or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Iran's Rafsanjani's Solution To Their Israeli Problems...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iran's Rafsanjani's Solution To Their Israeli Problems...

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_4.html" target="_blank">Nuke em' off the face of the earth.</a>

And Israel has no reason to preemptively attack their neighbors with threats like this. Look at the callousness in this quote:

[quote]"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.<hr></blockquote>

So to sum up, "Israel would be wiped out completely, but the Muslim world would only be damaged by an Israeli counterstrike. Yay for our side!!!" <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> If I were Israel I would be a bit upset to hear that their neighbors think they should be made to glow in the dark for 100 years or so.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #2 of 35
And Rasfanjani is supposed to be a 'moderate' muslim! Hopefully the muslim world will one day grow up and join the rest of civilization. I won't hold my breath............................................ ..
post #3 of 35
steve666: The muslim world was the keeper of sivilization while all of western europe was lost in the dark ages...

Do your history!

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #4 of 35
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Iran needs to be our next target.
post #5 of 35
Did you know that Iran is the strongest supporter of the Northern Alliance?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #6 of 35
Guess who has the most pro-American population in the Arab/Muslim world?

Answer: Iran.

It wouldn't surprise me if they started building statues of liberty in the streets, like the Chinese students 10 years ago.
post #7 of 35
Fascinating. By what objective standard does one measure the love of the Iranian people for America? And moreover, what does that have to do with the government of Iran and its support of terrorism?

<a href="http://capitalismmagazine.com/2001/october/lp_end_states.htm" target="_blank">End States Who Sponsor Terrorism</a>
Leonard Peikoff, Capitalism Magazine

[quote]
Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.

Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West's property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot.

The cause of the U.S. silence was not practical, but philosophical. The Mideast's dictators were denouncing wealthy egotistical capitalism. They were crying that their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew their viewpoint was true by means of otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer that Americans, properly, were motivated by the selfish desire to achieve personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.

The Muslim countries embodied in an extreme form every ideaselfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the groupwhich our universities, our churches, and our own political Establishment had long been upholding as virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent side wins.

After property came liberty. "The Muslim fundamentalist movement," writes Yale historian Lamin Sanneh, "began in 1979 with the Iranian [theocratic] revolution . . ." (New York Times 9/23/01). During his first year as its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, urging a Jihad against "the Great Satan," kidnapped 52 U.S. diplomatic personnel and held them hostage; Carter's reaction was fumbling paralysis. About a decade later, Iran topped this evil. Khomeini issued his infamous Fatwa aimed at censoring, even outside his borders, any ideas uncongenial to Muslim sensibility. This was the meaning of his threat to kill British author Rushdie and to destroy his American publisher; their crime was the exercise of their right to express an unpopular intellectual viewpoint. The Fatwa was Iran's attempt, reaffirmed after Khomeini's death, to stifle, anywhere in the world, the very process of thought. Bush Sr. looked the other way.

After liberty came American life itself. The first killers were the Palestinian hijackers of the late 1960s. But the killing spree which has now shattered our soaring landmarks, our daily routine, and our souls, began in earnest only after the license granted by Carter and Bush Sr.

Many nations work to fill our body bags. But Iran, according to a State Department report of 1999, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," training and arming groups from all over the Mideast, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Nor is Iran's government now "moderating." Five months ago, the world's leading terrorist groups resolved to unite in a holy war against the U.S., which they called "a second Israel"; their meeting was held in Teheran. (Fox News 9/16/01)

What has been the U.S. response to the above? In 1996, nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in their barracks in Saudi Arabia. According to a front-page story in The New York Times (6/21/98): "Evidence suggesting that Iran sponsored the attack has further complicated the investigation, because the United States and Saudi Arabia have recently sought to improve relations with a new, relatively moderate Government in Teheran." In other words, Clinton evaded Iran's role because he wanted what he called "a genuine reconciliation." In public, of course, he continued to vow that he would find and punish the guilty. This inaction of Clinton's is comparable to his action after bin Laden's attack on U.S. embassies in East Africa; his action was the gingerly bombing of two meaningless targets.

Conservatives are equally responsible for today's crisis, as Reagan's record attests. Reagan not only failed to retaliate after 241 U.S. marines in Lebanon were slaughtered; he did worse. Holding that Islamic guerrillas were our ideological allies because of their fight against the atheistic Soviets, he methodically poured money and expertise into Afghanistan. This put the U.S. wholesale into the business of creating terrorists. Most of them regarded fighting the Soviets as only the beginning; our turn soon came.

For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of a government.

We need not prove the identity of any of these creatures, because terrorism is not an issue of personalities. It cannot be stopped by destroying bin Laden and the al-Qaeda army, or even by destroying the destroyers everywhere. If that is all we do, a new army of militants will soon rise up to replace the old one.

The behavior of such militants is that of the regimes which make them possible. Their atrocities are not crimes, but acts of war. The proper response, as the public now understands, is a war in self-defense. In the excellent words of Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, we must "end states who sponsor terrorism."

[continued in link]
<hr></blockquote>
post #8 of 35
I hear that the youth of Iran have a totally different viewpoint than their elders. Maybe there is a bright future there after all. Hopefully the changeover is slow so there isn't any hard civil wars.
post #9 of 35
[quote]And Rasfanjani is supposed to be a 'moderate' muslim!<hr></blockquote>

Isn't this the guy that Khatemi defeated? I don't think he's a moderate at all. If he's #2 to Khonemi, as the article suggests, he's a hard-core cleric. This kind of rhetoric doesn't suprise me at all from guys like him. They've been chanting "Death to Israel" for decades. It was nice to hear Rumsfield acknowledge the growing dissent in Iran to these nutjobs.
post #10 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>steve666: The muslim world was the keeper of sivilization while all of western europe was lost in the dark ages...

Do your history!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Too bad they never advanced past the dark ages over there.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #11 of 35
HAHAHAHAHAHA... next target Iran....

ok, first of all, lets get some things straight. Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians and take great offense at being called an Arab. They are Islamic (in faith) but not Arabic. They are almost all Shiite muslims, rather than Sunni muslims. To clear it up, here is a brief text:

[quote]
Shiism first developed and spread among Iranians but gradually extended all over the Moslem world, but most Moslems have always been Sunnis or ``the people of the (Prophet's) tradition'' who base their interpretations of the laws on what has been passed on, from one generation to another, about the deeds and words of the Prophet and who claim that since the Prophet had allegedly not given precise instructions regarding his succession, the successor had to be chosen by the community which apparently chose Abu Bakr, a close follower and a staunch supporter of the Prophet from the early days of his rise to prophethood. To these people Abu Bakr is the first successor to the Holy Prophet; to the Shias it is Imam Ali. To the former, the leader of the Moslems, the caliph, is a temporal power; to the second, it is the Imam and holds spiritual powers.

Despite such differences, however, the Sunnis and the Shias agree on the basics of Islam, and remain brothers. Today, by far the largest part of the Iranian population, as well as about half that of both Iraq and Lebanon, plus minorities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and East Africa are Shias, followers of Duodecimal (from twelve Imams) Shiism.
<a href="http://www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/Social/930000XXSO08.html" target="_blank">http://www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/Social/930000XXSO08.html</a>
<hr></blockquote>

The text likes to say they are 'brothers' but there is quite a lot of antagonism between the two versions of Islam. This is also a reason why Iran and Iraq hate(d) eachother so much for so long.

Next:
I have been to Iran many times. My first time was a month or so after the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and Teheran was still a battlefield with air raid shelters, etc. I have been to Iran until 1993 on and off and made some great friends there.

When going through the bazaars and markets, etc I would be asked where I was from and they would start saying America! America! and smile and almost look for some kind of deliverance. I would tell them I was British, just in case.. but still, thet were happy with that as well.

I have also travelled outside of Teheran (horrible city by the way...) throughout the country... to Isfahan, Tabriz, Persepolis, Bandar Abbas, etc etc etc and the feeling is always the same: Foreigners welcome... America first in line.

They are also the most generous and sincere people I have ever met. Generosity and sharing is a normal thing in the Middle-East in general by the way.

A story I always like to tell is when we were driving, with my father and friend, in the middle of Iran on our way south to Bandar Abbas and while filling at a gas station the manager came out to talk to us and asked us where we were going. We told him that we were going to ride the night through the mountains to get to our destination by morning. He looked at us with a half horrified face and told us with no half words that that was out of the question because there were bandits and that it was very risky to go at night.
Seeing that we were in some small village, there were no hotels for miles around. So the guy said, without hesitation, that we would be guests at his home for the night.
We accepted and so we got to eat with the real people. We ate while sitting on carpets and had local food (nothing to write home about) and slept on some thicker carpets for the evening. It may seem like hell, but they gave us all they had to make sure we were comfortable and safe.
The next day we wanted to repay for the food and generosity but they would have nothing of it. They said that this is the way one treats fellow people in Iran and is normal and that Allah be with us for the rest of our trip.

I have travelled to some pretty damn obscure corners of the world... most forgotten by anyone, and there is no place nicer or warmer (people wise) than Iran.


As Outsider and BRussel point out, the younger generations (now into their 30s) are very pro-western. I have many many friends that are either still in Iran, Europe, and yes, many in the USA as well. Although many find it easier to get into Canada.

You will see, Iran will be a wonderful place again in a few years... maybe a decade... but still, one day.

PS. For general knowledge, the term Aryan comes from Persia... not Germany with the Nazis. <a href="http://www.sanibrite.ca/iran/page10.html" target="_blank">http://www.sanibrite.ca/iran/page10.html</a> "The etymology of the word Iran is Aryan and refers to the Indo-European people and language, which spread throughout a region, connoting a much larger geographic and cultural domain. The term Iran has been in use since the Achaemenid period (ca 550- 331 B.C.)"


PPS During the Afganistan bombings and such that are going on right now, Iran has given permission to USA and alliance to use bordering airfields in case of emergencies. A small but significant step I would say.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #12 of 35
I don't give a rats ass what Islam was centuries ago. Right now i see fanatasism and illogic. Christianity had to go through a growing phase which just ended about 10-20 yrs after WWII.

Islam needs to go through the same phase but where are the muslim clerics or imams that preach peace between religions and not enmity. Where is the Muslim Pope to apologize for past wrongs and bring people together? When Muslims talk loud and long about the ills of terrorism and martyrdom, then and only then will Islam be respected. Right now it is rightly shunned by us 'infidels'........................................ ....
post #13 of 35
ZO didn't you ever see Sally Field in Not Without My Daughter. Movies don't lie.
post #14 of 35
Miscellaneous notes:

I've only met a few Iranians, but they've all been very genteel and good people. (Same with South Africans actually). Obviously, there must be plenty of Iranian jerks like any other nation.

Must we hold grudges?

Islam has historically/traditionally been the most tolerant, progressive, intellectual, scientific, artistic and humanist religious order in the world. It definitely has its quirks with respect to my culture, but it's really held the human race together at other times, and not just relative to the troubles of Europe. From about 800-1800, it was a real beacon, the demonstration of the full potential of human culture. It could be said that Baghdad was the capital of the world between 1100-1700.

I consider the fundamentalist movement to be a setback, but certainly nothing permanent.

I am personally fascinated and interested in Islam.

Rasfanjani's comments are certainly in poor taste to say the least. I hope he sees how at some point you have to break the cycle that both Hamas and Israel are in -- he may be able to help peace break out at some point in the region.
post #15 of 35
Scott H: Yes I saw it and its depressing as hell. There are definetly many kookoos everywhere and the way women are treated in Islamic states still leaves much to be desired. But that doesnt mean that they ALL get mistreated.

Many Iranian households I went to were clearly matriarchies, where the man would go work, but had little say in the running of the families.

The movie also came out when Iranian support was at an all time low and Iran was = to satan, etc etc.

When I was there I would go around in taxis and sometimes if there was police they could stop us and ask why a guy (me) was in a cab with women (who were not family or not fiancee/wife). Since I was young we would tell them that we were cousins (and somehow they would believe us...)

Women can still be incarcerated for simply holding a man's hand who isn't his husband or fiancee. Or, if for any other reason, they should be stopped and sent to police hq and 'inspected' and they were to find that they were not virgins and not married, they can get MAJOR trouble (prison, physical abuse, etc). Its nuts... but you just have to be careful and play by the rules and not provoke the customs of the country (and not get nabbed by the Pasdaran (the militia, upholders of the revolution, etc).
-----------------

Also lets clear up another thing. Most of the Iranians who managed to FLEE the country once Khomeni took power were quite wealthy or had friends abroad that could take them up. These people had travelled very much, were very open minded and also anti-clerical. Iran was looked upon as the America of the middle-east because it was so open and rich. But the change came too quickly and while much wealth was going around, many still remained poor.
Religious fanaticism was free and empowered the weak and they took over with the (to us) evil looking and yet very charasmatic Khomeni.

Rafsanjani (Khoemeni's successor) was more moderate thean Khomeni, but still had issues. Todays president is definetly trying to get the ball rolling and hopefully will be able to manage something.

[quote]
I don't give a rats ass what Islam was centuries ago. Right now i see fanatasism and illogic. Christianity had to go through a growing phase which just ended about 10-20 yrs after WWII.
Islam needs to go through the same phase but where are the muslim clerics or imams that preach peace between religions and not enmity. Where is the Muslim Pope to apologize for past wrongs and bring people together? When Muslims talk loud and long about the ills of terrorism and martyrdom, then and only then will Islam be respected. Right now it is rightly shunned by us 'infidels'........................................ ....
<hr></blockquote>

Hehe, easy tiger.

First off there is no such thing as a 'pope' for Islam. There is no ONE central figure. Each country (or region) has their main clerical figure.

Also you have to put yourself in a different perspective.

There is plenty of Christian fanaticism... especially in the USA. Some, most actually, is very very scary. Now, while christian fanatics seem to stay put and not go out with terroristic acts abroad, etc they are still as brain-washed and ready to die for 'our lord and savior jc'. We do it for JC, they do it for Allah. Big difference... just the name changes.

Also, why has religion gone to, pardon the pun, hell in the last 50 years? If I care to venture I guess, I would say materialism and the continous change we go through so quickly. How can we follow and abide by a religion when everything and everyone around us (friends, family, advertising, tv, radio, movies, etc) tells us to change change change? We have had so much change and general well being in the last 50 years that we dont NEED to seek solace and refuge in religion anymore. This doesnt apply to everyone of course, but after a while our lives become superficial in regards to everything... including faith.

If and when I go to church, its more out of the sake of tradition rather than religious beliefs. Heck I haven't even gone to church for the last 3 christmases.

Going back to Islam and preaching peace, the foundation of Islam and the Koran are just that, peace and understanding. But, just like in the Bible, people can and will single out certain passages that can give them an excuse to maraud and kill and destroy.

The Imams talk to the crowds in the mosques and TELL THEM what they have to do and what they should believe. If they say "go out and kill Americans" the Imams order is basically like a law and must be abided to (crazy, I know). But the Imam from the mosque next door can say the total opposite... Pretend you went to church, or synagogue or whatever, and the main person (priest rabbi, etc) told THAT group of people on that day of worship that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should be exiled from the community/city, etc. You would have to follow what he says. Thats sort of the role of the Imam... in good and bad.

So, is Islam perfect? No, but neither is any other religion I know of.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #16 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>Women can still be incarcerated for simply holding a man's hand who isn't his husband or fiancee. Or, if for any other reason, they should be stopped and sent to police hq and 'inspected' and they were to find that they were not virgins and not married, they can get MAJOR trouble (prison, physical abuse, etc). Its nuts... but you just have to be careful and play by the rules and not provoke the customs of the country (and not get nabbed by the Pasdaran (the militia, upholders of the revolution, etc).</strong>[/QOUTE]

Sounds fine to me, most people love walking on eggshells anyhow. Glad you cleared that up.

[QUOTE]<strong>First off there is no such thing as a 'pope' for Islam. There is no ONE central figure. Each country (or region) has their main clerical figure. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Sounds like their "pope" then is their main clerical figure. Why are they not speaking up? Or are they?

[quote]<strong>There is plenty of Christian fanaticism... especially in the USA. Some, most actually, is very very scary. Now, while christian fanatics seem to stay put and not go out with terroristic acts abroad, etc they are still as brain-washed and ready to die for 'our lord and savior jc'. We do it for JC, they do it for Allah. Big difference... just the name changes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Scary? Christians? Really? Most of them? I never realized that people lived in fear of me and my Church! And to think, all this time...

And to top that off we are fanatic and brainwashed to boot! And yes, there is a big diffrence between Allah and Jesus Christ. Even bigger than the fact that I doubt that many Muslims would worship a deity that came to Earth as a Jew (after all, they should be nuked now before it is too late) and said that he came first for the Jews, and then for the Gentiles (everyone else). Nice try, care to play again?

[quote]<strong>Also, why has religion gone to, pardon the pun, hell in the last 50 years? If I care to venture I guess, I would say materialism and the continous change we go through so quickly. How can we follow and abide by a religion when everything and everyone around us (friends, family, advertising, tv, radio, movies, etc) tells us to change change change? We have had so much change and general well being in the last 50 years that we dont NEED to seek solace and refuge in religion anymore. This doesnt apply to everyone of course, but after a while our lives become superficial in regards to everything... including faith.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Religion has gone to "hell" so to speak because so many people don't like the idea of not being in control of their own lives. So they find a church or religion that caters to what they want to hear. Not exactly what was intended by Jesus when he laid out NT Christianity to the 12 Disciples.

<strong> [quote]Going back to Islam and preaching peace, the foundation of Islam and the Koran are just that, peace and understanding. But, just like in the Bible, people can and will single out certain passages that can give them an excuse to maraud and kill and destroy. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, as I have not taken the time to study the Koran I cannot speak 100% to that, but I do agree that people will take whatever they can out of context or otherwise from religious material in order to make it fit their agendas. That is why it is important to study those scriptures so that when you are told something you will know whether it is being said in the proper context.

<strong> [quote]The Imams talk to the crowds in the mosques and TELL THEM what they have to do and what they should believe. If they say "go out and kill Americans" the Imams order is basically like a law and must be abided to (crazy, I know). But the Imam from the mosque next door can say the total opposite... Pretend you went to church, or synagogue or whatever, and the main person (priest rabbi, etc) told THAT group of people on that day of worship that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should be exiled from the community/city, etc. You would have to follow what he says. Thats sort of the role of the Imam... in good and bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Fortunately no Pastor, Rabbi, or Bishop has that amount of power, and those in their following are not mandated to follow what they say. See my previous post for why this should be true.

<strong> [quote]So, is Islam perfect? No, but neither is any other religion I know of.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wrong way to look at it. Are Islamic people perfect? No, But neither is any other HUMAN on the face of the planet. There was only one perfect HUMAN, and that was Jesus Christ. Religion, being manmade will never be perfect. What Jesus set up, if followed properly is perfect, but since we are humans we are not capable of doing anything pewrfectly, thus the failure of all religions to live up to what most people think they should be.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #17 of 35
In my church, if the speaker told up that we need to get rid of all Muslims any way we can, we would carry him off the stage and throw him in the street. NO religion should advocate death. That's up to God and only God. IMHO.
post #18 of 35
"And to top that off we are fanatic and brainwashed to boot! And yes, there is a big diffrence between Allah and Jesus Christ."

Islam comes from the same source as christianity, it is a religion of the "BOOK" meaning its roots are in the Hebrew Bible. Islam believes in Jesus, but not as teh Christ (messiah) but as one in its line of prophets, the last of which is Mohammed.

As for the DARK AGES: read Huizinga's the Waning of the Middle Ages: it is a misconception that the dark ages were lacking in culture and happiness. According to many historians, in fact, the "dark Ages", better known as the Middle Ages, were really a kind of Golden Age, turned dark by Plague and outbreaks of fanatical religiousity in places. . .

Oh Yeah: Rasfajani is not the moderate, that would be Khatami. And things are changing there: Iran has the deep cultural roots to have a rennaisance where what is buried there could grow into something beautiful.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #19 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>Islam comes from the same source as christianity, it is a religion of the "BOOK" meaning its roots are in the Hebrew Bible. Islam believes in Jesus, but not as teh Christ (messiah) but as one in its line of prophets, the last of which is Mohammed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Shoot, you will not find many people who disagree that Jesus lived once 2000 years ago or so. His point was that Allah and Jesus Christ could be interchanged. They cannot. Period. Maybe Allah and God but not Jesus Christ.

And as far as Mohammad is concerned, do they worship him or just follow his teachings? Is he a messiah to them or are they still waiting? (legitimate questions, I am not sure.)
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #20 of 35
If Jesus was perfect then that would mean that no possible "evil" could be caused by his effects in the world. Quite simply: he has been the expressed reason for much incredible murder and biggotry in the past.

again:

From the premis of perfection you would have only causal relations to that perfection that are themselves perfect, since there are many, many events that have grown directly out of the existence of Jesus as a historical phenomena that are less than perfect (taken in a 'moral sense), then, he could not have been perfect.

Clearly, in order for something to be definable as perfect then you would have to have perfection defined as a concept that includes everything as it is: which is more Buddhist than Christian. . . .

unless that was the message of Jesus: namely "forgive yourselves, see, everything is perfect...I am perfect, and if so, then so must everything be that stands in a contiguous relationship to me... which is everything"

but that would be too forgiving for Christians....they seem to need to have evil to love.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #21 of 35
and also:

qoute NohJ: "Shoot, you will not find many people who disagree that Jesus lived once 2000 years ago or so. His point was that Allah and Jesus Christ could be interchanged."

That was not his point. And that was not mine either. Islam does not merely acknowledge the historical being of Jesus, they have Jesus as A PROPHET in the Koran. Their religion is not one so much about a messiah as it is about a lineage of prophets, and they see Jesus as one of them. For them it would be blasphemy for any human to say that they were Allah, or the one true son of Allah.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #22 of 35
I know Islam doesn't have a Pope, I was referring to the fact that there are no main Islamic figures telling muslims that terrorist actions are wrong. If any priest or rabbi acted like many imams and preached violence as a means to an end they'd have their asses handed back to them.

Perhaps years ago when Christianity was in its worst throes of anti-semitism, they could preach that way. Not any more-like I said, Christianity has grown up and evolved to actually, finally, follow the words of Christ. I am waiting for Islam to do the same..........................................
post #23 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>If Jesus was perfect then that would mean that no possible "evil" could be caused by his effects in the world. Quite simply: he has been the expressed reason for much incredible murder and biggotry in the past.

again:

From the premis of perfection you would have only causal relations to that perfection that are themselves perfect, since there are many, many events that have grown directly out of the existence of Jesus as a historical phenomena that are less than perfect (taken in a 'moral sense), then, he could not have been perfect.

Clearly, in order for something to be definable as perfect then you would have to have perfection defined as a concept that includes everything as it is: which is more Buddhist than Christian. . . .

unless that was the message of Jesus: namely "forgive yourselves, see, everything is perfect...I am perfect, and if so, then so must everything be that stands in a contiguous relationship to me... which is everything"

but that would be too forgiving for Christians....they seem to need to have evil to love.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That was so out there it is just incredible. Because Jesus is perfect his actions could only create perfect results and therefore all people who follow him become perfect? Wow! How did you actually come to that conclusion? Even if you move it a step up so to speak and talk of God himself (who is also one and the same perfect person) plenty has been done in his name for evil.

Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. When he died he took all the sin of the world on himself so that we did not have to pay for those sins anymore. There is only one catch, we have to accept that sacrifice for ourselves in order to be absolved of our sins. That is what the perfection of Jesus accomplished. Now, why is the world not perfectly sinless then? Have you accepted his free gift of salvation and forgiveness of sins? How many in this thread have? (I actually am interested to know this, I have a hunch about a couple of people)

Nobody is sinless but through Christ, and that is only in the eyes of the Father (God) because Jesus paid for out sins already through his death and resurrection. Do I still sin, yes. Does God hold it against me? No. Why? Jesus. If you want to know more ask me. If not, that is fine too. In any case that part had to be said at some point.

And I have to come back to this once more
[quote]<strong>From the premis of perfection you would have only causal relations to that perfection that are themselves perfect, since there are many, many events that have grown directly out of the existence of Jesus as a historical phenomena that are less than perfect (taken in a 'moral sense), then, he could not have been perfect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a man that was 33 years old when he was crucified as a criminal for no reason but that he claimed to be the Son of God (he is) and for the point that he was only in his ministry for what 3 years? He sure made a HUGE impact on the world. Name me anyone else who had this type of impact with this short of an exposure to the people. He came from Nazereth, a carpenter. NO fanfare, no money, nothing to make him stand out except that he healed incurably sick people, made blind people see, and performed many other signs and miracles. I fear this will all be lost on many, but really, name me another that has done all this.

Also, as a side note, all of the religions of the world acknowledge that we are fallen people who need a saviour, someone to pull us above ourselves because we are incapable. Only one actually provides that saviour. Christianity. I hope that I get CIVIL replies to this, flames are what I am expecting though.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #24 of 35
NoahJ:

my arguement is not out there. In fact what I am doing is what is called a rational arguement following from given premises.

The point is is that either the premises are false (Jesus was not perfect, or perfection itself does not exist)or the definition of perfect and imperfect must change to include all things.

It goes like this: causality reigns supreme in 'rational arguements'. contiguity is a kind of causal relationship.
IF perfection exists it would be made imperfect by its imperfect relationship to anything that exist, in contiguity to it, that is not itself perfect.

In other words, logically speaking, if something can be perfect in an absolute sense as you are saying then everything must be perfect.

It is rather, your bible school arguement that has no basis in logic or reason whatsoever and therefore, if it weren't so damn popular, would be seen as being "out there".

For example: "Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity" is this an example of logical argument. meaning that it is because the first part is true that the second part follows?? whereas the first premis itself still needs work.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #25 of 35
I'm joining this debate a little late, but...

NoahJ, I don't think you read Rafsanjani's statement very carefully. If you re-read it, you'll see that he doesn't actually advocate detonation a nuclear device in Israel. He says IF the Islamic world had nuclear weapons THEN "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" BECAUSE the "application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".

His conclusion is "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" not that the Islamic world should nuke Israel.

In the end this really just points out once again that the fate of both Islamic states in the Middle East and Israel are linked. Violence will lead to more violence. And progress will lead to more progress.
post #26 of 35
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Scary? Christians? Really? Most of them? I never realized that people lived in fear of me and my Church! And to think, all this time...</strong><hr></blockquote>

NoahJ, there are scary christians. There are good muslims. There are scary muslims. And there are good christians. I know its hard to come out from underneath your blanket generalizations, but I think you should give it a try. Do you still watch balck and white TV, or what?
post #27 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>NoahJ:

my arguement is not out there. In fact what I am doing is what is called a rational arguement following from given premises.

The point is is that either the premises are false (Jesus was not perfect, or perfection itself does not exist)or the definition of perfect and imperfect must change to include all things.

It goes like this: causality reigns supreme in 'rational arguements'. contiguity is a kind of causal relationship.
IF perfection exists it would be made imperfect by its imperfect relationship to anything that exist, in contiguity to it, that is not itself perfect.

In other words, logically speaking, if something can be perfect in an absolute sense as you are saying then everything must be perfect.

It is rather, your bible school arguement that has no basis in logic or reason whatsoever and therefore, if it weren't so damn popular, would be seen as being "out there".

For example: "Let's try this, since Jesus was perfect he became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity" is this an example of logical argument. meaning that it is because the first part is true that the second part follows?? whereas the first premis itself still needs work.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, I appreciate your reply. Very level headed. You don't agree with me, and that is fine, and I don't agree with you. Your hypothetical is very flawed because you can intorduce anything perfect into a flawed environment and it will not make the enviroment less flawed. However, those touched by that perfect thing will likely be changed for the better. I know I have.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #28 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Simple Ranger:
<strong>

NoahJ, there are scary christians. There are good muslims. There are scary muslims. And there are good christians. I know its hard to come out from underneath your blanket generalizations, but I think you should give it a try. Do you still watch balck and white TV, or what?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am not under any blanket of generalizations. I was merely pulling off his. There are scary people everywhere. To make it sound like they are scary becase they are Christians is a false assumption, as I pointed out in a not so direct way. Sure there are good muslims as well. And there are nice satanists too. (I know a couple) your point?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #29 of 35
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Right now i see fanatasism and illogic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Its nice we have you to shine the light in the dark for us.

fanaticism
n : excessive intolerance of opposing views [syn: zealotry]
post #30 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Simple Ranger:
<strong>I'm joining this debate a little late, but...

NoahJ, I don't think you read Rafsanjani's statement very carefully. If you re-read it, you'll see that he doesn't actually advocate detonation a nuclear device in Israel. He says IF the Islamic world had nuclear weapons THEN "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" BECAUSE the "application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".

His conclusion is "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate" not that the Islamic world should nuke Israel.

In the end this really just points out once again that the fate of both Islamic states in the Middle East and Israel are linked. Violence will lead to more violence. And progress will lead to more progress.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Given the history of these states and what Iran has said about Israel in the past, it is all to easy to go one step further and draw the conclusion that they would use the nuke if they had it. Recall that in the article:

"Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State."

He is speaking hypothetically, but the veiled threat is there. If we have it, we will use it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #31 of 35
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

I am not under any blanket of generalizations. I was merely pulling off his. There are scary people everywhere. To make it sound like they are scary becase they are Christians is a false assumption, as I pointed out in a not so direct way. Sure there are good muslims as well. And there are nice satanists too. (I know a couple) your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps the blanket of generalizations is a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in your response to my post about Rafsanjani's statement. Do you still interpret that as a call to nuke Israel?
post #32 of 35
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Simple Ranger:
<strong>

Perhaps the blanket of generalizations is a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in your response to my post about Rafsanjani's statement. Do you still interpret that as a call to nuke Israel?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I see it as one in a long string of threats to Israel that have been coming over the years. He did not outright say Nuke Em now. But as I stated. The inference is definately there. If we have it we wil not hesitate to use it as Israel would be obliterated and we would only suffer a setback in the muslim world. It is inflammatory enough that he was irresponsible to say it, especially given the breakdown in the peace process in the MidEast and many ohter factors that seem to be pushing the region and the rest of the world even closer to WWIII. And before you ask, yes I beleive there will be a WWIII.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #33 of 35
What if they only have one nuke? One nuke will not destroy Israel completely and israel has enough nukes to wipe out every major city in Iran. Who would win then? If Iran strikes first and Israel counter strikes, then other nations with nukes who are hostile to Israel (Pakistan, maybe Iraq) would find it hard to decide if they should interfere... Iran would have stricken first. They asked for wipeing out their nation. iraq would proabably love it. Thay have a bad history with Iran.
post #34 of 35
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Iran would have stricken first.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You mean Iran would have struck first?

As far as I can tell, Rafsanjani was talking about Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). He perceives aggresion by Israel against the Palestinians part of which is enabled by the threat of nuclear weapons. He therefore concludes that if the Islamic world has nuclear weapons (and really its the technology, not the numbers that count) then Israel would be forced to reconsider their "strategy of colonialism" because the playing field would be leveled so to speak. Similar to our arms race with the Soviets.

Granted it is scary to hear people in positions of power toss around terms like "wiped out" and "just ... damages in the Muslim world". Certainly the people exposed to a nuclear blast will suffer more than just damages.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>"Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State."</strong> <hr></blockquote>

To me it just seems like you guys are just contributing to the inflated rhetoric which is the fundamentalists' favorite tool. I finally went and read the article that NoahJ linked to, and they provided no other quotes where Rafsanjani explicitly advocates attacking Israel with nuclear weapons. Only the quote where it is "implied". Yes, Rafsanjani's statement was inflammatory although its difficult to tell outside the context of the rest of the speech just how inflammatory it was. But I consider the article's headline to be just as inflammatory with few facts to back it up. And because of established perceptions of Iran in the West, many of us are quick to believe the worst, and I think that is a mistake. Certainly statements like, "Iran should be our next target." are just as knee-jerk as anything coming out of a fundamentalists mouth. The situation in the mideast is extremely complicated with many subtle and not so subtle issues colliding in one hot spot, so the last thing we need from either side is a knee-jerk proclamation for a pre-emptive strike.

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]</p>
post #35 of 35
I asked an Iranian exile friend of mine who Rafsanjani actually is. His reply was to the effect of "the root of all evil in Iran". The guy was President under Ayatollah Khomeini, and in my friend's opinion was the puppetmaster of the revolution. Today he's the head of the Guardian Council, which is where all the actual power lies in Iran - the Council has the right to reverse any action by the elected government, controls the religious police and army, and has final say on every matter (including choosing valid candidates for office). In other words, he's the most powerful man in Iran. He's also, according to my friend, the richest. But he's tried to both hide his wealth and in general remain out of the public eye. He rarely offers opinions about anything in advance of his actions. His statement, even if it was the result of goading by a reporter, seems incredibly more disturbing to me now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Iran's Rafsanjani's Solution To Their Israeli Problems...