Iran

[SeVeR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6171503.stm

 

 

Some good reading. The world is in desperate need of understanding Iran.

[AstroProdigy]

We already know the United States doesn't speak to Iran and Bush obviously makes things worse everywhere.

 

Iran is home to a tiny Jewish population next to the old one and the remaining population isn't allowed contact with the outside Jewish world and is thus stuck there. You can be proud of your Iranian culture. It doesn't change the nature of the Iranian governments policies. The Jews in Iran get second class citizen status, but have gone through it so long that it's a norm. The Iranian government wants Jews scattered in oppressed minorities worldwide rather than have their own country. They want the same for Christians. Do you not see how Christian and Jewish minorities have been treated in Muslim countries? As equals? Anti-semitism is a tool to get your people stirred up in your favor. The Iranian government does it just like the Nazis did it to get their people riled up. Comparing the extreme anti-semitism in the past in Europe and saying "well it's ok what Iran does as long as it's better as the worst that Europe has done." A few people specifically taken as dissenting views in Iran means what exactly? Here's a quote from there: "if you're not political and don't bother them then they won't bother you". So shutup and don't try to exercise freedom and you'll live. That sounds like the dream life. Some guy would be crazy enough to stay in Iran no matter what then let him be an idiot.

 

As for nuclear power: Iran is one of the last countries that needs to develop nuclear power. IF things are completely transparent and all the weapons grade material are shipped out then they can be allowed to develop nuclear power, but this is on condition that they have to be completely transparent about their nuclear power and we reserve the right to bomb the !@#$%^&* out of them if they do not comply with the transparecy. No they can't be trusted otherwise. Not with this government.

 

A handful of Jews are attending the Holocaust denial conference in Iran to call for the destruction of Israel? Wow well that's overwhelming evidence that Israel should be wiped off the map AND the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the evil Zions to justify taking the country of the poor Palestinian ethnicity! There's always decent for anything in a group, so when .1% of Jews support the destruction of Israel we should take their opinion over the rest right?

 

You strongly want Israel to be destroyed so you're willing to grasp at straws.

[SeVeR]

We already know the United States doesn't speak to Iran and Bush obviously makes things worse everywhere.

Yes but did you know about the deal offered after America's invasion of Iraq?:

 

"In it, Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table - including being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah. What did Iran want? Top of the list was a halt in US hostile behaviour and a statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'".

 

It sounds reasonable to me. Is it any wonder that Iran ignores American demands today?

 

Secondly what of the betrayal of Iran by the US following Iran's !@#$%^&*istance in Afghanistan? Bush calling Iran "evil" must have been quite a shock for the Iranians, do you think Bush meant to say "Iraq"?

 

Iran is home to a tiny Jewish population next to the old one and the remaining population isn't allowed contact with the outside Jewish world and is thus stuck there.

 

Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel. About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.

 

They choose Iran over every other Muslim country. Something must be getting done right. You say that the population reduced, when? When Israel was created? Is it any wonder that Jews would leave (like they did from every other country including the USA and the USSR) when they are given a homeland? Is it really your argument to say they left because they were being persecuted? That argument is as well applied to the USA or Russia based on the minimal logic you're applying here.

 

You say they're treated second class yet:

 

"Because of our long history here we are tolerated," says Jewish community leader Unees Hammami, who organised the prayers.

 

He says the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected. As a result Jews have one representative in the Iranian parliament. "Imam Khomeini made a distinction between Jews and Zionists and he supported us," says Mr Hammami.

 

And here lies the distinction i want you to realise. Jews are not all Zionists. There is no racism in being anti-zionist. There is no Naziism in being anti-zionist.

 

And here quite honestly is where it all comes together, the words of a Jewish Iranian:

 

"Whatever they say abroad is lies - we are comfortable in Iran - if you're not political and don't bother them then they won't bother you," he explains.

 

"well it's ok what Iran does as long as it's better as the worst that Europe has done."

Absolutely no-one said "its ok" as long as its not as bad as the Europe of old. You're actually adding words to this statement:

 

"Anti-Semitism is not an eastern phenomenon, it's not an Islamic or Iranian phenomenon - anti-Semitism is a European phenomenon," he says, arguing that Jews in Iran even in their worst days never suffered as much as they did in Europe.

 

Nowhere does it say that some level of persecution is ok in Iran as long as its not as bad as it was in Europe. I don't understand you, what made you think that?

 

"if you're not political and don't bother them then they won't bother you". So shutup and don't try to exercise freedom and you'll live.

Again no, not being political means not supporting Israel. Iran is an anti-zionist country. It would be like supporting fascism or communism in the US, you'd be "bothered" if you did that right?

 

As for nuclear power: Iran is one of the last countries that needs to develop nuclear power.

If you had huge reserves of oil and knew the world would soon be in short supply wouldn't you want to sell as much of it as possible to rake in the profits? Oil is their entire economy, and nuclear power is their future, they will completely collapse otherwise when the oil runs out.

 

IF things are completely transparent and all the weapons grade material are shipped out then they can be allowed to develop nuclear power, but this is on condition that they have to be completely transparent about their nuclear power

They are completely transparent, they let the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect their facilities constantly. But maybe you should also know that the kind of nuclear power plant being built in Iran is completely incapable of producing the weapons grade plutonium isotope necesary for the construction of nuclear weapons. Something that gets over-looked in the press...

 

reserve the right to bomb the !@#$%^&* out of them if they do not comply with the transparecy. No they can't be trusted otherwise. Not with this government.

Thats a pity. How do you think that lack of trust first came to be?

 

A handful of Jews are attending the Holocaust denial conference in Iran to call for the destruction of Israel? Wow well that's overwhelming evidence that Israel should be wiped off the map AND the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the evil Zions to justify taking the country of the poor Palestinian ethnicity!

Ugh, and so the western media strikes again. Its not a holocaust denial conference, the page even says that if you read it. Its a denial of the idea that Israel should have been created based on the Holocaust. Its a discussion of the Holocaust. Calling it a "denial of the Holocaust ever happening" conference is a creation of certain news agencies looking for the most extreme take.

 

You strongly want Israel to be destroyed so you're willing to grasp at straws.

Yet again no. I want Israel to be peacefully dissolved. Like the Jews attending the conference.

[jacob hunter!]

i hope the world dies of a big asteriod that is hopefully heading straight at earth!

[AstroProdigy]

And you believe they will suddenly drop all of their leverage? The only reason they offered it was because they thought we were about to invade.

 

I don't try to justify Bush's actions; he's re!@#$%^&*ed and he's managed to make things worse for us just about everywhere. However, Iran is an oppressive theocracy.

 

Again I have responded to your point about the Jews in Iran. Read that and don't respond with the same thing as before. "Tolerated" just means they aren't killed. Muslim groups always recognize Christians and Jews as protected minorities, however this doesn't stop them from treating them like heathens that they need to convert. There is plenty of racism in Jews in general. It's exacerbated by the state of Israel, but this is an attempt by the government of Iran to garner support by using the Jews as the scapegoat. Sound familiar? The vast majority of Jews do not support simply wiping Israel off the map. Of course there are dissenting Jews, but they are a small minority. One Jewish Iranian cannot speak for the 3/4 of Jewish Iranians who have already chosen to leave for Israel. You're just nit picking at small little examples to try to prove the opinion you had before rather than trying to figure out what's right. That's why this argument is ridiculous.

 

Anti-semitism existed before in the Muslim world. It's simply gotten worse and more organized. It says Jews in Iran in their worst days were better off than back when anti-semitism was raging in Europe. Does that make it right?

 

In the US you're actually free to support communism or fascism now. Besides, a political ideology that results in death and destruction is not the same as a group of people that have been oppressed for 2000 years and didn't want to take it any more.

 

By the time the oil runs out nuclear fission won't even be a good alternative. This is again another way they garner support from their people.

 

Lack of trust came when an extremist theology conquered Iran claiming to make things better and made things worse. The United States prefers a dictatorship over a theology because dealing with a theology is harder than dealing with communists or fascists or anyone else.

 

Honestly dude when a man who constantly denies the Holocaust holds a convention of people who deny the Holocaust what do you expect? It's extremely well proven that the Holocaust happens, but some psycho decides that he's going to deny it so that it justifies wanting to destroy Israel. There is no credible debate. It's like having a debate of whether smoking is bad for you.

 

How many times have we had this debate. There's no good place for them to go. You can't just up and take them out of their country. Israeli's are very nationalistic.

 

On an unrelated note doesn't Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remind you of George Bush?

[SeVeR]

Honestly dude when a man who constantly denies the Holocaust holds a convention of people who deny the Holocaust what do you expect? It's extremely well proven that the Holocaust happens, but some psycho decides that he's going to deny it so that it justifies wanting to destroy Israel. There is no credible debate. It's like having a debate of whether smoking is bad for you.

Again, its not a holocaust denial conference, i can't argue this point with you if you flat out deny to learn what its really about.

 

It's exacerbated by the state of Israel, but this is an attempt by the government of Iran to garner support by using the Jews as the scapegoat. Sound familiar?

If you believe this is true then you're calling me a Nazi. I want the illegal Zionist regime removed but i have nothing against the Jewish people as a race, as a community or as a religious en!@#$%^&*y. You interpret this as Naziism to make the Jews a scapegoat of some sort and i have no idea why. I'm not a racist and i'm not a Nazi, yet i see nothing but agreement with my views from Iran.

 

One Jewish Iranian cannot speak for the 3/4 of Jewish Iranians who have already chosen to leave for Israel.

Again, do you still believe this to be a result of persecution? If so then condemn all the other countries in the world equally. More Jews came to Israel from Russia probably than any other country and there has to alot that came from America. Were they all persecuted? What do you have to prove to me any of those Jews left Iran to escape persection, please do enlighten me. Really, your reply didn't answer me before.

 

Anti-semitism existed before in the Muslim world. It's simply gotten worse and more organized. It says Jews in Iran in their worst days were better off than back when anti-semitism was raging in Europe. Does that make it right?

Look, i told you in the last post exactly what the situation is and you completely ignored it. Iran's own religious revolutionary Ayatollah said that Jews are to be respected. Iranians are against ZIONISM, they are not Anti-Semitic, ANTI-SEMITISM IS RACISM! They are against a political en!@#$%^&*y that they view as corrupt and illegitimate, they are not racists. How often do i need to say this, Jews have a representative in the Iranian parliament, there are 25,000 Jews happily living in Iran, their own religious leaders say they are happy to live in Iran. Iranians are not racists!

 

And you believe they will suddenly drop all of their leverage? The only reason they offered it was because they thought we were about to invade.

Exactly, Iran offered all the things that America wants. So what makes you think Iran has anything to hide now that they won't give it all to America for free in response to threats?

 

How many times have we had this debate. There's no good place for them to go. You can't just up and take them out of their country. Israeli's are very nationalistic.

This is no excuse. I don't care what it takes because the whole of the Muslim world is still pissed off with Israel's existence and quite rightly so. Millions of deaths over the coming years as a result of that hatred is worth millions of people having to relocate now.

 

Lack of trust came when an extremist theology conquered Iran claiming to make things better and made things worse.

How did they make things worse Astro?

 

By the time the oil runs out nuclear fission won't even be a good alternative. This is again another way they garner support from their people.

Nuclear fission reactors are the only viable alternative as nuclear fusion won't be commercially available for at least 50 years. Even then world distribution of that technology would take even longer. For the Iranian economy to survive and prosper they need to secure their own future and sell as much oil as possible.

 

Besides, a political ideology that results in death and destruction is not the same as a group of people that have been oppressed for 2000 years and didn't want to take it any more.

What political ideology is this that results in death and destruction?

 

"Tolerated" just means they aren't killed.

What? Tolerated can mean alot of things, you seem to interpret it as meaning the only thing between a rampant horde of racists and a bunch of innocent Jews. Or it could mean what it usually means, that they actually are tolerated with no ill feelings.

 

Muslim groups always recognize Christians and Jews as protected minorities, however this doesn't stop them from treating them like heathens that they need to convert.

Show me some proof (wow i'm asking this alot today). I feel the same way when in the company of Christians. I don't take it personally and they don't splash me with holy water, we get along fine... as do the 25,000 Jews in Iran.

 

On an unrelated note doesn't Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remind you of George Bush?

They're almost a complete an!@#$%^&*hesis of eachother in policy and public opinion. Admadinejad seeks debate while Bush acts unilaterally without it and ignores Admadinejads requests for debate. Admadinejad seeks co-operation with the UN through the IAEA on the nuclear issue, while Bush acts independently of the UN invading Iraq. Their personalities are opposites and their policies are opposites i support Ahmadinejad in both cases. Unfortunately the media is all that matters as far as public opinion is concerned and the media can be controlled.

[NBVegita]

Too many long posts and reply's for me to read through.

[AstroProdigy]

OF COURSE IT'S A HOLOCAUST DENIAL CONFERENCE! WHEN YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO DENY THE HOLOCAUST MAKING A CONVENTION WHAT ELSE CAN IT BE?

 

You're not a power hungry cleric. You can't call someone a Nazi for that unless they're using it to actually gain power. I know you think it's the right thing to do and don't have a hatred of jews, but what you want to happen is just not practical in this world.

 

Why not condemn other countries in the world? They did their fair share of persecuting their Jewish minorities. That doesn't mean Iran gets to play a part in it. Attacking the Jews isn't a sovereign right of a country. By the way, the vast majority of American Jews stayed here and people who left had left for religious reasons not because they lived in a country hostile to them.

 

A theocracy is against ANYONE who isn't Shiite and even then I'm sure they hate moderates too. One representative in Parliament means they can't do anything to change politics anyway. It's more of a showing that they tolerate the Jews. The Jews are living in Iran as second class citizens. If they're happy with that then good for them. Iranians are moving towards racism when their government constantly goats them on for their own political purposes.

 

Iran won't offer us that kind of deal as long as we are unable and/or unwilling to invade.

 

The whole of the Muslim world is always pissed off. Get rid of Israel and they'll find something else to blow themselves up for. Millions of deaths? Where are these millions of deaths?

 

You know how Iran made things worse? Try taking our emb!@#$%^&*y and taking the people inside hostage.

 

Like I said. On condition that they have 100% transparency and we ship out the nuclear waste immediately then they should be allowed to have them. However we reserve the right to bomb them and cause countless deaths in the ensuing radiation poisoning if they suddenly decide to close off the power plants from outside observance. It's something I have no problem doing rather than letting them get nukes to destroy our major cities and kill off my family and friends.

 

An extremist theocracy supports death and destruction? Do I even need to explain this? An extremist theocracy can "tolerate" people, but they'll never treat them as real people unless they convert to Islam. Scratch that. Shiia Islam.

 

Look into the entire history of Islam. Christians and Jews are called protected minorities by Muslims, but this doesn't stop sporadic forced conversions and persecution.

 

We live in a secular society that's not ruled directly from the Bible. Iran lives in a theocracy that is all about religion. Try to comprehend the difference.

 

What do you have a crush on Admadinejad? He's more extreme than Bush. How can you support someone like that?

[Aileron]

I guess I'm going to split hairs here. We in the west view all Islamic extremists as violent xenophobes. If one studies their culture a little more, it depends on if the extremist is a Sunni or a Shi'ite. The Sunni extremists are xenophobes, and the Shi'ite extremists are violent and oppressive. I'm pointing out that this is as per their official beliefs. Sunnis officially believe in the Quaran and that all other cultures are wrong and indeed rational thought itself should take a back seat to a book. Shi'ites have Jihad as one of their five pillars, and while people more politically correct than myself say that Jihad could mean "personal struggle", generally the way it has been interpreted historically is "engage in war against the base of power, while trying to avoid people who have nothing to do with the base of power and could be converted, of any nation which can threaten Islam."

 

In the west, we view violence and xenophobia as going hand in hand with each other, and there is a lot of validity in that belief.

 

That is how I can best explain Iran. They don't necessarily have to be xenophobic, though they do have a need to force others to hold their mindset. I wouldn't say they are not xenophobic, it just wouldn't violate their beliefs not to be. Their form of tolerance of Jewish persons is not suprising, but Astro is right in that the only reason they are keeping them alive is so they can use social and economic forces to get them to convert later on. Their need to engage on a intellectual field is also not suprising. Shi'ites are indeed capable of rational thought in their own way. Ofcourse, one needs to remember that having intelligence doesn't imply righteousness any more than having power does.

 

The best example of a Sunni group I can think of is the Muslim Brotherhood. Which is a (relatively) non-violent group, but has no tolerance of any non-Quaranic belief and wishes to install Islamic law upon the whole world under some Caliphate. While they do have intellectuals, they don't really think for themselves, but rather with a "What does the Quaran say?" mindset.

 

All these statements are, ofcourse, general and really only describe extremist behavior anyway. They are useless in describing the individuals of these groups, though it does describe the general behavior of the total group as a whole.

[SeVeR]

OF COURSE IT'S A HOLOCAUST DENIAL CONFERENCE! WHEN YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO DENY THE HOLOCAUST MAKING A CONVENTION WHAT ELSE CAN IT BE?

It was a discussion of the holocaust where it was imperative to get the other-side of the debate to participate. What good would a discussion be if all sides agreed. Many of the conference attendees believe the holocaust happened, as do i, but they were there to submit their objections to the holocaust being used as an excuse to bear Israel. How can it be a Holocaust denial conference when not everyone agreed to deny the holocaust? It sounds to me like a great historical debate where the true racists can be separated from those who disagree with the existence of the Zionist regime. Unfortunately all attendees have since been lynched in the press, as expected, and as i would be. Putting anti-zionists into the anti-semite camp suits alot of very powerful media-moguls.

 

You're not a power hungry cleric. You can't call someone a Nazi for that unless they're using it to actually gain power.

So if i stood up on a stage and preached my anti-zionist views from a historical and logical standpoint would i then be a Nazi? I don't see Admadinjead preaching hatred for a race, a religion, a social class or a community, do you?

 

Attacking the Jews isn't a sovereign right of a country. By the way, the vast majority of American Jews stayed here and people who left had left for religious reasons not because they lived in a country hostile to them.

But there is no discernible difference between other countries and Iran for the exodus of Jews around the time of Israel's creation.

 

The Jews are living in Iran as second class citizens.

You keep saying that, prove it.

 

Iran won't offer us that kind of deal as long as we are unable and/or unwilling to invade.

The fact that is was offered in the first place should tell you they have nothing to hide on the nuclear issue.

 

The whole of the Muslim world is always pissed off. Get rid of Israel and they'll find something else to blow themselves up for. Millions of deaths? Where are these millions of deaths?

Oh sure, because Muslims love blowing themselves up right? "These deaths" are the people who are dying and will continue to die for as long as Israel exists. 60 years on they aren't getting any less pissed off about Israel and i don't blame them, i'm not going to rationalise that anger to myself by saying "they love to blow themselves up", people don't get angry to have something to be angry about.

 

You know how Iran made things worse? Try taking our emb!@#$%^&*y and taking the people inside hostage.

Oh yea, that was around the time the American's were supplying the Taliban with weapons right? I don't think events from 25 years ago have very much relevence with the views of today's politicians. I asked you how you think the current Iranian government is making things worse, so how is a 25 year old event in the slightest bit relevent?

 

However we reserve the right to bomb them and cause countless deaths in the ensuing radiation poisoning if they suddenly decide to close off the power plants from outside observance. It's something I have no problem doing rather than letting them get nukes to destroy our major cities and kill off my family and friends.

So lets see what you're saying: They have to trust us but we don't have to trust them and can kill them if we feel/decide that trust is violated. I wonder how that looks coming from their perspective.

 

An extremist theocracy supports death and destruction? Do I even need to explain this?

Yes please explain it, preferably without starting with "well they're like Nazis, so ...".

 

but they'll (Iranians) never treat them (Jews) as real people unless they convert to Islam. Scratch that. Shiia Islam.

Prove it, where is your evidence for this statement?

 

Look into the entire history of Islam. Christians and Jews are called protected minorities by Muslims, but this doesn't stop sporadic forced conversions and persecution.

And vice-versa.

 

We live in a secular society that's not ruled directly from the Bible. Iran lives in a theocracy that is all about religion. Try to comprehend the difference.

I comprehend a society thats about 500 years behind our own in terms of religious integration. Despite my objections to religion i don't see them invading other countries or massacring minorities. Compared to Christianity they're doing quite well.

 

What do you have a crush on Admadinejad? He's more extreme than Bush. How can you support someone like that?

Politicians do what they can get away with for as long as they can stay in power. Bush has gotten away with a lot due to 9/11, the only difference is he has justified it in a way that appeals to American's. What's more extreme: Invading Iraq for no reason or being anti-zionist? The media already picked one.

[Confess]

Nicely put, Astro.

[AstroProdigy]

It was a discussion of the holocaust where it was imperative to get the other-side of the debate to participate. What good would a discussion be if all sides agreed. Many of the conference attendees believe the holocaust happened' date=' as do i, but they were there to submit their objections to the holocaust being used as an excuse to bear Israel. How can it be a Holocaust denial conference when not everyone agreed to deny the holocaust? It sounds to me like a great historical debate where the true racists can be separated from those who disagree with the existence of the Zionist regime. Unfortunately all attendees have since been lynched in the press, as expected, and as i would be. Putting anti-zionists into the anti-semite camp suits alot of very powerful media-moguls.[/quote']

No it's like getting KKK members to have a conference on whether slavery is wrong. The discussion was already made and the evidence was so overwhelming that no credible person could honestly debate the other side. Sure they had a group of Jews who didn't deny the Holocaust, but strongly opposed the state of Israel's existence, but that was for a different purpose. It's not a great historical debate. It's a travesty that shows just how extreme Iran's government is. Even their people are ashamed by this. I'm worried for you. Since you support the destruction of the state of Israel you've started to take support for everything the Iranian madman says and does.

So if i stood up on a stage and preached my anti-zionist views from a historical and logical standpoint would i then be a Nazi? I don't see Admadinjead preaching hatred for a race' date=' a religion, a social class or a community, do you?[/quote']

No if you lived in Germany at that time and preached extreme things for power you'd be a Nazi. You don't need to outright say "I want to kill all the Jews" to the people to want to do it. The Nazis didn't either.

But there is no discernible difference between other countries and Iran for the exodus of Jews around the time of Israel's creation.

What's this mean?

You keep saying that' date=' prove it.[/quote']

Look at your own sources.

Oh sure' date=' because Muslims love blowing themselves up right? "These deaths" are the people who are dying and will continue to die for as long as Israel exists. 60 years on they aren't getting any less pissed off about Israel and i don't blame them' date=' i'm not going to rationalise that anger to myself by saying "they love to blow themselves up", people don't get angry to have something to be angry about.[/quote'']

Are you serious? Millions of Muslims died because of Israel? Unless there's a war where Israel kills millions of people the deaths caused by the Holocaust are leagues ahead of all the deaths caused by Israel over the whole period of the state. People who blow themselves up aren't innocent civilians. Their deaths is like military deaths and nothing more.

Oh yea' date=' that was around the time the American's were supplying the Taliban with weapons right? I don't think events from 25 years ago have very much relevence with the views of today's politicians. I asked you how you think the current Iranian government is making things worse, so how is a 25 year old event in the slightest bit relevent?[/quote']

It's the same cleric in charge and there's a big difference between constistently hostile policies over the whole period and supporting a lesser enemy to try and take down a bigger enemy and it backfiring on us. It's not like we meant for them to become an extreme terrorist nation. We just wanted to cost the Soviets a lot of money, manpower, and morale.

So lets see what you're saying: They have to trust us but we don't have to trust them and can kill them if we feel/decide that trust is violated. I wonder how that looks coming from their perspective.

No we can destroy them any time they want' date=' but they can't do anything unless they have nukes. That's why them thinking its better we attack now than give them the choice of being open or being destroyed would make no sense.

Yes please explain it' date=' preferably without starting with "well they're like Nazis, so ...".[/quote']

You of all people on this forum I would not expect to think a theocracy is a good form of government.

Prove it' date=' where is your evidence for this statement?[/quote']

Uh look at any history of Iran textbook not written by Iran? How do you think Islam works?

And vice-versa.

THAT'S THE THING! CHRISTIANS HAVE GOTTEN PAST THAT' date=' BUT MUSLIMS HAVEN'T! By the way, Jews were never the ones doing this.

I comprehend a society thats about 500 years behind our own in terms of religious integration. Despite my objections to religion i don't see them invading other countries or massacring minorities. Compared to Christianity they're doing quite well.

That's because the Christian world has set up a system that's much more of a deterrence of this than it was 500 years ago. Give them a chance and they'd do just as bad as the worst Christians have done. Kill in the name of religion and the only limit to the killing is how much you can kill.

Politicians do what they can get away with for as long as they can stay in power. Bush has gotten away with a lot due to 9/11' date=' the only difference is he has justified it in a way that appeals to American's. What's more extreme: Invading Iraq for no reason or being anti-zionist? The media already picked one.[/quote']

Give Admadinejad as much power as Bush and the deaths would be in the millions or worse.

[SeVeR]

No it's like getting KKK members to have a conference on whether slavery is wrong. The discussion was already made and the evidence was so overwhelming that no credible person could honestly debate the other side. Sure they had a group of Jews who didn't deny the Holocaust, but strongly opposed the state of Israel's existence, but that was for a different purpose. It's not a great historical debate.

You are right, people who deny the holocaust altogether have no credibility. But this was not a conference of holocaust deniers. Sure there were some people there who denied it but certainly not all did. Firstly we should all be able to debate any supposed fact we wish without being branded as a racist and/or sent to prison. I'm sure you don't get sent to prison for denying World War Two happened, you'd just get looked upon as a bit of an idiot. Thats how i look upon these people who deny the holocaust, as the evidence for it is overwhelming. Secondly, one cannot deny that the Western media has gone crazy about this conference calling it a band of racists and anti-semites, yet the conference was attended by Jews who we can assume weren't heckled, locked up or killed. The western media has flat out called this a holocaust denial conference when it was principally a discussion of how the holocaust was used to justify the creation of Israel. So i don't deny that it was attended by imbecilic anti-semites, i just dont' see anything wrong with letting them speak (to show their idiocy) and i don't see why the conference was labelled based on the views of these particular speakers. Well i do see why, it's to paint the anti-semites and anti-zionists with the same brush. This back-fired seriously on Ahmadinejad.

 

Since you support the destruction of the state of Israel you've started to take support for everything the Iranian madman says and does.

I'm just sympathetic to their situation as the latest country for America to villify in the press. I've given a clear example of how the US has lied about the Iranian nuclear capabilities. I think i've quite clearly shown how anti-zionism is being portrayed as anti-semitism. I've shown how Iran is being misrepresented in the press on countless occasions, and the conference is just the latest.

 

No if you lived in Germany at that time and preached extreme things for power you'd be a Nazi. You don't need to outright say "I want to kill all the Jews" to the people to want to do it. The Nazis didn't either.

Look, there is absolutely nothing i would have done differently concerning the Zionist situation if i was President of Iran. I might have been a little clearer to avoid misinterpretation by the kinds of people who suspect every muslim of being a terrorist and an anti-semite but otherwise the goal is the same. If you call him a Nazi for what he's said then you paint me with the same brush. I would have said it because i believed it, not to acquire power, and there's no reason to think he is doing it for power.

 

But there is no discernible difference between other countries and Iran for the exodus of Jews around the time of Israel's creation.

 

What's this mean?

It means the same thing it did when you avoided it the first time. The exodus of Jews to Israel happened in many countries around the world at the time of Israel's creation. There is no reason to suspect Jews were persecuted in any of these countries prompting this exodus. But even more so, if Iran was persecuting Jews then they still would have moved to other countries where the persecution was less or non-existent... mirroring what happened after the Nazis came to power. I don't see any reason to believe the Jews were persecuted in Iran prior to the creation of Israel, the exodus is not an argument so i'd like you to drop it or offer some evidence that they were persecuted.

 

"You keep saying that, prove it."

 

Look at your own sources.

My sources, who are Jews (including religious leaders/representatives) actually living in Iran, say they are happy to live in Iran and that the western media is lying about their situation. What are you reading? I'm asking you to prove that Jews are treated as second class citizens in Iran.

 

It's the same cleric in charge and there's a big difference between constistently hostile policies over the whole period and supporting a lesser enemy to try and take down a bigger enemy and it backfiring on us.

Wrong. The current supreme leader wasn't even the President until after the hostage crisis.

 

"The Iran hostage crisis was a hostage crisis that took place from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981"

Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the current Supreme Leader of Iran and was the president of Iran from October 1981 to August 1989. He is the supreme leader from 1989 to present." (wikipedia)

 

We just wanted to cost the Soviets a lot of money, manpower, and morale.

Fighting a proxy war... what country does that remind you of?

 

I'd say the funding of the Taliban 25 years ago, something that resulted in thousands of deaths then and may have contributed later to 9/11 given the success of the Taliban to establish government in Afghanistan... is a worse deed than kidnapping some Americans who later got released. Neither administration is in charge now. So back to the original question, how has the current Iranian government made things worse?

 

You of all people on this forum I would not expect to think a theocracy is a good form of government.

A forced democracy is a worse alternative. And who is to say the people don't want this theocracy? It appears they largely do want it right now.

 

Uh look at any history of Iran textbook not written by Iran? How do you think Islam works?

Then use your text-book and prove to me that "Iranians don't treat Jews as real people unless they convert to Shia Islam".

 

THAT'S THE THING! CHRISTIANS HAVE GOTTEN PAST THAT, BUT MUSLIMS HAVEN'T! By the way, Jews were never the ones doing this.

Muslims to some extent have gotten beyond sporadic attacks on minorities but aren't typically as far along as the West. There is no reason to say they won't get this far. Jews never had enough power in the world to attack other peoples until the last 60 years.

 

Give Admadinejad as much power as Bush and the deaths would be in the millions or worse.

Again, no proof in the pudding. I think Bush has done pretty well though... he's into what... six figures now? 3,000 of those were Americans who died in Bush's pointless Iraq war. After 9/11 no-one wanted it repeated, but Bush has made it happen with almost the same number of American deaths in Iraq coupled with maybe 100,000 Iraqis and all for the purposes of stopping a dictator with no WMD's, turning a country into a tribal war-zone that has destablised the Middle East, and significantly multiplying the number of terrorists who want to make another 9/11 happen. Whether its stupidity or extremity i don't think its been paralled by many since WW2.

[Aileron]

No, not every idiot opinion should be debated Sever. Yes, one side will only prove themselves to be idiots, but the world's time and energy is finite. Why waste time denying the holocaust when somebody could actually accomplish something with that much egghead-time?

 

Well, first off they took some of our citizens as hostages, so they shouldn't expect us to like them for it and shouldn't expect our press to be nice to them. However, they are villified because for all intensive purposes they are villians. Their goal is to unite the world under Islamic law, and with that goal comes Jihads and Mihnas.

 

The President of Iran is saying those things for power, because if you hadn't noticed the democratic presidency in Iran takes a back seat to the theocratic leadership. The president is saying those things for a thumbs up from the clerics. That doesn't make Ahmenijad the main evil that needs to be dealt with, but that does mean that the actual, not the official, Iranian government is structured in such a way as to promote war.

 

Bush destablized the Middle East? That's like saying he melted steam or made Antartica cold. He reduced Iraq to tribal violence? It was tribal violence before. The way Saddam "solved" the tribal violence is by being a very powerfull Sunni chief and by giving badges to the Sunni thugs. Thus when a Shi'ite tribe attacked a Sunni tribe Hussein would call it "terrorism" and when a Sunni tribe attacked a Shi'ite tribe it was called a "crackdown."

 

 

As for why forced democracy would be better than theocracy, your model would only work if Iran were an island that would never develop technology to leave said island. Reality is though that globalization is happening, and regional problems are becoming global problems. The cause of terrorism is simply middle eastern culture. The fact that in our modern world that middle eastern politics is spilling over unto western cities is because of gloablization. Unlike the soviets they have a stable culture, and merely introducing democratic thought to them will not cause them to change their ways. They would declare some kind of Jihad before they would adopt a government that isn't at odds with the world.

 

 

But really, the reason you can tolerate a Muslim theocracy but stand for the strict removal of anything Christian in our culture is because you hate Christianity, and that the reason you hate Christianity is essentially because you watch too much TV and that our corporate culture tells you to hate Christianity, and they do that because good Christians don't buy in excess and non-religious persons will buy any product that caters to any indulgance their hormones can come up with. For what other reason would we have huge Christmas festivals and marketing while people forbid manger scenes to be shown on public property? Why celebrate a religious holiday on such a wide scale but then ignore and hide the reason said holiday is celebrated? That way consumers have huge impetus to buy lots of expensive gifts but no religious symbol around that might cause them to realize they really don't need that crap they are buying and really should be making an effort to get involved in their community.

 

Muslims were worse than Christians in every time period. The Christians had Crusades which spanned a few decades over a country they eventually gave up on, and by the way they did have many positive side effects which caused a lot of cultural enrichment and scientific advancement, hence why we use arabic numerals today. The Muslims had Jihads in which they continue to this day to attack anyone who isn't of their own faith, a fight which had no positive side effects. The Christians had one Spanish king who made an Inquisition in one relatively small penninsula. The Muslims had a Caliph who ordered a Mihna in effect from Persia to Africa. You say Christians "held back" science, a point I continue to disagree with. Muslims stopped their golden age of science after two generations, and haven't made a single scientific step foward since then.

 

 

And really, would you rather live under the rule of an all-powerfull Caliph who rules undesputedly in both secular and religious matters, or would you rather live in a flawed democracy, that may not give you your full vote's worth but atleast will partially listen to your opinion? Half a vote is better than no vote, and lopsided balance is better than all power in one man.

[SeVeR]

But really, the reason you can tolerate a Muslim theocracy but stand for the strict removal of anything Christian in our culture is because you hate Christianity, and that the reason you hate Christianity is essentially because you watch too much TV and that our corporate culture tells you to hate Christianity

I currently do not own a TV....

 

The things you say to rationalise your viewpoint never ceases to amaze me. You go far and beyond logical deduction to ascribe certainty to things based on pre-conceived categorisations that are little more than !@#$%^&*umptions.

 

I want the removal of all religious symbolism from our culture, not only Christian, so why would that be down to the TV i don't have?

 

Muslims were worse than Christians in every time period. The Christians had Crusades which spanned a few decades over a country they eventually gave up on, and by the way they did have many positive side effects which caused a lot of cultural enrichment and scientific advancement, hence why we use arabic numerals today. The Muslims had Jihads in which they continue to this day to attack anyone who isn't of their own faith, a fight which had no positive side effects. The Christians had one Spanish king who made an Inquisition in one relatively small penninsula. The Muslims had a Caliph who ordered a Mihna in effect from Persia to Africa. You say Christians "held back" science, a point I continue to disagree with. Muslims stopped their golden age of science after two generations, and haven't made a single scientific step foward since then.

All religions hold back science, including Islam. Christianity is the most guilty party because Europe had the wealth to educate its people and instead used it to supress scientific endevour through religious oppression.

 

And really, would you rather live under the rule of an all-powerfull Caliph who rules undesputedly in both secular and religious matters, or would you rather live in a flawed democracy, that may not give you your full vote's worth but atleast will partially listen to your opinion?

An important question. I would rather live under a dictatorship if i agreed with that method of government and supported their policies. I would rather live in that way if i viewed democracies as corrupt based on America's example. I would rather live in that way if I was apart of Islam. The democracy of the Middle East is a dictatorship, don't you see, they want it!

 

I would call dictatorship the end-point of Christianity aswell wouldn't you?

 

The cause of terrorism is simply middle eastern culture.

Again you blame Islam for its own anger. They're not angry just because it's "in their nature". They're angry because of Israel's existence and America's invasions. Is that too difficult to believe?

 

They would declare some kind of Jihad before they would adopt a government that isn't at odds with the world.

On the !@#$%^&*umption our political system is perfect?

 

Bush destablized the Middle East? That's like saying he melted steam or made Antartica cold. He reduced Iraq to tribal violence? It was tribal violence before. The way Saddam "solved" the tribal violence is by being a very powerfull Sunni chief and by giving badges to the Sunni thugs. Thus when a Shi'ite tribe attacked a Sunni tribe Hussein would call it "terrorism" and when a Sunni tribe attacked a Shi'ite tribe it was called a "crackdown."

Saddam kept control, America hasn't. Bush destablised an Iraq that had been stabilised by oppression, he gave them the freedom to kill each-other which is quite possibly the only thing worse than oppression.

 

The President of Iran is saying those things for power

!@#$%^&*umption. Proof?

The president is saying those things for a thumbs up from the clerics.

!@#$%^&*umption. Proof?

the actual, not the official, Iranian government is structured in such a way as to promote war.

!@#$%^&*umption. Proof?

 

Again, you're making !@#$%^&*umptions to rationalise your point of view. If the president of Iran is an anti-zionist then wouldn't he be saying those things because he BELIEVES those things? That alone makes the other two !@#$%^&*umptions redundant.

 

No, not every idiot opinion should be debated Sever. Yes, one side will only prove themselves to be idiots, but the world's time and energy is finite.

I'm sorry, "the worlds time"? Was this debated at the UN headquarters or in Tehran? Yes, not every idiot opinion should be debated and i don't believe i said it should. I said it should be tolerated, i don't expect anyone to listen or anyone to give a !@#$%^&*. That kind of debate from some percentage of delegates doesn't make it a conference of anti-semites. It was an anti-zionist conference and i'm not surprised they've been portrayed as anti-semites.

[AstroProdigy]

Aileron i was with ya up to where you started talking about Christianity.

 

Our political system is far from perfect, but it's so vastly superior to Iran's I don't see how you even compare them.

 

America is corrupt. Bush is corrupt. Bush is not America. The Republicans were peacefully voted out of power in Congress for their corruption. Corruption in Iran is solved by calling for the destruction of Israel to hide the policies in Iran and political opposition is swiftly dealt with. That's why a democracy is so vastly superior to a theocracy. Imagine Christianity during the Dark Ages when democracy didn't exist and people were happy with their religiously empowered dictators. Do you want the Christian world to be like that? Would you be happy there? There's no excuse for a dictatorship. NEVER. It's a flawed system based to serve the people in power only. The Muslim World will never be at peace until they become secular Democracies. Look how much better it's been for Europe and the Americas. How could an existentialist atheist like yourself possibly support something that's the opposite of what you believe in? Is the destruction of the state of Israel THAT important to you?

 

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and many thousands of Shiites. You tell them that it was better having an all powerful dictator who massacres them when they try to voice their opinions or have a voice for their own people. If it was me I'd rather die with a gun to another guy with a gun than have a squadrant of people massacre me with machine gun fire while I'm helpless. Besides that, we could have created a stable Iraq, but Bush was never the one to do it. A change in leadership might just salvage the situation if we can get one in time.

 

Dictatorship is never a democracy. You trying to justify it so you can be on the same boat for the "go destroy Israel!" side doesn't make it so.

 

Muslims are angry because they used to be on top and more powerful than the Christians during their Dark Ages and then went into their own Dark Ages for a millennia and suddenly Christians were vastly superior in military, economic, and political strength. Israel and American invasions are simply added fire to an already existing movement. The movement doesn't stop until Islam dominates or the movement is abandoned by enough people. Giving in is a victory to the movement and will only further accelerate it.

 

A politician saying extreme things for power? Common sense. The president of a country where the president has no real power other than his words trying to impress the people with real power? Common sense. An extremist theology is structured to promote war with groups of different religions? Common sense. I mean gees for someone who wants tough treatment on Israel for what they did you sure do want to appease Iran for anything. I'm shocked someone like you would ignore the reality of the President of Iran just because he supports the destruction of the state of Israel. You seem like someone who thinks things through, but your weakness is supporting anyone who opposes Israel. The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

 

The fuel given to anti semites using the conference's future "impartial" decision that the Holocaust was overblown will be problematic enough. When you deny a Holocaust enough people will start to believe you. I mean look how well Turkey has made it seem like the Armenian genocide is up for debate. I bet all the delegates with exception of the token Jewish delegates there to show a small minority of actual Jews who support the dismantling of the state of Israel think the Holocaust was a myth and people who call the Holocaust a myth ARE anti-semites. They refute irrefutable evidence because their hatred of Jews is so strong that they can't possibly fathom the people they think of as devils being victims. Enough proof right there that it's an anti-semitic conference.

[SeVeR]

Imagine Christianity during the Dark Ages when democracy didn't exist and people were happy with their religiously empowered dictators. Do you want the Christian world to be like that? Would you be happy there? There's no excuse for a dictatorship. NEVER.

Should we blame them and fight them down only to their level of development? In a couple of centuries they'll likely be where we are at now.

 

How could an existentialist atheist like yourself possibly support something that's the opposite of what you believe in? Is the destruction of the state of Israel THAT important to you?

Two good questions. I don't support Islam as a religion or as a political system for government. I just happen to see America and Britain as the wrongdoers in this case. I would very much like to see Iran move away from Islamic rule, that doesn't mean i don't agree with them on certain issues. The peaceful dissolution of Israel is important to me as i see Israels existence as one of the two sources of continued discontent from Muslims along with the occupation of Iraq. I dont' want to appease Muslims because i believe they are justified in their anger. Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia even though he knew Hitler had no right to it, that was appeasement.

 

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and many thousands of Shiites. You tell them that it was better having an all powerful dictator who massacres them when they try to voice their opinions or have a voice for their own people. If it was me I'd rather die with a gun to another guy with a gun than have a squadrant of people massacre me with machine gun fire while I'm helpless. Besides that, we could have created a stable Iraq, but Bush was never the one to do it. A change in leadership might just salvage the situation if we can get one in time.

Saddam was a product of Islamic culture and should be dealt with by Muslims alone. What does the political philosophy of pre-modern Western civilisation tell you about toppling a powerful ruler who is keeping warring tribes under his controlling rule? The power vacuum is filled by all the groups who were not powerful enough to claim that power by themselves. The winner is the strongest and peace follows. The problem is America won't let anyone win. The conflict could go on forever as America have shown they are incapable of controlling Iraq.

 

A change in leadership might just salvage the situation if we can get one in time.

1. American election candidates all have the same agenda. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

2. The American military cannot control the warring tribes in Iraq, too many people have died for them to go back and say "time for peace now". You have to let them fight it out until someone wins, the war is lost and all we can do is await the next Saddam or stay in Iraq forever.

 

Dictatorship is never a democracy. You trying to justify it so you can be on the same boat for the "go destroy Israel!" side doesn't make it so.

But what if the democratic decision is for a dictatorship?

 

Muslims are angry because they used to be on top and more powerful than the Christians during their Dark Ages and then went into their own Dark Ages for a millennia and suddenly Christians were vastly superior in military, economic, and political strength.

Where is your evidence for this statement? I don't think the Islamic world was ever superior unless you count the 500 years between the end of the Roman empire and the Crusades. Even in that time i don't see it. Its not like the Muslim world went on their own little Crusade to France and Britain either. Serously though, you believe Muslims are angry over a history that they probably haven't even learnt rather than the recent creation of Israel, the war in Iraq, and the deaths of their friends and families from American and Israeli bombs? I have a hard time believing that.

 

A politician saying extreme things for power? Common sense. The president of a country where the president has no real power other than his words trying to impress the people with real power? Common sense. An extremist theology is structured to promote war with groups of different religions? Common sense.

Their is ample evidence to suggest the Iranian President is an anti-zionist, would you agree? If this is the case then power and the support of religious leaders are a byproduct of his opinion! Would you agree? ...In fact he was probably put up for election for his opinions...

 

The promotion of war in my opinion is a promotion of peace since Israel and America are the invaders. There are no killings of the large Jewish population in Iran, obviously the people of Iran aren't being incited to racial hatred. They're being incited to hate Israel, not Judaism. Anti-semites are not the same as Anti-Zionists.

 

but your weakness is supporting anyone who opposes Israel. The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

Maybe so, but i don't agree with denying the holocaust, dictatorships, oppressing your people, controlling the media etc. I do agree with them on the nuclear issue and the Anti-Zionism and i commend them for making the distinction between Judaism and Zionism, thousands of Jews could have been massacred otherwise. Obviously the people of Iran understand that distinction and its probably thanks to their supreme leader who told his people to respect Jews giving them a place in the Iranian parliament.

 

people who call the Holocaust a myth ARE anti-semites.

Not true, it shows the other side of the argument. We are to conclude from that whether they're idiots or not (and i think they are) but anything beyond that is speculation.

[AstroProdigy]

Should we blame them and fight them down only to their level of development? In a couple of centuries they'll likely be where we are at now.

Who's to say? Europe already disrupted the natural order of things. What if it takes them a milennia to start moving away from religion? Will that be long enough to plunge the world into ignorance?

 

Two good questions. I don't support Islam as a religion or as a political system for government. I just happen to see America and Britain as the wrongdoers in this case. I would very much like to see Iran move away from Islamic rule, that doesn't mean i don't agree with them on certain issues. The peaceful dissolution of Israel is important to me as i see Israels existence as one of the two sources of continued discontent from Muslims along with the occupation of Iraq. I dont' want to appease Muslims because i believe they are justified in their anger. Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia even though he knew Hitler had no right to it, that was appeasement.

A very reasonable opinion to start with. The second point that there are only 2 sources of discontent I think is just wrong. Israel is in my opinion a catalyst to an already existing movement. Do you really think there is this big an uproar and movement to extremism just because of Israel? The occupation of Iraq started a few years ago. The movement was already well on its way before that. Again Iraq is just a catalyst to an already existing movement. Muslims will only hail a pullout of Iraq and the dissolution of Israel as a victory for Islam and it would only be a rallying point for extremists. That doesn't sound justified to me. Hitler used the inclusion of Germans in Sudetenland with greater Germany, a seemingly justified desire and used it to go further and take all of Czechoslovakia. Muslims are outraged that lands held by Muslims are taken back by other groups, but where does this stop? Do you want to hand over the Balkans, the Iberian peninsula, and India too because they were Muslim held lands? That is appeasement and it only leads to wanting more and more.

 

Saddam was a product of Islamic culture and should be dealt with by Muslims alone. What does the political philosophy of pre-modern Western civilisation tell you about toppling a powerful ruler who is keeping warring tribes under his controlling rule? The power vacuum is filled by all the groups who were not powerful enough to claim that power by themselves. The winner is the strongest and peace follows. The problem is America won't let anyone win. The conflict could go on forever as America have shown they are incapable of controlling Iraq.

The power vacuum is filled at what cost? Do you think the Kurds will accept new oppressors? Is that fair to them? The problem is the war wouldn't stop in Iraq. It would pull all the regions around it into war too. It's not just "warring tribes" it's real ethnic and religious divisions that carry over to Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran because of country divisions that match neither ethnic nor religious divisions. The winner will probably commit attrocities on the scale of genocide.

 

1. American election candidates all have the same agenda. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

2. The American military cannot control the warring tribes in Iraq, too many people have died for them to go back and say "time for peace now". You have to let them fight it out until someone wins, the war is lost and all we can do is await the next Saddam or stay in Iraq forever.

Some politicians can do good while some are hopeless. The point is the world hates Bush and a change in leadership would automatically aid the situation. It's not simple warring tribes in Iraq. It's divided 3 ways not hundreds of ways. The problem with letting them fight it out until someone wins is the losers will hate America for it. People will also blaim us for letting the next Saddam take over. Face it we have to make up for the mistakes of this administration. It's not a Vietnam where one strong legitimate side wins and peace is automatically restored. It's a bloodfest that could plunge the world into chaos. It's a very delicate situation.

 

But what if the democratic decision is for a dictatorship?

What if Americans vote for Bush as a dictator? People can be pressured into supporting a dictatorship if they feel democracy has failed. It's much easier to give up and let a tyrant take over, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Where is your evidence for this statement? I don't think the Islamic world was ever superior unless you count the 500 years between the end of the Roman empire and the Crusades. Even in that time i don't see it. Its not like the Muslim world went on their own little Crusade to France and Britain either. Serously though, you believe Muslims are angry over a history that they probably haven't even learnt rather than the recent creation of Israel, the war in Iraq, and the deaths of their friends and families from American and Israeli bombs? I have a hard time believing that.

Common sense buddy. The Islamic world used to hold a lot of power. The Muslim world did go on a crusade of France after going on a crusade of Spain and they were pushed back. It's a general movement that's the problem, not the individuals. They are angry over Israel, but giving into their demands over Israel will only make them have more demands. The majority of Muslims who hate us have never been hit by American and Israeli bombs. You act like we commit genocide. They kill themselves much better than we could kill them.

 

Their is ample evidence to suggest the Iranian President is an anti-zionist, would you agree? If this is the case then power and the support of religious leaders are a byproduct of his opinion! Would you agree? ...In fact he was probably put up for election for his opinions...

 

The promotion of war in my opinion is a promotion of peace since Israel and America are the invaders. There are no killings of the large Jewish population in Iran, obviously the people of Iran aren't being incited to racial hatred. They're being incited to hate Israel, not Judaism. Anti-semites are not the same as Anti-Zionists.

Ok then let's let Bush turn America into a theocracy k? I mean he was put up for election for his conservative opinions. Israel was being invaded so they fought back and won pretty efficiently I might add. Why would Iran kill it's Jews? Do you think they want to give Israel a perfect excuse to overrun them with their superior military capabilities? Uh racial hatred still goes on in Iran it's just you found 1 article about some guy who said it wasn't happening to him even though he admitted they're treated as second class citizens. Zionism is !@#$%^&*ociated with Judaism and by proxy people naturally become anti-semites. This isn't some impartial intellectual here; it's a politician who keeps his job by being extreme.

 

The promotion of war is just that; the promotion of war no matter how hard you try to sugar coat it.

 

Maybe so, but i don't agree with denying the holocaust, dictatorships, oppressing your people, controlling the media etc. I do agree with them on the nuclear issue and the Anti-Zionism and i commend them for making the distinction between Judaism and Zionism, thousands of Jews could have been massacred otherwise. Obviously the people of Iran understand that distinction and its probably thanks to their supreme leader who told his people to respect Jews giving them a place in the Iranian parliament.

Yet you support Iran aggressively despite all these things. Thousands of Jews could have been massacred resulting in the toppling of Iran's government. It's much easier to oppress them and let emigration do the job for you. If you look at the history of Islam they often disagree with killing Jews and Christians because they are so called "people of the book". It doesn't stop oppression from occuring over the years anyway. That's why Christianity and Judaism has declined in the Muslim World. One seat in the Iranian parliament is a show. It has no actual significance. It's as if we had put a permanent Native American congressman and continued to take their land regardless. It would mean nothing then no wouldn't it? Why are you fixated on "show" tolerance and equate it to real tolerance?

 

Not true, it shows the other side of the argument. We are to conclude from that whether they're idiots or not (and i think they are) but anything beyond that is speculation.

Turkey denies the Armenian genocide because they want to do whatever they want to Armenia. If they actually admitted it they'd have to see the truth of what Armenians went through and that they deserve at least something for all their suffering. Iran is taking a lesson from Turkey and denying the Holocaust to justify the Jews having nothing again.

[Aileron]

I actually tried to pull a trick a few posts back when discussing religion. Actually, the golden age of scientific and cultural advancement occurred because of the Mihna. Basically its like what Peter the Great did to Russia. Sure he was brutal and authoritarian, but by being so he really caused Russia to advance. The Mihna under Al Mamu'n was similar. My opinion that the Christian inquisition was similar.

 

 

 

SeVeR, you just simply have no comprehension of what real political power is. Not the kind where vote for you and you do what they say, but the kind where you controll the people and tell them what to do. The people in charge of Iran have such power but have concealed it to make a diplomatic face, so instead they speak through the mouths of some elected puppets.

[SeVeR]

Aileron, i am well aware that Iran is more of a dictatorship than a democracy. I disagree with this method of government and i disagree with Islamic law and its role in the Iranian government. However i believe that if the people of Iran took a vote they would democratically decide to live under the Supreme Ruler of Iran in an Islamic Dictatorship, therefore i am happy to let them live with what i think they would choose.

 

None of this makes Iran wrong and Israel right. None of this means Iran is lying about producing civilian-only nuclear power.

 

Brutal and authoritarian governments (such as that in Russia not only under Peter the Great but under Stalin) with a scientific direction will accomplish alot for science. That has nothing to do with religion. There is nothing scientific in the teachings of the Koran or the Bible therefore attention is diverted away from science under a religiously authoritarian regime. Sometimes a religious regime will embrace science but only within the limits of the religion. For example Bush's regime holds back science in the area of stem-cells for no real reason other than it being a religious belief; without the religious belief we could be on the way to curing cancer (if i were that optimistic). I expect a balance of positive and negative between authoritarianism(+) and religion(-) within the religous regimes you speak about. However authoritarian regimes are not required to further science, an abandonment of religion is all that is required. I would rather give up religion for the furtherment of science than live with no rights.

 

Astro, i will get to your post when i have some time at the weekend.

[NBVegita]

It's more of a moral belief, stemming from religion. No where in the bible does it say you "shalt not study discarded embryoes"

 

And I don't think its really that much of a religious debate either. I think its a matter of some people just think working with such things are plain wrong. Its just their beliefs. I don't personally have a problem with it, but then I don't have a problem with abortion either.

[11___________]

omfg stop quoting 3 pages. just say u quoted.

[Yoink]

Does anyone else find it completely ludicrous that Sever posted "the truth" from one news source? Sorry Sever, if you think the BBC is uber-neutral because it's not headquartered in the Americas, well, you need to re-think some things.

 

Not necessarily saying that these particular articles are bull!@#$%^&* though. Just kind of pointing it out.

[AstroProdigy]

I find that Europeans try so hard to be politically correct and present both sides of the issue that they end up having to support sides that are EASILY wrong. They also feel guilty about the whole oppressing the world thing so they sympathize with former colonies with people willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up to get their message across.

[Aileron]

Though the correct point he made basically involves the fact that Persians are not Arabs. Point being, the Iranians aren't actually blowing themselves up, they've graduated to giving explosives to other fools so that they can blow themselves up. Throughout history Persia has functioned as the brains behind the Arab world.

 

For instance, right now I'm trying to do a project about Arabic contributions to Mathematics, but most of my research sources so far broadened the topic from the Arabic world to the "Muslim world" and then proceeded to cite the work of Persians.

 

Really, there are two sources of Islamic terrorism. There are Arabic/Sunni terrorists such as Al Queda who get their support in the western middle east from the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Persian/Shi'ite terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah who get their support from Iran.

 

What that article tries to point out is that these groups don't like each other, and to be honest other than to attack Israel and try to help their lackies to win in Iraq, the Iranian faction hasn't done that much to the west, and that we could withdraw from said fronts and make a truce with that faction.

 

Where that article fails is that while the Arabics don't like the Persians and vice versa, both groups dislike modernization far more than each other. The Arabic fanatics would rather live under a Persian caliphate than have to live under a rational democracy. If both ourselves and the persians focused on the arabs, eventually the arabs would be weakened and would fold into the Persian's ranks. The Persian fanatics would then proceed in their attempts to remake the Abbasid Caliphate, and true democracy in the Middle East would not be possible for a very long time.

 

Our goal is Democracy and Modernization in the Middle East, not peace. We tried to go for peace before, but without democracy, peace can be disrupted by whim of a madman. If our goal was peace, then indeed the shortest path to it would be to let the Iranians take over. However, since our goal is to promote democracy, we must engage both factions equally. Ideally, we want these groups fighting each other while we promote stablization in areas where it can grow.

 

Our problem right now is that we care about the violence that's going on in Iraq when we shouldn't. Iraq has been disasterously successful. If civil war does break out, the Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood will bankrupt their budget supporting their sides, and when the dust settles we'll move in again in force. Really, we should focus on Afghanistan.

 

That is the reason Bush "stayed the course" for so long. With the way things were before, discompationately, if civil war did not break out, we would win and if civil war did break out we would pull out, watch them duke it out, and move back in again and win.

 

However, Bush's opponants somehow convinced people that this war wasn't fanatics vs. fanatics, and that we for some reason should care when Shi'ite and Sunni kill each other. For a while there was a lull in violence (relatively) because Iran was investing in Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood was investing the Somolia, so it didn't seem like they wanted to fight over Iraq for a while. Now the UN has stopped Hezbollah, Hamas is starting to negotiate and Ethiopia helped Somolia kick out the fanatics. So now, the only front for both sides is in Iraq. That is, except that there is an Arab vs. West front in Afghanistan.

 

We should focus on Afghanistan, not worry about Iraq too much, not let Iran get nukes, and if in the future we are presented with an opportunity to take down either the Muslim Brotherhood or Iran we should probably take it.