Here we come, Iran.

[Necratoid]

---

Interestingly, the situations with Iran and North Korea are pretty direct clashes between them and America. The surrounding countries which would presumably be under a more immediate threat from a nuclear neighbor...countries near Iran and North Korea, in the Middle East and Asia...aren't really being very vocal about this.

---

As I said NK is likely to crumble if they do anything outward. The people are going to surrender if they get a chance for real food. It'll be a massive assault that peters out once the oppressed people get a chance at an out, that won't get them shot. The problem with NK is the leadership is insane.
The problem with Iran is the leader thinks he is the second coming of the prophet Mohammed. Iran attacking half the world is not what the people want. If we could stall long enough the older hostile generation will croak and we'll have a country that doesn't like the US, but won't attack and will move on with their lives. The guys ruling Iran know this. Thats why the nukes are a main goal. They get nukes they can start their full-scale jihad of cultures between the west and the Muslims. The problem with Iran is it has good Muslim rulers.
The Iranians won't start anything while Bush is president... They know Bush will actually remove them from power. The Iranian rulers are planning on the jihad in full swing after Bush leaves office. They want another militarily useless president like Clinton. One who will waist ammo and won't engage on the ground.
Because of Clinton the Chinese think they can win a war with the US if they can kill 2,000 troops. The US will then surrender. They have stated this publicly. The media counting US troops dead have influenced them. Nevermind its the lowest percentage of dead troops in none random fluke miltary history. Nevermind that the total casualties are the lowest in history. Period. The US will cave at 2,000 troops dead. Nevermind that it is not true. This is the model the Chinese are working with. Bin Lauden has stated 9/11 was a direct result of clinton ignoring previous attacks. Enough about the military incompetence of Clinton.
That Clinton is a typical president and Bush a freak occurrence is the model they are working with in Iran. They are rational in the Iranian leadership. The problem with Iran they are rational from the Muslem baseline standpoint (called Muslim extremists by the media. I'm going from the stance of their instruction manuals standpoint and so are the Iranian leadership). This means they are taking the logical course of action for their instructions: make all non Muslims convert or die. To them this is perfectly rational.
That is the problem. Iran knows its between to nations the US has taken over and given to the general populous of those nations. If it attacks without causing a civil war in Iraq their boned. They know this. They will get pincered to the regime death if they start anything with Bush. They want a Clinton, not a respected strong leader like Bush (their opinion ours doesn't matter).
The Iranian leadership is rational. Its just that to them its rational to start the End of Days war. The End times. Not the planet gets destroyed type End Times. The permanent change to the world on a global level. Either the Muslims take over the Earth or they lose and the religion turns into something rational to the western world. The Muslims are on a mission from ALLAH to cleanse the world of all nonbelievers. To them this is what ALLAH the creator wants them to do.
The problem with NK is the leadership is bonkers and they attack the regime collapses. The problem with NK is the leadership is not rational. The Chinese have started to notice this. NK goes off it will be messy for a year. Then the reconstruction begins once the leaders are gone.
The problem with Iran is the leadership is rational. Their just not the kind of rational that the western world is. They go off theyll kill everyone they can. This is Allahs will. This is the path of the enlightened.

[Acyl]

---

The problem with Iran is the leadership is rational. Their just not the kind of rational that the western world is. They go off theyll kill everyone they can. This is Allahs will. This is the path of the enlightened.

---

Yeah, well, when I called that kind of government 'irrational' in my last post, I did specify that I meant...from the perspective of realpolitik. And that...isn't purely a Western thing...yeah, it's an extension of the old European system, but the Soviets played that game as well, as do the Russians today. China's approach to international relations can also be (arguably) viewed in this context.
I'm not saying the foreign policies of China aren't coloured by their own cultural context. China doesn't act like a Western nation...but it's still easier for us to understand them. I note, I use the word "us" fairly loosely. I'm Singaporean, raised in Singapore, so my own political perspective is not strictly Western. But that's precisely what I mean...there's some common ground, I think, that is seperate from culture.
The question is...whether this is true for Islamic nations. It certainly is, for some. I'd say Turkish, Malaysian and Indonesian politics are largely comprehensible from a Western point of view. Of course, some would argue that's because those nations are more Westernised, or more secular. Maybe...maybe not. Depends on whether Westernisation is the same as Modernisation. Historically they have been the same, but many thinkers believe it is quite possible to Modernise without Westernising.
Which doesn't mean the resulting governments will like the West any better, as you pointed out...
-- Acyl

[Necratoid]

I'm personally not interested in being the world's best friend. I don't care if many countries think we are not entirely friendly. It is a matter of if they want to kill us or not. Iran (the government anyway) doesn't want to be our friend. It doesn't want to beat us politically. It doesn't want to beat us economically. It wants to kill us all as a matter of principle.

---

Modernise without Westernising

---

That is a matter of semantics. Can you define the difference or are they to remain Gloobleflargs here? For instance, is opening a Victoria Secret Modernization or Westernization?

[Ayiekie]

"The Muslim mentality is simple but powerful".
Dude, there is a word for people that make broad generalisations about how entire groups of people act that just convienently happen to conform to their prejudices about those people. Here's a hint as to what it might be:
"All Americans are loud and arrogant."
"All blacks are criminals."
"All Jews are shifty bankers."

[Ayiekie]

Speaking of racism:
"Either the Muslims take over the Earth or they lose and the religion turns into something rational to the western world. The Muslims are on a mission from ALLAH to cleanse the world of all nonbelievers. To them this is what ALLAH the creator wants them to do."
Uh-huh.
Funnily enough, actually, there is no Muslim tradition towards bringing on a genocidial world conflict in order to hasten the End Times. There is another major monotheistic religion for which various sects and groups, including that belonged to by certain national leaders, DO have such a tradition and mythology, however. Would you like to know what it is?

[Acyl]

---

That is a matter of semantics. Can you define the difference or are they to remain Gloobleflargs here? For instance, is opening a Victoria Secret Modernization or Westernization?

---

Modernisation is different from Westernisation. It's not a matter of semantics. There is a difference. True, the issue gets somewhat sketchy when it comes to cultural matters... I readily admit there are grey areas, in fact, those grey areas are part of the problem. I'll get to that in a bit.
But firstly ... on a most basic level, industralisation and technological advancement are part of modernisation. So is building up a country's economy. At least, that's the way I define it - I admit your milage may differ. But assuming that economic and technical infrastructure is part of modernisation...well, you can make advancements in that area without adopting Western ideas.
Mind...historically speaking, building up a country's economy and industrial base has gone hand in hand with adopting Western culture and practices. That's true, and there are many examples. The idea was that ... to become as successful as the West, we must become more like the West. In the 20th century...a lot of the early - call them first generation - modernisers from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East were educated and trained in the West. These are bright folks who went to college in Europe and the US, then came home to lead their countries. So a generation ago, most of the educated elites were people who studied overseas in the West. Today? There are a hell of a lot of good schools and universities in most countries, outside the West. Especially in the case of India and China. Most intellectual talent's being turned out within their borders - and these people think differently.
Increasingly, there's this idea that... a country can be strong and successful not because it is like the West, but because it is different from the West. Take the economic power of China or India, for instance. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia have pretty strong economies as well. And none of these countries really run on Western capitalism. Sure, it's capitalism, but it's capitalism of a distinctly Asian flavour, with a lot less transparency and freedom in the market. Still works, and until the slump back in 1997, many argued that the Asian model was better than the Western one. Some still argue this today.
Japan is another example. It's almost universally considered a modern society, part of the developed world. But it isn't culturally Western, it's a very distinct civilisation of its own. So it's modern...without being Western. I'd say an increasing number of countries are heading in that general direction.
Historically? The Soviet Union and its various satellite states are actually another example. Communism was a way of becoming modern without being like the West. It failed, but the concept remains. And in the wake of the Cold War, we're seeing a greater resurgence of cultural identity among developed or developing nations outside the West.
True, distinguishing between 'Modernisation' and 'Westernisation' is difficult. In part, that's because the two things have been intertwined for so long. The whole issue of dress and fashion is part of that. I don't really consider myself Western, but right now? I'm typing this in English, and I'm wearing a T-shirt and jeans. Go figure. But then...I also know that back home, Chinese is becoming more popular - I've done a little bit in helping my mother set up a new Chinese Studies diploma course for her school, with links to universities in China.
Many countries want to become more modern, without becoming more Western. Are they likely to succeed? Difficult to say. But consider, many countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East...are becoming real economic powers, and gaining increasing clout, while successfully rebuffing Western attempts to make them play by the rules. What rules? Western ideals of human rights, for example.
We're talking about China's entry to the WTO, Turkey's efforts to join the EU... this stuff is happening. But these countries have terrible human rights records. But only by Western standards, as both countries would be quick to point out. And nobody's paying that a huge amount of attention.
I'm Singaporean, myself. Now...Singapore is America's 12th largest trading partner and America's second largest investor from Asia. Our human rights record is also ridiculous. We don't kill people - but we do have very real political prisoners, and we're only now starting to get freedom of speech. And even that freedom is viewed...merely as something to be tolerated, not promoted. Our democracy is a joke. From the Western perspective, at least.
Personally, it doesn't bother me much. I don't like it, but I understand it. Bugs a lot of people in the West, tho, especially when I try to explain why the Singaporean way of doing things is really quite reasonable.
That's the thing. You can have a modern, industralised, and very rich society...without it being Western, at the core. There might be a thin veneer of Western practices, but once you scratch below the surface, you'll find a national character that's very different.
Some would argue that the spread of capitalism and forces of globalisation will eventually result in a world culture. Perhaps. Or maybe it'll just make cultural differences deeper and more evident. In any case, even if every nation in the world becomes modern and developed, it doesn't mean they'll have anything in common. Consider, say, Feudal France and Feudal Japan. Similar technological level, maybe even some similar practices - but in the final estimate, still vastly different.
And if you believe Samuel P. Huntington and his "Clash of Civilizations" theory, different civilisations inevitably will clash, and struggle for dominance. Basic 'us' against 'them' thing, because people always define themselves against the 'other'. If we accept Huntington's thesis, then yes, Islam is a threat to the West - but not just because the religion promotes a hostile attitude, but simply because it is a competing civilisation. China's another competitor, so is India...
And likewise, the West is also a threat to all those countries and civilisations. Simply by existing, and asserting its dominance.
-- Acyl

[Necratoid]

Ayiekie, it doesn't matter what you think! It matters what the leader of Iran thinks. Suicide is a no no in the Muslim instruction manual. They now have rogue sects that say even women can get in Paradise themselves (with out a man even, considering they arent all lesbians I fail to see the point really) by blowing themselves up. It is the modern movement that is the issue. These guy revise history like Marvel comics in the 1990s.
Im talking a specific group of nutballs. This is arbitrary Racism this is a matter of the leader of a country that wants a global genocidal culture war of the level of the End of an age. The kind of thing that changes the world permanently for centuries. Armageddon, an apocalypse the climatic death filled conclusion of WW4 (Cold War was three, official or not). Is what he is planning he wants to bee Mohammed mark 2.
Im again, not talking of the rank and file Muslims. This is the guy serious. It doesnt matter what the chaff before his combine thinks, He is chosen one. He is deaths hand. He is going to die gloriously. He will have the best stock of virgins. EVER.
However I won't wave off the real fact Islam is there for one reason, to make more Muslims. They've just got a more extreme versions now a days. The clause providing access to Paradise for killing off non Muslims is a tenant that overrides all other rules. It require a jihad to work. Jihad is just far harder to declare then some people want. Iran's president for life for instance.
Again, its not the rank and file that is the issue its the loony leaders. Muslim law still has the death penalty for converting from Muslim and killing a non Muslim is a misdemeanor. Killing a Muslim is a capital offense.

---

And none of these countries really run on Western capitalism.

---

I saw a voice overed Chinese documentary that shows that China does it just insists it is Communism with a Chinese twist and not capitalism. To say differently is a crime. The middle class they are developing is very happy to soak up anything Western though they are starting to look up what China was like before the Commies and Mao they are rather shocked to discover what their illustrious leaders banned as evil. They are currently meshing the two though. I fully understand and believe people should get to keep the good parts of their own culture.
I also understand China has far too many people and the end all of the rules there are for two reasons: 1) To keep the Commies in power. 2) To lower the insane level of overpopulation.
However the Chinese right now are keeping the country afloat with steal western capitalism. It will get more old Chinese culture, yes. Currently they are just stealing it to keep them in power.
I want people more or less happy in their culture and land. With jobs and families and shiny, shiny toys to keep them occupied. Happy people arent interested in killing me outside digital mediums. Its the homicidal mad men that get me. Like the nutball in charge of Iran.
Anyway, westernization is the cultural side and modernization industrial, check. I just hate when people have long arguments/discussions about things and make Gloobleflargs of all the major terms. Like the torture issue. Lots of complaints little real listing of the feature of the evil thing talked about.
Oh and Im not racist. Until people prove to me to hate them, then its just the people involved in a specific incident. Like the nutball in Iran. He will remove Isreal and US and France if he could Its not rhetoric for him its voicing his dreams.

[Ayiekie]

"Ayiekie, it doesn't matter what you think!"
Thank you, Rocky Maivia. Welcome back from the 90s!
Here's the thing... I don't just think things, I know things. I actually pay attention to this stuff.
Do you think raving about the president of Iran like you're his psychologist or something constitutes knowledge? Answer honestly: do you even know his name without looking it up?
"However I won't wave off the real fact Islam is there for one reason, to make more Muslims."
Uh-huh.

[M Fnord]

---

Ayiekie, it doesn't matter what you think! It matters what the leader of Iran thinks.

---

You mean Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, yes? The man who filled Khomeni's shoes and is the actual Supreme Leader of Iran?
It's interesting he should be brought up in the nuclear Iran debate (actually, it's interesting that he hasn't, but that's another issue) because the Ayatollah has reportedly issued a fatwa against the production and use of nuclear weapons. Admittedly, the fatwa in question seems to be somewhat elusive, but it has been used by the Iranian government in a formal statement to the IAEA:

---

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

---

Incidentally, Nec, tovarisch, if you say "I'm not a racist, but Muslims want to kill all infidels. But I'm not a racist!" you probably need to work on your argument. Just sayin'.---
Mr. Fnord
Raving blogger
http://www.jihad.net/
"when edison thinks down pipes into special Future Death Machine, in 21st Century another teenager on MySpace gets hit by a car." --Warren Ellis
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Necratoid]

---

Do you think raving about the president of Iran like you're his psychologist or something constitutes knowledge? Answer honestly: do you even know his name without looking it up?

---

Not at all. I think that he makes routine loud speeches on what I'm saying and he also includes rants about the lie of the holocaust. I'm using his words. His ideas. What exactly is the point of psychoanalyzing what he says. It's all in black and white. Look up some of his speeches.
Your right I don't know his name, but I don't know it on purpose. He wants me to consider his name a household one. He wants me to pay attention to my destroyer's greatness. He wants me to know who is killing me. I like mocking his ego by not knowing it.

---

Admittedly, the fatwa in question seems to be somewhat elusive, but it has been used by the Iranian government in a formal statement to the IAEA:

---

That is, because they are only against nuclear arms as long as they can't make them. Once they get them its time for everybody to die.

---

Incidentally, Nec, tovarisch, if you say "I'm not a racist, but Muslims want to kill all infidels. But I'm not a racist!" you probably need to work on your argument. Just sayin'.

---

Your absolutely right, if I was saying that I would be racist. However Arabian/of Middle Eastern descent is a race. Islam is a religion.
I've also said repeatedly... GOOD Muslims want to kill all infidels. BAD Muslims are the kind I like. I don't like GOOD Muslims. GOOD want to kill me for not being Muslim. They literally wrote a book (after two or three centuries of stating it was far to holy to be in print)... it explains lots of rules on how to treat Muslim good. It also states ALLAH/God wants you to kill or convert all nonMuslims. They have a passage that waves all other requirements as long as you have killed nonMuslims in a jihad, you go to Paradise and get your harem.
When people write books explaining how they are going to do things and those things involve killing people who aren't them... I take them at their word. Hitler wrote a book. He also wrote a sequel explaining the method and intent to do the holocaust of the Jews and others... then he did it. Only it didn't get published do to low sales of the first one at the time. Right before he started taking over Germany.
The Koran (or whatever spelling you want of it) is a manual for Islam. It says kill or convert everyone as only Muslims are real people. It also confuses women and succubus a lot, that is why they wear those full body suits... a little flesh shown and she will mind control you into raping her. Defend yourself by stoning her to death (bring the whole family). She defiled you by forcing her to rape her.
GOOD Muslims are psychotic scum. I don't like GOOD Muslims. The rank and file forced to be Muslim by lack of choice ones that just want to live their lives I have no issue with.
Research Islamic law sometime. Its not pretty. They wrote a manual and the manual says I must die for the crime of not being Muslim. I don't not like them for being Muslim... I don't like them, because they have a life goal to kill me.
People that want to KILL ME are NOT my friends. GOOD Muslims want to KILL ME and YOU. They are not our friends. I'm a realist on this. (Still don't have issues with the rank and file).
If you still think I'm racist... well its not just GOOD Muslims in the Arabian lands I don't like. The people at Machete Radio in Rhuwanda are also NOT my friends. They are black and GOOD Muslims.
(Note GOOD Muslims, in case you forgot somehow, are the ones who want to kill us, because the instruction manuel said to.)

[Ayiekie]

...see, this is the problem with politeness taken too far, as exemplified by the American left. At first, you want to let people have their fair say. That's good. But then you start letting random frothing lunatics have their say and (here's where you trip up) pretending that because they believe in what they're saying, you're obliged to treat it seriously rather than laughing in their faces and making fun of them on the evening news.
Luckily, I don't come from a tradition of doing that.
--
"I'm using his words. His ideas. What exactly is the point of psychoanalyzing what he says."
"Your right I don't know his name, but I don't know it on purpose. He wants me to consider his name a household one. He wants me to pay attention to my destroyer's greatness. He wants me to know who is killing me."
--
Yup, you sure aren't psychoanalysing the guy you don't even know the name of at all. BTW, did you miss the part where somebody else pointed out to you he doesn't call the shots anyway?
--
"However Arabian/of Middle Eastern descent is a race."
--
Did anybody else notice we were talking about Iran? You know, that country that isn't populated by Arabians? As was pointed out earlier? Ha ha!
--
"I've also said repeatedly... GOOD Muslims want to kill all infidels. BAD Muslims are the kind I like. I don't like GOOD Muslims. GOOD want to kill me for not being Muslim."
--
"But I'm not racist!"
"By the way, now I'm going to display some nifty-fine appalling ignorance about what the Koran is, when it was written, by whom, what it says in it, and then compare it directly to both Mein Kampf AND Hitler's little-known second published work, 'How to make the stock market work for you and also kill all the Jews.'"
"Bear in mind I'm also on record for saying Islam is inherently irrational to the West as it stands."
"But then, this makes sense. I mean, -I- don't understand the first thing about Islam, so it therefore follows nobody can, am I right? Right? ...right?"
"But I'm not racist! I'm just, you know, a REALIST."

[Necratoid]

Please talk out of orifices locate on above your neck when standing on your feet. Your most accurate statement is this:

---

"But then, this makes sense. I mean, -I- don't understand the first thing about Islam, so it therefore follows nobody can, am I right? Right? ...right?"

---

I'm glad your being honest... even if this is somehow in your mind my line.
The ultimate reward in Islam is entry into Paradise. A lush endless garden. A garden where the faithful get a harem of more that 65 female virgins (the number tends to go up resently) to bang for eternity (and their wives if they still want them). If they want they can get into this garden, the fee is simple. There is only one way in. Kill a non Muslim.
Everything else is wavable. Kill a non Muslim. That is the root and the end all of the religon. Granted this is only in a jihad that this is really useable clause. Otherwise it is just good religious practice.
Please... you have stated I'm mindless and no nothing of Islam. Enlighten me. State an Islamic law I've gotten wrong. Please. So far I'm a leftist that is racist for telling someone who called me racist why I am not.

[Ayiekie]

Here's an Islamic law you've gotten wrong:
The Koran says you're not supposed to kill Christians or Jews.
Also, it never says anything about virgins in heaven.
"That is the root and the end all of the religon."
This is why I'm calling you a racist. Also, ignorant.

[katreus]

Use a bit more clarity in your terms Necratoid.
Muslims are roughly 1/4 of the world's population. Islamic states include but aren't limited to Pakistan (a functioning democracy until the president tried to blame his top general which didn't turn out well), Indonesia (a democracy), Malaysia (also a democracy), and Turkey (a democracy). They are also a fairly significant group in India (another democracy). I think these Muslims don't know you and aren't out for your life (although they may be after your job).
That being said, the leader of Iran has views that are radically different from what other Muslims believe.
Also, your view of Islam and the idea of a "good Muslim" seems to depend on it being static. Certainly, the current understanding on the bible has been modified.

---

'Judg 3:15-25 But when the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. And the sons of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. [...] Ehud came to him while he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, ''I have a message from God for you.'' And he arose from his seat. Ehud stretched out his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into his belly.'

---

So... you would be a deliverer if you went around assassinating people?

---

'Deut 25:11,12 - If two men, a man and his country man, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, Then you shall cut off her hand: you shall not show pity.'

---

I wonder if the wife kicks the other man's genitals if her foot gets cut off?

---

'Deut 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:'

---

Show no quarter to enemies of the faith?
Anyway, I think you'll agree with me that in both the first and the second case, that doing so would not gain you any brownie points from the Vatican or from very few, if any, denominations even if doing so would technically mean you're following the scriptures set forth in the bible.
Similarly, Islam is not a static religion. Islam has in the past been known for its love of learning (because doing so was a means of understanding All-h and his works) and questioning (pluralism being seen as an instrument where one can eventually discover the truth).
I would call Iran's leader and his backers ultra-nationalistic fundamentalists. However, the fact that there are radical people in the religion does not and should not be taken as a representative of the whole.

---

It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.
-- Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

---

According to the quote above, I should be, uh, fumigated (aka killed) but I'll give Christians the benefit of the doubt that the majority of them aren't interested in fumigating me.
Of course, Pat Robertson whatever his other faults doesn't run a country nor has his party/following whatever their faults, I haven't heard of them blowing themselves up to take out the non-Christians.

---

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.
-- George W. Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts (circa June, 2003), quoted from Arnon Regular, "'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas" (Haaretz.com:June 27, 2003), quoted from EvilOz (The Iterative Record)
The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.
-- George W. Bush, in other words, God is on our side [...], in his "war whoop" speech to Congress, September 20, 2001

---

This isn't to suggest that Bush is the equivalent of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei but it does indicate that American rhetoric can be just as heated and provacative.
In addition, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei isn't exactly a uncontroversial figure. Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri has criticized Ali Khamenei publicly.

---

"Either officials change their methods and give freedom to the people, and stop interfering in elections, or the people will rise up with another revolution ... There is no freedom, repression is carried out in the name of Islam, and that turns people off ... All these court summonses, newspaper closings and prosecutions of dissidents are wrong. These are the same things that were done under the Shah and are now being repeated. And now they are done in the name of Islam and therefore alienate people." (NYT)

---

---

When pro-reform students rioted in June 2003, Ayatollah Khamenei was quick to warn that such actions would not be tolerated. (BBC)

---

Anyway, this was a long-winded way to say that you should be more precise in who exactly you refer to and that the definition of a good Muslim is not necessarily considered that way now (and as a sidenote, was not unique in comparison to other religious texts).

[katreus]

I'll add more to this tonight but suffice to say that

---

As I said NK is likely to crumble if they do anything outward. The people are going to surrender if they get a chance for real food. It'll be a massive assault that peters out once the oppressed people get a chance at an out, that won't get them shot. The problem with NK is the leadership is insane.

---

is a simplification. It's true that there are dissidents and those that hate the NK leadership -but- most people in the country side genuinely believe that Kim Il Song was a godlike figure. They believe it is their duty to purify the Korean race - SK are considered *tainted* - and to unify the peninsula. The NK are a -chosen people-.
The reason why NK isn't strong right now, according to their beliefs, is because not everyone is thinking in the juche mode. If they were all self-reliant, all thinking in the juche mode, NK -would- be strong. NK would be self-reliant. NK would be the true repository of the world's boons NOT China.
The famine that occurred in NK was considered to have happened because people weren't living the juche enough (as a side note, the reason why it lasted so long was, according to many, because Kim Il Song intentionally let it go on for a good while).
This belief has lasted them through the Korean War. With the older generation dying, the new generation is indoctrinated in this from childhood. If you teach philosophy in Korea? It better be related to Juche. If you were to teach Hegel, you had better explain how it illustrates juche thinking, juche actions and so forth. It is literally everywhere and internalized.
Now it's true that -in the future- as NK opens up (-if- it ever does) and they get exposed to ideas other than juche, I think it is possible for them to think otherwise. But now? When you have to have an extremely high security clearance just to access the internet and talk to foreigners? No. They believe that Kim Jong Il can wave his hand and make rainbows. They believe that Kim Jong Il is a genius who writes hundreds of plays, books, and so forth. They believe that Kim Jong Il will lead them out of the darkness and into future glory.

[katreus]

To many in the international NGO sphere.

[Necratoid]

---

The Koran says you're not supposed to kill Christians or Jews.

---

So Muslims go to a college to study the Koran and come out hell bent on wiping out Israel and the US as the source of all evil I am saddened by being proud of the public schools in my area.

---

This is why I'm calling you a racist. Also, ignorant.

---

You don't even actually know that to be racist... I must be against a race. I may be the equivalent of an anti-Semite towards Islam... but you apparently don't know the definition of your own insults..

---

However, the fact that there are radical people in the religion does not and should not be taken as a representative of the whole.

---

Which was the point of my twice written explanation of a GOOD Muslim and a BAD Muslim. Im not explaining that again.
If I take your advice and I call them fundamentalist Muslims.... this means by default those are the guys following what the religion literally tells them to do. Its a literal translation of the Koran is what that means. That means by default the point of Islam is to kill non-Muslims. A fundamentalist is someone who follows the letter of the instruction manual and not the spirit. So by declaring them fundamentalists you've declared the point of the religion to be 'Convert or Die!!!'. Militant Islam is more the term you want if your not outright confirming this is the basic credo of Islam.

---

According to the quote above, I should be, uh, fumigated (aka killed) but I'll give Christians the benefit of the doubt that the majority of them aren't interested in fumigating me.

---

First, that isnt what he is talking about. He was talking about kicking people out of government not killing them. Making your fear misguided and pointless or flat out misdirection. The first sight I found on a search engine pointed this out. Also, your sighting a man (PR) who ran on traditional family values and lost his bid for the presidency, because he got caught sleeping around while married he also declared termite mounds as imaginary.
The Bush quotes are interesting choices. The first is filtered through a man from the imaginary country of exploding people. So questionable, in phrasement if not paraphrasement. The second puts Freedom and Justice on one side of a scale and Fear and Cruelty on the other. Then said that God is on one side of the scale. Which is true for a devout Christian. Jesus had two messages we can confirm without dogma issues. First, Wouldnt it be nice to treat each other well for a change? and two The current rabies are tool of the Roman government. Freedom is not on the side of the Taliban or the Islamic governments. Justice is arguable, but put on the side of Freedom. Unless your saying that fear and cruelty are Gods will you kind of have to agree with him there.
I've actually heard Bush explain what he means by God told him to. What he means is he prays on such decisions and lets his moral center guide him. I know he mentions God in that speech there... However I think you missed his prime point of that line. Possibly on purpose.
Yes, I understand both sides use rhetoric but when one side is free these people to rule themselves and the other is homicidal ranting. They are not comparable beyond a very basic level.
As for your random Bible quotes:

---

So... you would be a deliverer if you went around assassinating people?

---

No, your parsing this one wrong. Eglon the king of Moab, was apparent a prick as far as the Jews were concerned. So they got some one to deliver the Jews from said prick (like being delivered from evil or an attacking man as in the following case), it is the Jews being delivered in this case. That or he was there to be the deliverer of the tribute and the message from God. The message being, "DIE!"

---

I wonder if the wife kicks the other man's genitals if her foot gets cut off?

---

Considering they went to the effort to make the scenario that specific, no. This looks like a matter of the wife effectively committing adultery for fondling another man's genital (thinking about sex with other people and such things is considered wrong by these people). She effectively sadistically coping a feel, so this law must stem from an actual incident lost to history. If she kicks him it is a matter of disabling the guy with pain. It would be like bashing him in the head with something. Its the grasping of the target bit they have issue with, not the target specifically. They dont say she cant beat on the other guy.

---

Show no quarter to enemies of the faith?

---

Out of context... this is part of the documentation of a series of wars with people a few millennium ago. People the best you could hope for fighting them, if they won, was a chance to go back into slavery. Quarter was not a viable option. Consider the times.
There is literally a book of the Bible (Jobe) about how God is a Prick and if you put up with him his antics long enough he may reward you.... or not. The Jews have been the world's spittoon for millennium. Europeans declared money unclean and made the Jews in the banks. A few decades/centuries later they changed their minds on the cleanness of money and wondered why the Jews had all the bankers jobs. The Old testament is a history book written by religious people.

---

The NK are a -chosen people-.

---

Chosen in the same way as the Jews typically are. Won't they be surprised when they find out, I mean discovering your target practice usually does surprise you.
I simplified the lose of NK true, but the fact is that external war means that NK collapses. It may take a few weeks/months/years but it will. Starting when they invade their first a SK city and notice the sheer amount of stuff available to the SK.
They have a madman setting the rules of education and everything else. They'll believe that at first, but the more stuff they see that is had by the SKns the more of them that will start going 'WTF? They have so much stuff. We don't have stuff.'
I hardly need it pointed out that Communists lie to their peons.
So controveersal the Iranian president is he got voted out of office and won anyway. If the government didn't want him there he wouldn't be there.

[Fidoohki]

Ayiekie,
.. It wasn't meant as a slur, Muslums are a very direct practicioners. It is a part of their faith to be direct. those
that are liars are not true muslums according to the
Koran. At least that is the way I read it and since when
is being direct a bad thing?! More people should be.
As for your 'examples', try making sure you are reading what
someone is saying, not what you think they are saying.
Sometimes a rock is just a rock...

[Necratoid]

Fidoohki, I have no idea which side your talking to. Try actually saying something that logically connects to something.

[Ayiekie]

Yeah, like "I hardly need it pointed out that Communists lie to their peons.". You tell him, Necra!

[ECSNorway]

---

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical standard Islamic garments.
The law, which must still be approved by Irans Supreme Guide Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.
Irans roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.
Theres no reason to believe they wont pass this, said Rabbi Hier. It will certainly pass unless theres some sort of international outcry over this.

---

Alright, people, this is goddamn fucking well ENOUGH.
Anyone who continues to think that the government of Iran is composed of people with a single shred of sanity or tolerance is thinking with their assholes, not their brains. --
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Epsilon]

---

Alright, people, this is goddamn fucking well ENOUGH.
Anyone who continues to think that the government of Iran is composed of people with a single shred of sanity or tolerance is thinking with their assholes, not their brains.

---

www.canada.com/nationalpo...91af82abb3
Before you continue being a racist fucktard, perhaps you should actually check to see if your facts are, you know, true.
-------------------
Epsilon

[Ayiekie]

Aww, don't be so harsh.
I mean, the right-wing newspaper in question didn't check their facts. The right-wing Prime Minister didn't check his facts.
So why should we hold dear old ECS to a higher standard of, you know, "sanity or tolerance"? Or, "thinking with his brain, not his..." well... you know?

[Ayiekie]

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that you haven't yet responded yet to apologise to the people in the Iranian government you slandered, ECSNorway, not to mention, of course, that you insulted everybody here who has pointed out that maybe Iran's government is not led by the Legion Of SuperHitlers.
Maybe you're away for the weekend? That's probably it. No worries. I'll graciously await your return.
Incidentally, while frantically backpeddling from their blatently untrue story, the National Post has tried to distance itself from the source they wrote from (ignoring the fact they wrote the story as a legitimate news story, not an op-ed), one Amir Teheri.
www.benadorassociates.com/taheri.php
Why, bless my stars. Amir Teheri is an associate of a right-wing PR firm that one can hire conservative speakers from (I wonder if they can get the Ultimate Warrior on tap?). He's also the author of an enormous amount of articles, including a whole plethora of articles pushing for war with Iran and one claiming Muslims attacked London because they're trying to control what you eat for breakfast. He's also called antiwar protestors allies of Saddam Hussein. Lovely, obviously trustworthy fellow with no bias here at all.
He also, it seems, repeated his already debunked and laughable story to the New York Post AFTER it had been debunked and the original paper that broke the story was racing to disown it. Of course, they printed it. Vive les mdias Amricains!
Oh, the glorious parallels to Nazi Germany. For, of course, what better propaganda can there be than painting your foes as Nazis? People on the Internet figured that one out long ago, so it's nice to see the mainstream media catching on.
I wonder, did you believe them when they told you how the Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators?
Is there a lie so blatent, so outrageous, so devoid of any speck of reality that it will not be believed, if it happens to coincide with what you wanted to believe in the first place?
Perhaps that's a question you should be asking yourself when they tell you that Ahmadinejad bites the head off of Christian babies, or whatever the next obvious piece of manufactured propaganda is.
Meanwhile, in the realm of reality, there actually is a clothing-related story going down in Iraq:
www.worldpress.org/print_...4&dont=yes
There's actually lots of conclusions to be drawn from this story (other than, hilariously, The Completely Insane and Intolerant SuperHitler President Ahmadinejad actually trying to loosen restrictions on women on Iran). As a thought experiment, try coming up with some.
Or just wait until the next time they tell you Iran is going to nuke Wisconsin and war is the only answer. Maybe it'll be the New York Post telling you. I mean, sure, THIS time they printed a story that had already been proven false, but NEXT time they'll be right for sure! You don't have to actually look beyond the sources that tell you what you want to know: it's the PAPER! Just like the government, they'd never lie to you!
That's sure thinking with your brain, not with your asshole, right?

[hmelton]

Below is a quote from this site
www.judeoscope.ca/
/QUOTE/
MEMRI
Irans announcement on April 11, 2006 that it had succeeded in enriching uranium evoked mixed reactions in the Arab media. Many columnists expressed apprehension about Irans nuclear program, and opposition to it. They argued that a nuclear Iran posed a threat to the Arab countries in general and to the Gulf states in particular, and that it was likely to spark an arms race in the region. Other columnists warned that a leak in one of Irans nuclear facilities could cause grave ecological disaster, on the scale of Chernobyl. Additionally, President Ahmadinejad was described as a new Hitler threatening to unleash catastrophe upon the world.
On the other hand, some columnists wrote in support of Irans nuclear program, arguing that it improved the balance of power against Israel, and that the international community could not implement a double standard regarding Iranian and Israeli nuclear capabilities. Some called on the Arab countries to follow in Irans footsteps and obtain nuclear knowledge and technology, with which to fight the West.
The following are examples from the diverse reactions in the Arab media to Irans announcement:
/ENDQUOTE/
This is the webpage with the examples.
www.judeoscope.ca/article...ticle=0379