Wait, so we talk to Iran and negotiate stuff like adults and we get some movement? You’re kidding.
Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium to Russia to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior American and other Western officials said.
Are there a million caveats? Sure. But the conservative Bush policy of just being an ass to everyone went against decades of U.S. foreign policy that produced results – step by step. We’re back on track now, and able to do what needs to be done – a step at a time.
You’re making the baby John Bolton cry.
At the expense of sounding like a wimp, I must admit that, even though I’m a liberal, all this diplomacy stuff is scarring the crap out of me. Emotionally, it feels like a weakened and dangerous position, even though I know that intellectually it’s bang on. Fear and threats of violence are so much easier to understand and do, I guess.
“we have to kill every Iranian so they can’t move here and add brown branches to our family trees”-conservatives
No offense Canadian Bacon but I take it you’re not in the military no?
I feel your fear, Canadian pig strips.
It is obvious Obama doesn’t understand the very real, geopolitikal threat that the Iranians present. Next thing you know, he’s going to send Hillary Clinton to Teheran with a Bible and a cake and a plane-load of missiles.
Obama is playing a pretty clever game here, he’s been sitting on the Quom reactor for awhile (Everybody assumed there were secret reactors being built anyway), so he managed to make Iran look unreasonable heading into a set of negotiations. With Iran looking more suspicious, and the recent trouble with North Korea, its suddenly looking like sanctions might clear the UN Security Council with some teeth. Iran’s government has a tenuous control at the moment, their economy has been suffering even when there were massive oil revenues (which peaked and fell off in 2008), and if they aren’t careful they will lose their country. If Iran is smart they’ll use this opportunity to reverse things and come to the table, there are large rewards for the country if they normalize relations with the west. If they continue down their current path and are suddenly not able to sell oil to China, they will be looking at annihilation by their own people. Personally, I’m OK with either situation, either Iran opens up and the regime relaxes, making it a more benign system like China’s, or the Iranian people take over. Either way, the status quo is gone and Iran is acting wildly differently.
That said, it is still possible that Iran’s government will retain power, but you’d be surprised how hard it is to build nuclear reactors and pay nuclear scientists when your economy truly collapses.
The price of honesty is sometimes mockery. I’m fine with that. Never been in the military, but why do you ask? How is it evident? BTW no offense taken; actually, it’s a compliment (no offense intended.)
The Jerusalem Post and British newspapers have been talking about this for two days now – ALL of them saying this is a game changing move – a move TOWARDS transparency by Iran that pretty much ensures they can’t cheat – WITHOUT BEING CAUGHT. Even Scott Ritter writing in the Guardian agrees.
Why do you think the main US media has not mentioned it? Why hasn’t the MSP been on this?
Will Faux News IMPLODE? Now that would be something to see!
“ALL of them saying this is a game changing move – a move TOWARDS transparency by Iran that pretty much ensures they can’t cheat”
One can always cheat.
Speaking of big BREAKING NEWS – Dawn.com the web site of Pakistan’s English language newspaper is reporting NOW that the Pakistani Army will launch “the mother of all battles” in the next few days to drive the “militants” our of South Waziristan.
This is MASSIVE – after kicking them out of Swat they are now planning to keep driving them! Excellent news. See how long it takes for the MSM to pick up on it.
Fear and threats of violence are so much easier to understand and do
Keep asking yourself, “When did that ever work?”
Iran is demographically a very young nation lead by aging religious nut-balls. If you’ve even paid a little attention to the current situation there, the youth are rallying in the street daily and nightly against the Ahmenijad regime.
Why engage in what we know for a fact doesn’t work any longer (regime change through military force a la the worthless neocons) and thereby squander the pro-Democracy sentiments of a majority of the Iranians?
It’s so fucking simple and clear that Obama is on the right track, and that all Bush did was empower Iran by taking out their mortal enemy Saddam and making Iraq into a Shia ally.
This is called progress. This is what happens when adults are in charge instead of wide-eyed neocon hacks with the magic supwerpower to “look into the soul” of other world leaders. This is foreign diplomacy based on facts and a desire for a truly democratic Iran, not which CEO’s at Halliburton get to line their pockets with magical “oil revenue” that will “pay for itself.”
Why engage in what we know for a fact doesn’t work any longer (regime change through military force a la the worthless neocons) and thereby squander the pro-Democracy sentiments of a majority of the Iranians?
Pfffft! Come on, invading Iran would take two, two-and-a-half weeks tops. It absolutely wouldn’t cost any more than $1.7 Billion and would, realistically, probably pay for itself! Get real!
Oh, and we would totally be greeted as liberators. With rose petals. They Persians would almost certainly name their town square after our leaders.
Nor is it said the Lamb shall lye down with the Lyon, but he Lyon shall lye down with the Lamb. That is, War shall yield to Peace, and the Soldier turn Hermite.
-Wm. Penn
“… the Obama policy of talking
to Tehran makes sense. Whatever the ayatollah’s intentions,
IAEA inspectors have his lone ton of low-enriched uranium
at Natanz under observation. To enrich it to weapons grade,
it must be moved.
America’s twin goals here are correct, compatible and by
no means unattainable: no nukes in Iran, no war with Iran.
Bombing would unite that divided country behind a regime
whose repressed people detest far more than we, as they
have to live under it. Patience and perseverance, as in
the Cold War, may be rewarded with the disintegration of
a state that is today divided against itself.
We outlasted the Red czars. We will outlast the ayatollahs.”
Author: Pat Buchanan
Who’da thunk it?
No disrespect Canadian Bacon but I find it easier for non military members to pose threats of action when it is not them who has to be put in harms way. That’s why I asked.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood you by your use of “threats” and if so I apologize.
Yeah, it sounds totally crazy compared to the stuff you’ve written about Iran here in the past, Frank, so your point is exactly what?
T D A , the personal attacks were supposed to end , or didn’t you get the memo.
So, what is YOUR point?
Chow , I have been in the military, and I have been in combat, and I do hesitate to say when I think military force is necessary… Th whole “chickenhawk” meme has no basis in fact and is merely designed to devalue the opinions of people who manage warfare without ever having been in the military , as if one needs a driver’s license to run an auto manufacturing company.
That should be “I do NOT hesitate”
Iran isn’t offering inspections out of the goodness of their hearts, or due to diplomacy. Their facility was discovered despite their best efforts to keep it hidden. This is not to say nothing good will come from what Iran is now doing, but this is damage control, not diplomacy.
Chow Shark:
That’s actually part of the reason for having civilian control of the military. Do you think they should just have free reign to do whatever they think is best?
So, what is YOUR point?
To tell the truth about you, and judging from your reaction, you can’t handle anyone who does so.
You didn’t do so well the last time you deign to pontificate about Iran:
Link
Quit being a dry drunk, you’d be surprised how a lack of hostility can turn your life around.
Well, time to see if Oliver meant what he said, I guess.
That’s enough, Avenger, apparently you have no desire to heed Oliver’s wishes , even though he only asked us to comply with the norms of simple civility.
I will ignore you until you can respond civilly — from here , I am guessing that won’t be soon.
Pat Buchanan is a cranky old anti-semetic racist who after the fall of communism has become suspicious of the use of direct military intervention to further America’s geopolitical goals, so I’m not surprised by his statement.
Much of the conservative media has been convinced a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is imminent by either the U.S.(when Bush was still Pres.) or by Israel, for about two years now, and often seems to be rooting for such action. While it is possible that day may yet come, I believe most thinking people would hope to avoid it. But for those on the sidelines, the tedious pace and inevitable give and take of international diplomacy is rarely as satisfying as blowing shit up.
The top ten things you didn’t know about Iran:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/01/cole/
Required reading for this topic.
Ten interesting things about Iran written by one interesting man, Juan Cole. Given the stakes what is his opinion worth?
Given the stakes what is his opinion worth?
Given the amount of face time John Bolton regularly gets, isn’t it worth having a few sobering reality checks?
Author: Pat Buchanan
Who’da thunk it?
As awful as many of Pat’s opinions are, he occasionally sounds legitimately like William Jennings Bryan.
Given the stakes what is his opinion worth?
Um, more than an anonymous blog commenter?
Oh and, a reminder:
is not considered to be a valid form of argument outside of wingnut circles. See also “Ennis, D.”
Ten interesting things about Iran written by one interesting man, Juan Cole.
Which things did Professor Cole get wrong? Can you be specific?
Ten interesting things about Iran written by one interesting man, Juan Cole. Given the stakes what is his opinion worth?
Translation: It’s not “real” foreign policy if there aren’t any bombs in it.
QIB – “Keep asking yourself, “When did that ever work?”
I never said it works, but violence and it’s threat are easy responses that can be exploited when paradigms shift from the irrational to the rational. That’s what I meant to say but failed to do so. I’m no chicken hawk, but many are. They should be vociferous any minute now.
Shark – “… I find it easier for non military members to pose threats of action when it is not them who has to be put in harms way.”
plus 1
Ten interesting things about Iran written by one interesting man, Juan Cole. Given the stakes what is his opinion worth?
A safe bet its worth more than Jonah Goldberg or Glenn Beck’s opinons.
We can call this new diplomacy “talk and awe” hehe.
Worse for the GOP: Obama has clearly studied the post-1984 Reagan style of strategic arms negotiations which the neocons had long ago dismissed. He’s stealing the political center foreign affairs right out from under the party of Reagan!
Paul D replies with a coherant answer, how refreshing. Cole appears to have a pro islamic stance and a reflexive antiamerican one. His views on the “second” palestianians vs. the “first palestianians are intellectually dishonest.
Iran is at a crossroads, the youngun’s are feeling their oats. But the old guard was young once too. Examining history, most muslims have been enemies of the west most of the time. I see nothing that has made modern muslim states appear to be much different. I would rather crush them and be wrong then let them get nukes and have you guys be wrong.
Examining history
You would profit if you did that.
I would rather crush them and be wrong then let them get nukes and have you guys be wrong.
False dichotomy. Those aren’t the only choices. Of course, don’t let that deter you from your bloodlust.
Examining history, most muslims have been enemies of the west most of the time.
Bigotry isn’t a sound basis for international relations.
Examining history, most muslims have been enemies of the west most of the time.
Oh, hey Professor, your mask is slipping again. In case you’re concerned.
I would rather crush them and be wrong then let them get nukes and have you guys be wrong.
Is someone stopping you from crushing Them? No? OK, then. Hop to it, Hero Guy.
“I would rather crush them and be wrong …”
You mean, wrong again.
Uh Wilbur with an U,
Just exactly what jumps out and grabs your attention when you examine the historical relationship bewteen the muslims and the west? Are you familiar with the second line of the Marine Corp hymn?
Attention Quaker,
That’s not a false dichotomy nor is it bigotry, it’s an accurate observation based on recorded history. Looking at a nation’s actual behavior is an extremely sound way of conducting international relations. Is the opinion of a self proclaimed pacifist an accurate gauge of bloodlust?
Indeed,
No mask, no slipping. I remain convinced that the majority of muslims in the mideast do not have my best interests at heart. If it were within my capabilities I would indeed hop to it, instead I will support the policies of those Americans who would rather negotiate from strength rather than weakness.
That’s not a false dichotomy nor is it bigotry,
No? You’re limiting the universe to two choices when there are many others. You’re basing your position on how “those people” behave. Sounds like a false dichotomy and bigotry to me.
Looking at a nation’s actual behavior is an extremely sound way of conducting international relations.
A nation? I believe you characterized the history of “most muslims.” What nation are we talking about? Muslimistan? If you’re interested in the past behavior of a nation, Prof. Cole offers valuable insight.
Is the opinion of a self proclaimed pacifist an accurate gauge of bloodlust?
Your bigotry succeeds no better as a debating device. I submit that the opinion of a self-proclaimed pacifist is the best gauge of bloodlust.
AO – “I remain convinced that the majority of muslims in the mideast do not have my best interests at heart.”
WOW. Brilliant. Why should they? Enlightened self interest may be the best course of action from here on in.
In the end, AO, you reveal yourself entirely when you express your wish to bomb a nation on the basis of your suspicions about what they might be doing. We can’t overcome an imagined evil by committing greater evils ourselves.
We can’t overcome an imagined evil by committing greater evils ourselves.
And thank goodness that’s never happened yet!
As do you Quaker,
I did not present an either/or situation nor did I limit the universe. As you’re a specialist in nitpicking I am surprised at your false representation of my position. The subject of the thread is Iran which is a subset of mideast nations of the Islamic pursuasion. A nitpicker such as yourself shouldn’t be slipping up so badly trying for a gotcha.
To argue that the philosophy of pacifism is the most accurate gauge of the metrics of bloodlust is a flawed position to start from. Much like asking a confirmed vegetarian which cut of meat is best on the grill.
“We can’t overcome an imagined evil by committing greater evils ourselves.”
Talk about a textbook example of a false dichotomy, without clear definition this is an almost meaningless phrase on the topic of tactics.
AO – “I would rather crush them and be wrong then let them get nukes and have you guys be wrong.”
AO – “I did not present an either/or situation nor did I limit the universe”
Definitely an open ended universe. Yikes.
AO, perhaps you would like to address the substance of Professor Cole’s historical scholarship and why the conclusions of said scholarship are wrong?
More than just “but teh Muslims are scary and want to kill me,” I mean.
Southern Quaker,
Cole has credentials, and as with most folks he has a discernible bias. His reflexive antiamerican and pro palestianian bias is diametrically opposed to my own pro american bias. That he is worth listening to, which he is, does not automatically mean he is worth following, which he is not.
As a professional well versed in quantifiable data what is your conclusion tallying islamic history as actively belligerant or benign towards western christian civilization? On a completely different note how would you and your lifestyle fare under islamic rule? Would it be scary? Would you experience fear?
Acadamia hasn’t been an enthusiastic proponent of robust defensive policy for eons. As you well know, the term ivory tower was coined in reference to an ability and mindset better suited for that other than real world situations. Those who can do and all of that.
I did not present an either/or situation nor did I limit the universe.
Codswallop. You wrote:
Your construction consists of two and only two possibilities. There are, in fact, others.
The subject of the thread is Iran which is a subset of mideast nations of the Islamic pursuasion.
And you conclude that all of these nations harbor the same animosities toward the west and will act in the same way because of their (somewhat) shared religion?
Tell me again how that’s not bigotry, because I’m really not getting it.
I’m not sure what you mean by “reflexive antiamericanism.” The fact that he believes that colonialism in the Middle East is at the root of many of today’s problems makes him anti-American? Or the fact that he opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq and saber-rattling against Iran? The recent progress made would seem to support Cole’s views with regard to the latter.
I thought we were past the “disagreement with government policy is unAmerican” now that there is a Democrat in the White House?
Personally, I have a hard time separating the history of colonialism in the Middle East from any antagonism inherent in Islam. Tripoli was more about piracy than religion. I’ve known many peaceful Muslims in my time – including my current department chair, who is a real mensch – and more than a few hateful Christians, sadly enough. And might I point out that the Crusades weren’t exactly a high point in the history of Christianity?
And the ivory tower clap trap is a cheap ad hominem attack.
QiB – “codswallop,” I’ve always liked that word.
Just exactly what jumps out and grabs your attention when you examine the historical relationship bewteen the muslims and the west? Are you familiar with the second line of the Marine Corp hymn?
A long and complicated relationship, which at times has produced fruitful cooperation. A lot of what we think of as the West was forged in Islamic cities like Granada and Palermo between the eighth and fifteenth centuries.
Of course if one gets one’s history chiefly from the history channel or from shallow popularizing works what will stand out are the sensational, bloody episodes of conflict over the past several centuries. It’s an open question as to whether those conflicts were any bloodier or more sensational than the myriad Western-on-Western (or Muslim-on-Muslim) conflicts over the same period, but since at least the days of the Crusades religion per se has served as no more than a smokescreen – if that – for geopolitical and economic motives. has had little to do with those conflicts. This is especially true the case of the Barbary pirates enshrined in the Marine Hymn. These thugs were, it’s true, mostly Muslims (though there were a good number of Western, Christian privateers among them), and were opportunistically egged on by a dying empire from Istanbul. But so devoted were they to the supposed Koranic imperative to slaughter the infidel that they were willing to forgo their holy duty for anyone who paid them the requisite amount of protection money.
I travel around a lot for my job, and the only time I’ve received any hatred for being American is in Western countries, from people who are, probably, nominally Christian. I’ve visited the Islamic world several times: Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, several times in Turkey. I’ve been invited into Islamic homes, chatted with dozens, if not hundreds of Islamic people in restaurants, parks and coffee houses. I’ve never seen a single sign of hatred for Americans in any of them. Many of them dislike things our government has done, but they are fully capable of keeping the government and the people separate. Some of them have even told me that they think we aren’t agressive enough (this is chiefly in Turkey, where they’re even more worried about Iran than we are). Even some who have criticized our actions have gone on to say that they wish their system was a bit more like ours, and that they would think of emigrating to the US if the opportunity arose.
Are there militant Muslims bent on destroying the West? Sure, and we have to keep on guard against them. But in my experience and in my reading it seems to me that most Muslims are a lot like us: willing to cooperate if it benefits them, willing to fight if they feel threatened, happy to live at peace with everybody if they can. Your sliming of them with your broad-brush “most muslims have been enemies of the West” is the rankest of rank bigotry.
As for “negotiating from strength rather than weakness”: In todays world “strength” does not consist of having the most sabers and rattling them the most often. It consists of having the most friends and working with them cooperatively. We’ve been sliding away from that for the last eight years, and as a result we are far weaker in the world today than we were in 2001. The way you get friends in the realm of international politics is to treat people with respect, while keeping your guard up. “Trust but verify” as St. Ronnie said. That is the policy being pursued by the Obama administration, and there is no better index of the bankruptcy of the current right-wing in this country than the fact that they make Reagan of all people look like a subtle thinker on the subject of geopolitics.
No my pacifistic nitpicker it is your position that is codswallup not mine.
“You’re limiting the universe to two choices when there are many others.”
Nowhere did I limit the universe to two choices. I expressed my favored choice of two situations. I did not state or imply they were the only two. You are so busy playing gotcha you have painted yourself into a corner.
Southern Quaker,
Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire just exactly what would you and Juan charactorize as American colonialism in the mideast? While we have staked out a few places for colonialization, Hawaii comes to mind, I have a hard time finding a similar situation in the mideast. Given this country’s military might and global position we have been largely a benign presence in the world. That anticolonialism is the hub from which Cole’s view of America originates speaks more to his reflexive attitudes rather than an accurate eye on world events.
What is the difference if the Barbary pirates were sincere in voicing religious justification for rationalizing exacting tribute. The result is the same. They certainly viewed it as a clash of different cultures.
“The recent progress made would seem to support Cole’s views with regard to the latter.”
Things like finding another segment of their nuke program is considered progress on limiting Iranian ambition in your world view perhaps but not mine.
“And might I point out that the Crusades weren’t exactly a high point in the history of Christianity?”
If you view the Crusades as a high point in the end of Islamic domination in Europe it fares better. Attempting to push the muslims out of Jeruselam was really only viable after Europe had been swept clean of the invasive muslim presence.
It is not surprising that you might find offense at the term ivory tower but it is not an ad homin attack, it is the description of a mind and skillset formed and honed outside the pragmatic world that exists beyond the tenured walls of acadamia. The place where real people do real things with real consequences.
“As for “negotiating from strength rather than weakness”: In todays world “strength” does not consist of having the most sabers and rattling them the most often. It consists of having the most friends and working with them cooperatively.”
Both the Russians and the Poles will be impressed by your grasp of effective diplomacy. France was especially impressed with the subtle nuances of Obama’s fairy tale world view.
Wilbur,
Where to begin?
“A lot of what we think of as the West was forged in Islamic cities like Granada and Palermo between the eighth and fifteenth centuries”
Just exactly how did those places come to be Islamic cities?
“Your sliming of them with your broad-brush “most muslims have been enemies of the West” is the rankest of rank bigotry.”
From the invasion of Europe, Egypt, and Jeruselam to the hijacking of world trade upon the high seas just what would constitute an enemy to you? Where did the term white slavery originate? These are not the acts of friends. In the relatively short history of the followers of muhammad how much of it has been spent in direct opposition to our common European heritage?
The muslims preserved some of the knowledge that was generally lost by the displacement of Greek and Roman dominence on the world stage when Europe was still rather primitive in it’s intellectual achievements but “a lot of” compares to what?
You make light of Reagan’s foreign policy. He made mistakes but which administration since then has accomplished more? To equate the policies of Obama to Reagan is to stretch credibilty beyond it’s breaking point.
Mm-hm. That’s fabulous. The question remains: what, specifically, did Professor Cole get wrong?
Just exactly how did those places come to be Islamic cities?
Granada was conquered by Moors in the eighth century, deplacing the Visigoths as the last in a long line of “Western” conquerors of the same region.
Palermo, and the rest of Sicily, came under Arab control somewhat later when a renegade Byzantine governor invited the Arabs in to prevent his replacement by his fellow Christians in Constantinople.
Your point?
These are not the acts of friends.
I certainly wouldn’t consider it friendly if someone did it to me, but your effort to ascribe culpability for it to the entire (or “most”) of the muslim world for all (or “most”) of time is bigotry with knobs on.
Paul D replies with a coherant answer, how refreshing. Cole appears to have a pro islamic stance and a reflexive antiamerican one. His views on the “second” palestianians vs. the “first palestianians are intellectually dishonest.
Iran is at a crossroads, the youngun’s are feeling their oats. But the old guard was young once too. Examining history, most muslims have been enemies of the west most of the time.
What on earth would ever give them that motivation?
Oh, and by the way, I give plenty a “coherant” answer. I just choose to piss in your well at the same time. Deal with it, pansy.
Nowhere did I limit the universe to two choices.
“I would rather crush them and be wrong”
That’s one.
then let them get nukes and have you guys be wrong.
And that’s two. Two choices. Any other choices in there? Or maybe you’re saying you didn’t write it?
Someone please help me. Apparently I am hallucinating. I’m seeing things that simply cannot be. My own two lying eyes tell me that AO has written this:
Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire just exactly what would you and Juan charactorize [sic] as American colonialism in the mideast?
and this:
From the invasion of Europe, Egypt, and Jeruselam [sic] to the hijacking of world trade upon the high seas just what would constitute an enemy to you?
in the very same post. That can’t possibly be right, can it? No one could possibly expect to get away with claiming that our old bad acts don’t count but theirs do, could they?
The charge of bigotry is irrelevant. Warlike Muslims make war. It doesn’t matter that X amount of Muslims would rather not go to war. We don’t need to kill ALL the Muslims to win a war; we only have to the ones that are trying to kill us.
If there is anyone who thinks Muslims aren’t warlike , just name one Islamic missionary. Anybody recall what Iran and Iraq were doing from 1980 to 1988?
Or who incited the Gulf War, by invading Kuwait? It wasn’t the Sufi’s or the Whirling Dervishes…
LOL,
Well Paul one for two isn’t bad on your answer tally, you certainly are a tough guy and a man to be feared here on the internet.
Quaker,
Again you miss the obvious between expressing a viewpoint and limiting the choices of the universe. Keep digging.
Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire just exactly what would you and Juan charactorize [sic] as American colonialism in the mideast?
and this:
From the invasion of Europe, Egypt, and Jeruselam [sic] to the hijacking of world trade upon the high seas just what would constitute an enemy to you?
And perhaps you might want to list our colonial exploits in the mideast before you minamize the aggression of despots of the orient.
minimize
More to the point Quaker, offering two choices is not the same as claiming there are only two choices. But then again, upon reflection, you already know that.
Warlike Muslims make war.
Okay so far. We should oppose the warlike, but because they are warlike, not because they are Muslim. But then…
If there is anyone who thinks Muslims aren’t warlike
So we’ve gone from an admission that not all Muslims are warlike to “Muslims are warlike”. Frank, you’re making me dizzy. Sounds to me like the charge of bigotry is very relevant.
just name one Islamic missionary
I guess you’ve never heard the term da’wah. Anyhow, not all religions proselytize in the same way. I can’t name any Jewish missionaries, and Israel seems to fight a lot of wars, but if I said to you “Jews are warlike” you’d probably be able to hear the bigotry in it.
Anybody recall what Iran and Iraq were doing from 1980 to 1988
So if two forces are fighting, and they share the same religion, you’re entitled to insult everyone who holds that religion? Anybody recall what the Christian Brits and the Christian Argentines were doing at about the same time?
Or who incited the Gulf War, by invading Kuwait? It wasn’t the Sufi’s or the Whirling Dervishes…
No it wasn’t, thereby proving that the grotesque stereotype “Muslims are warlike” is just that, a grotesque stereotype
Big, big, big, bigot.
AO – “On a completely different note how would you and your lifestyle fare under islamic rule?”
And when is this going to happen? Soon? try never. It’s the red dawn all over again. Only this time it brown.
A lot more blood has been shed by Christians than by Muslims, historically.
But the point is moot. Obama’s policy is to pressure Iran into becoming a more secular and democratic nation. Given the inner turmoil in Iran right now, this very well could happen.
Only a wing-nut loon could oppose this. Ah, but there are still a few wing-nut loons out there, many of them posting on their favorite blog.
it’s
Anybody recall what Iran and Iraq were doing from 1980 to 1988?
Buying weapons from Reagan?
Or who incited the Gulf War, by invading Kuwait? It wasn’t the Sufi’s or the Whirling Dervishes…
April Glaspie?
Look , you’ve all made great attempts at being glib. Bravo!
Wilbur, calling me a bigot doesn’t make me one. You are wasting time and pixels.
Perhaps you would have felt better if I said, “If Islam doesn’t contain a militant, if not a military, element, then explain to me how it was that nearly all Islamic nations were converted at the edge of a sword?” Now, does that make all Muslims violent.
Ergo, those calling me a bigot need not apply.
Jaim, perhaps the Christians have shed more blood because they have been around longer, and since there were so may of logic dictates that they would be involved in more military actions.
Would you like to compare the number of innocent people killed in the name of Allah with the number of civilans killed in the name of G-d since 1900?
Do we have to take the Holocaust out of the equation, Frank?
I wouldn’t call the Third Reich a Christian institution, would you? (considering the Catholic Church did more to save Jewish lives than any other person or institution, not to mention the individual acts of bravery by priests and Catholic households)
Also, are you familiar with the collaboration between the Palestinians and the Third Reich? No, huh? I wonder what that was about…
Anybody recall what the Christian Brits and the Christian Argentines were doing at about the same time?
I see you that and raise you the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
If Islam doesn’t contain a militant, if not a military, element
If that is what you had said is “Islam contains a militant element,” I would have agreed with you. If that is what you meant, a more forthright way of responding would have been to say “I misspoke, what I meant to say was…”
nearly all Islamic nations were converted at the edge of a sword?
The vast majority of converts to Islam since the middle ages have been voluntary. If you want to go back that far you’ll find plenty of forced conversion on the Christian side too, No swordpoints were involved in the conversion of Indonesia, the largest Muslim country. Even in the era of Arab expansion, the number actually converted by force may be far outweighed by those who converted willingly for either personal or political reasons. The Seljuk Turks are a good example. Nobody forced them to convert, and their conversion explains the second largest Muslim country, Turkey.
I wouldn’t call the Third Reich a Christian institution, would you?
Well, just about every uniformed Nazi had “Gott Mit Uns” embossed on their belt buckle -must be some other kinda God dude thingy.
And that Hitler guy?
“National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!”
considering the Catholic Church did more to save Jewish lives than any other person or institution, not to mention the individual acts of bravery by priests and Catholic households
Don’t forget the Vatican’s role as popular travel hub for war criminals.
Thanks for playing, Frank!
Paul D : and of course no one has ever claimed God was on their side, while they committed heinous acts.
And that Hitler guy? I guess if he says it’s true, it must be true, eh? There is a truly credible source for information about the Third Reich – Hitler himself!
It is to laugh, were it not so pitiable.
As for the alleged help the Church gave escaping war criminals, does that mean you can in no way refute the statement that the Catholic Church helped save more Jewish lives than any person or institution? Yes, that is exactly what it means.
Arguing with liberals is like shooting fish in a barrel. So easy, it’s almost a crime.
(considering the Catholic Church did more to save Jewish lives than any other person or institution, not to mention the individual acts of bravery by priests and Catholic households)
Link please.
and of course no one has ever claimed God was on their side, while they committed heinous acts.
And that Hitler guy? I guess if he says it’s true, it must be true, eh? There is a truly credible source for information about the Third Reich – Hitler himself!
Frank: And of course, any nation or individual that performs heinous acts can truly be “Christian”. All those times that terrible acts are committed, it wasn’t done by Christian people; Christianity only applies to when good things happen.
Self-serving as always, Frank.
If I were an Iraqi circa early 2003, I’d be wondering where anybody gets off calling me the violent one.
More to the point Quaker, offering two choices is not the same as claiming there are only two choices. But then again, upon reflection, you already know that.
And stating a preference for one of only two choices when you know that there are other choices which you have not even bothered to mention or consider is the height of reason? But then again, failing any kind of reflection, you have no idea what I’m talking about.
The Catholic church happily allowed Jews to die under Hitler.
Ah, I love watching wingnut being hoisted by their own petards. Thanks for the show AO and Frank.
fafaroo: Tell me where you live, and I will find the nearest library for you. Since it seems you have never been there, I can promise a really great experience … Ask for the Reference Librarian. She will direct you to more information on the issuance of Baptismal Certificates for Jews, the enrollment of Jewish children in Catholic Schools, dozens of villages that took in Jewish children — a story I’ll wager Hollywood will never tell, because their anti Catholic streak is so virulent.
Mambo: I didn’t say that — you did. I don’t believe in Christian nations, unless they are run by the clergy. Funny, but there are a few Islamic nations run by the clergy, are there not?
And I don’t believe all Muslims wish Americans, but there are American Muslims who contribute money to Middle Eastern charities that are known conduits to terrorist organizations.
And the American Muslims have been almost silent in condemning terorists’ actions around the world.
Nonetheless, I will concede that there probably can be found American Muslims that don’t support terrorism.
The vile slander that “the Catholic Church happily allowed Jews to die under Hitler” belongs in the same trashbin as “People who oppose Pres Obama, are ipso facto racists” and “Glen Beck is guilty of rape and murder”.
should “I don’t believe all Muslims wish Americans dead”
I think there’s a big difference between the Catholics that helped the Jews as FDS said and the Vatican which help war criminals. The Vatican is a jumbo political institution not unfamiliar with corruption and avarice. Even Germans helped Jews while their own government was slaughtering them. We should never confuse people of a country with the governments that rule them. That’s why we should be careful and not brush with broad strokes all Muslim people as violent etc. It’s just plain wrong, foolish and even dangerous.
I think there’s a big difference between the Catholics that helped the Jews as FDS said and the Vatican which help war criminals. The Vatican is a jumbo political institution not unfamiliar with corruption and avarice. Even Germans helped Jews while their own government was slaughtering them. We should never confuse people of a country with the governments that rule them. That’s why we should be careful and not brush with broad strokes all Muslim people as violent etc. It’s just plain wrong, foolish and even dangerous.
And the American Muslims have been almost silent in condemning terorists’ actions around the world.
I call bullshit. Well respected, high profile American Muslims have been condemning the violence from day one.
Nonetheless, I will concede that there probably can be found American Muslims that don’t support terrorism.
Gee Frank, that’s awful generous of you. :p
fafaroo: Tell me where you live, and I will find the nearest library for you.
Frank, I know you’re aware of this thing called the internet, so let’s make it easy: provide one link that explains the official policy of the Catholic Church toward Hitler and his treatment of the Jews.
The vile slander that “the Catholic Church happily allowed Jews to die under Hitler” belongs in the same trashbin as “And the American Muslims have been almost silent in condemning terorists’ actions around the world. Nonetheless, I will concede that there probably can be found American Muslims that don’t support terrorism.”
Well respected, high profile American Muslims have been condemning the violence from day one.
I would be overjoyed to hear their names.
Fafaroo: Don’t want to go near that library thingie, eh?
I’ve got news for you: There are things in the Library that can’t be found on the Internet , and all the information in the world is not on the Internet.
But here’s a link for everyone to pore over, and call a lie.
And that Hitler guy? I guess if he says it’s true, it must be true, eh? There is a truly credible source for information about the Third Reich – Hitler himself!
That same criteria applies to another fella that took God’s orders and tallied up a minimum of 60,000- If you’re still working on the “in the name of G-d since 1900″ quotient.
If you insist on hitting yourself in the face, let me help you.
I think this is Obama’s MO and his coolness will prevail on the diplomatic front –
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”
Euripides
Actually, Paul D , you are incorrect. Hitler was propagndizing and trying to appeal to Christians , by saying that he was one of them. This id not mean he was , or that he was motivated by his own particular interpretation. In fact , he believed in the Thule, and a belief in the volk that Germans were a part of the land in which they lived , a sort of animist ideology, not a Christian.
This is absolutely NOT the same as saying that “God spoke to me, and said I could bring peace to the Middle East”. In fact, nowhere does he suggest that he would convert the people of Iraq to Christianity.
You gonna to work on those rhetorical skills.
Canadian bacon: Is he related to the famous Greek tailor , Euripides Eupaiphades?
Dr. Yahia Abdur-Rahman, from the Islamic Shurah Council of Southern California (ISCSC), offers Supplication For The Victims
Dr. Maher Hathout, from the the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and The Islamic Center of Southern California (ICSC), condemns the attack and issues a statement.
Dr. Ahmad Sakr, from the Islamic Education Center (IEC), offers his condolences to the families of the victims and condemns the attack.
Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), condemns the attack.
“Scholars Call Attacks a Distortion of Islam,” Laurie Goodstein, The News York Times, 30 September 2001
A Common Word Between Us and You, by 130 Islamic scholars
Attacks on Civilians: Forbidden by Islam, by Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi
Ayatollah Muhammad Husain Fadlallah of Lebanon condemns Osama Bin Laden, by Ayatollah Muhammad Husain Fadlallah
Bin Laden’s Violence is a Heresy Against Islam, by AbdulHakim Murad (Tim Winter)
Defending the Civilians (a fatwa against terrorism), by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti
Expert Says Islam Prohibits Violence Against Innocents, by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Condemns Suicide Bombings, by Shaykh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi
High Mufti of Russian Muslims calls for Extradition of Bin Laden, by Russian Muslim leaders
Not bad , I could, but I won’t quibble.
Again you miss the obvious between expressing a viewpoint and limiting the choices of the universe. Keep digging
Are you admitting those aren’t thoe only two possibilities, AO?
An ancient Greek goes into a tailor shop with a couple of torn togas. The tailor says “Euripides?” and the guy says “Yeah. Eumendides?
Hehe.
FDS – “Not bad , I could, but I won’t quibble.”
But has it influenced your thinking on the mattter? That’s the real question here.
To a degree, but I suspect the average middle eastern American has some qualms about taking a public stand against terrorists. Even if they fear drawing attention to themselves, they should still be able to support the simple statement that terrorists are America’s enemies, not Muslims, per se
I am very familiar with the Middle East, and Islam. I have a healthy respect for the people and their beliefs. I also think, however, that there is a deep resentment in the Middle East — not so much in America, but neither is it non-existent — for America as a representation of the West, as Britain, for example, was until World War I. Things turned for the middle east, and Arabs in particular, after World War I, with the redivision of colonies, the Balfour Declaration, and the addition of oil rights to the Middle East mix.
It was when I studied World War I and the Middle East, that it all came to me at once: Babylonia, Mesopotamia, the Eastern Roman Empire, Islam, the Crusades and the sacking of Constantinople , western Europe’s colonization of the Americas, and then , damn near everything else , the Congresses of Berlin and Vienna, and finally, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 – all leading to what Samuel Huntington has called “The Clash of Civilizations”, and Norman Podhoretz has called “World War IV”.
I would love to have seen the kind of full page ads C A I R likes to post, posted by moderate middle easterners from all around the world , denouncing the barbarism of 9/11, and all the other explosions that killed so many other innocent civilians.
I am still waiting.
BTW, that was written off the top of my head, without resorting to WikiPedia, or any other Intertubes location.
If you ask for a link, I will fry your computer by cyberpsychokinesis
=;-}
So can anyone explain to me how say Iran v. Iraq marks Muslims as “warlike” but Germany v. France, or Germany v. Britain, or Germany v. Poland doesn’t do the same for Christians? Actually now that I think of it, under AO’s “crush them because of history” analogy- we really should have nuked Germany to glass following WW2 think about it Germany as a nation had existed for roughly a century (depending on how one defines Germany) at that point but had been the instigator of the two most violent wars in human history as well as a participant in countless other military conflicts- why shouldn’t we have crushed them rather than allowing them to survive- if anything Germany circa 1945 makes the threat of muslims downright laughable.
So can anyone explain to me how say Iran v. Iraq marks Muslims as “warlike” but Germany v. France, or Germany v. Britain, or Germany v. Poland doesn’t do the same for Christians?>/i>
Because they were white.
BBCode > me.
Socrates – “Actually now that I think of it, under AO’s “crush them because of history” analogy- we really should have nuked Germany to glass following WW2 … .”
I think he would agree with what you just said. That’s the rub.
So can anyone explain to me how say So can anyone explain to me how say Iran v. Iraq marks Muslims as “warlike” but Germany v. France, or Germany v. Britain, or Germany v. Poland doesn’t do the same for Christians?
Who said that “Iran v. Iraq marks Muslims as ‘warlike’”? Not I.
“Germany v. France, or Germany v. Britain, or Germany v. Poland doesn’t do the same for Christians?” because there was zero religious component to the war.
I am not certain, but one could say that Iran v Iraq was interreligious. I doubt it, but it is not totally out of the question.
sorry about that .
So can anyone explain to me how say So can anyone explain to me how say Iran v. Iraq marks Muslims as “warlike” but Germany v. France, or Germany v. Britain, or Germany v. Poland doesn’t do the same for Christians?
Who said that “Iran v. Iraq marks Muslims as ‘warlike’”? Not I.
“Germany v. France, or Germany v. Britain, or Germany v. Poland doesn’t do the same for Christians?” because there was zero religious component to the war.
I am not certain, but one could say that Iran v Iraq was interreligious. I doubt it, but it is not totally out of the question.
As a Baathist, Saddam went out of his way to try and show that his Sunni regime was secular as opposed to the supposedly “crazy” Shia over in Iran. Indeed, this is why Reagan and Rumsfeld were in love with him and gave him tons (literally) of weapons and cash, in order to fight the fanatics in Iran. Only later, with the start of the first Gulf War did he try and model himself as a Muslim holy leader to garner sympathy from other Muslim nations. Hence, he had the flag of Iraq changed to hold a quotation from the Koran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq#1991.E2.80.932004
But this came after he spend decades ruthlessly stamping out those religious muslim leaders he considered to be threats to his own rule.
I would love to have seen the kind of full page ads C A I R likes to post, posted by moderate middle easterners from all around the world , denouncing the barbarism of 9/11, and all the other explosions that killed so many other innocent civilians.
Gee Frank, you mean like this one from the Washington Post, dated September 16, 2001?
And , ever since , the CAIR has been hollering about every move the USA makes , as prejudiced against Muslims
Frank, you do realize that the first hit on the link you provided was “CAIR backs fatwah against terrorism,” no?