, especially when the great majority of Muslim nations are ruled by either oppressive rogue dictators or tyrannical monarchs supported by the West and the East.. Those are the nations themselves that are requiring change too, not just the Taliban in Afghanistan..

I believe in the importance of organization, in particular believe there is a need for the creation of a trusted Muslim body, an amnesty international type organization but with a much bigger role.. To properly go in and make assessments of the situations within these nations and then to make recommendations and then lobby the Muslim world to take action and provide the education, expertise, aid and military support necessary to create these changes and actually follow through with finishing the job.

My opinion is that this would be better off from a collective started from Muslims in the US, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Malaysia and Indonesia and it would be focused on bringing a balanced understanding of Islamic Ideology that is inclusive of Libertarian Ideals (which many believe to be Islamic) and it would draw legitimacy from having the backing of like minded Islamic and contemporary scholars around the Muslim world involved in the process..

It would be an Non-Governmental Organization that acts as an International Research Organization to gather the information, a Think Tank to formulate policies to deal with the issues, a Lobby Group to lobby both the Muslim and non Muslim community to take action and an Aid Organization to get that changes done. My goal in life, amongst other things is to help create such an organization..

Nevertheless, to assert as you have that Islam philosophically allows for the coming forth of groups like the Taliban and Hamas is the same as saying Western Secularism allows groups like the Nazis to come into power..

You seem to over simplify things and I'm not sure whether that's because your low level of intellect forces you to do so or whether you're just guided by hate and will try and find any excuse to incite that from others.

[anthony]

Adonis,

Thanks for your reply about Iran's Armed Forces - they are indeed impressive.

(I realize this is not on-topic but that's what tends to happen on OL!)

As you state, any proud, self-respecting, sovereign Nation has the right to defend itself. Why should Iran be any different?

I have a question: Is there any circumstance in your mind that would justify a declaration of war (by a Western Coalition, let's assume) against Iran?

Further, if the West did go to war with Iran, what do you believe their justification would be?

This is important to gain some more insight into your assessment of the big picture involved, so I've framed it as a questionaire.

>The West would attack Iran because< :-

a. It wants to secure or plunder Iran's oil-fields.

b. Out of altruism, to impose western values and freedoms.

c. They consider Ahmadinejad to have imperialistic motives on neighboring nations, and he wants Iran to become a major power in the Eastern Med.

d. They have constructed the fiction that Iran is developing nuclear capability in order to achieve the above goals.

e. Iran is a major supporter of terrorism.

f. The West has become so Islamophobic, that they want to go to war with all of Islam, and Iran would be a 'good' place to start.

Or, anything else you can come up with.

*******************************************

Ultimately, I'm trying to understand what makes you think that Iran is the innocent party, and not the aggressor.

No body, and no nation, in their right mind, would relish a war with Iran. As you have illustrated they have a vast army (though an Air Force that is reduced in effectiveness and fighter planes since the days of the Shah, and not much of a Navy).

So why would they do it?

(Incidentally, I've questioned several Israelis including Muslim Israelis about the possibility of war with Iran, and they all loathe the idea.

From Netanyahu downwards, it seems the huge consensus is it would take the most extreme circumstances for Israel to go to war.)

And which circumstance? National self defence, maybe?

The same self-defence that Iran would employ against nasty aggressors -as you say.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Thanks for your reply about Iran's Armed Forces - they are indeed impressive.

(I realize this is not on-topic but that's what tends to happen on OL!)

As you state, any proud, self-respecting, sovereign Nation has the right to defend itself. Why should Iran be any different?

Precisely.. The impressive thing about Iran's forces are that they're structured in a very layered way to ensure proper defense of the nation.. I must stress that the Iranians have really gone ahead and perfected Guerrilla warfare.. They learnt a lot, especially through their own involvement with Lebanon, Afghanistan and other places.

I have a question: Is there any circumstance in your mind that would justify a declaration of war (by a Western Coalition, let's assume) against Iran?

Yes, of course.. If Iran were to attack the USA the USA would have justification to declare war and respond against those attacks.

>The West would attack Iran because< :-

a. It wants to secure or plunder Iran's oil-fields.

b. Out of altruism, to impose western values and freedoms.

c. They consider Ahmadinejad to have imperialistic motives on neighboring nations, and he wants Iran to become a major power in the Eastern Med.

d. They have constructed the fiction that Iran is developing nuclear capability in order to achieve the above goals.

e. Iran is a major supporter of terrorism.

f. The West has become so Islamophobic, that they want to go to war with all of Islam, and Iran would be a 'good' place to start.

Or, anything else you can come up with.

Are we talking about the actual reason for attacking Iran or the reason the Western governments would use to gain support from their own people.

I believe the only justification for such an attack will be given to them by means of a false flag operation by rogue members of the intelligence community in both Israel and the US backed by the Military Industrial Comlplex and Bankers to justify such a war..

Ultimately, I'm trying to understand what makes you think that Iran is the innocent party, and not the aggressor.

The fact that they're not the ones that are proposing attacking the USA and have offered good relations with the US.

No body, and no nation, in their right mind, would relish a war with Iran. As you have illustrated they have a vast army (though an Air Force that is reduced in effectiveness and fighter planes since the days of the Shah, and not much of a Navy).

So why would they do it?

I guess the question we need to ask first is who is 'they'?

There is no benefit for the US government, the Iranian government nor their respective citizens in having a war in terms of whether it's in the interest of their nations..

It does beg the old adage.. Who benefits?

The same people who always benefit in wars without justification.. The military industrial complex who build the weapons and make their money off of death, the financiers of the wars who lend huge sums of money to both sides and then profit hugely at the end of it.. Interestingly enough, the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him despised both of these groups immensely because he saw their actions as being those who try and incite bloodshed to make a profit and consolidate power afterward..

It will also benefit the elite that wish to further limit the freedoms of every day people like you and I..

(Incidentally, I've questioned several Israelis including Muslim Israelis about the possibility of war with Iran, and they all loathe the idea.

From Netanyahu downwards, it seems the huge consensus is it would take the most extreme circumstances for Israel to go to war.)

And which circumstance? National self defence, maybe?

Self defense is a justification to go to war although Iran would never attack Israel first..

The same self-defence that Iran would employ against nasty aggressors -as you say.

Exactly

[anthony]

Thanks for your reply about Iran's Armed Forces - they are indeed impressive.

(I realize this is not on-topic but that's what tends to happen on OL!)

As you state, any proud, self-respecting, sovereign Nation has the right to defend itself. Why should Iran be any different?

Precisely.. The impressive thing about Iran's forces are that they're structured in a very layered way to ensure proper defense of the nation.. I must stress that the Iranians have really gone ahead and perfected Guerrilla warfare.. They learnt a lot, especially through their own involvement with Lebanon, Afghanistan and other places.

I have a question: Is there any circumstance in your mind that would justify a declaration of war (by a Western Coalition, let's assume) against Iran?

Yes, of course.. If Iran were to attack the USA the USA would have justification to declare war and respond against those attacks.

>The West would attack Iran because< :-

a. It wants to secure or plunder Iran's oil-fields.

b. Out of altruism, to impose western values and freedoms.

c. They consider Ahmadinejad to have imperialistic motives on neighboring nations, and he wants Iran to become a major power in the Eastern Med.

d. They have constructed the fiction that Iran is developing nuclear capability in order to achieve the above goals.

e. Iran is a major supporter of terrorism.

f. The West has become so Islamophobic, that they want to go to war with all of Islam, and Iran would be a 'good' place to start.

Or, anything else you can come up with.

Are we talking about the actual reason for attacking Iran or the reason the Western governments would use to gain support from their own people.

I believe the only justification for such an attack will be given to them by means of a false flag operation by rogue members of the intelligence community in both Israel and the US backed by the Military Industrial Comlplex and Bankers to justify such a war..

Ultimately, I'm trying to understand what makes you think that Iran is the innocent party, and not the aggressor.

The fact that they're not the ones that are proposing attacking the USA and have offered good relations with the US.

No body, and no nation, in their right mind, would relish a war with Iran. As you have illustrated they have a vast army (though an Air Force that is reduced in effectiveness and fighter planes since the days of the Shah, and not much of a Navy).

So why would they do it?

I guess the question we need to ask first is who is 'they'?

There is no benefit for the US government, the Iranian government nor their respective citizens in having a war in terms of whether it's in the interest of their nations..

It does beg the old adage.. Who benefits?

The same people who always benefit in wars without justification.. The military industrial complex who build the weapons and make their money off of death, the financiers of the wars who lend huge sums of money to both sides and then profit hugely at the end of it.. Interestingly enough, the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him despised both of these groups immensely because he saw their actions as being those who try and incite bloodshed to make a profit and consolidate power afterward..

It will also benefit the elite that wish to further limit the freedoms of every day people like you and I..

(Incidentally, I've questioned several Israelis including Muslim Israelis about the possibility of war with Iran, and they all loathe the idea.

From Netanyahu downwards, it seems the huge consensus is it would take the most extreme circumstances for Israel to go to war.)

And which circumstance? National self defence, maybe?

Self defense is a justification to go to war although Iran would never attack Israel first..

The same self-defence that Iran would employ against nasty aggressors -as you say.

Exactly

Adonis,

I think you, and many other such dreamers, are being set up.

Here's the thing; a mad - but clever - tyrant who begins to think that he can win a war, will eventually wage that war.

But he needs to convince his ignorant or innocent masses to follow.

An Iran versus the West war, is something I view with horror, and so should you. The signs are starting to show.

Similar to other M.E. wars, first you pave the way - show the injustice that those 'others' are demonstrating against you (either the 'Yahudi', or the United Nations, or Big Satan); prepare international opinion and sympathy with disinformation and lies; create increasing "incidents", on your borders, territorial waters and air-space.

When the 'righteousness' of your cause is established, and your own people have reached a fever pitch of anger and jingoistic bombast...

attack - or engineer that you be attacked, and then defend.

We know this strategy time and again in the wars Arab Nations fought against Israel.

Get it straight, the vicious offender here is Ahmadinejad. Why, just for a start, would that gentle pussy cat the UN sanction Iran, if Iran was not culpable?

When that war begins - probably over a Gulf of Tomkin type incident ( a naval warship of Britain or the US that gets missiled because it 'violated' Iranian waters) or something like that, it will be fought with conventional weapons, I'm certain.

Even then, the losses would be horrific. I say once more, don't go there.

Iran's Navy will be sunk, its Air Force might last a week, and Iran would be blockaded and bombed endlessly. You don't think that any Coalition Commander would put "boots on the ground" in a conventional invasion, with those huge Iranian ground forces?!!

You are, I believe, being led by the nose, as an unsuspecting dupe, by powers you do not comprehend.

I suggest you distance yourself from this monkey on your back that is Iran; it is not doing your otherwise reasonable and peaceful cause any good.

Tony

[Selene]

"Remember the Maine!

Worked pretty well for the US

Adam