Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Yeah, I'm a believer. It doesn't take Ahmadinejad to realize it, but Simon's comments are relevant.
There is evil in world. Recognize it, instead of ignoring it. There are bad actors, and they want to do bad things. It isn't a morally relativistic position, but it is nice when people point out the blindingly obvious every now and then.
Yeah, I'm a believer. It doesn't take Ahmadinejad to realize it, but Simon's comments are relevant.
There is evil in world. Recognize it, instead of ignoring it. There are bad actors, and they want to do bad things. It isn't a morally relativistic position, but it is nice when people point out the blindingly obvious every now and then.
I can't see the vieo either. I assume Simon is saying he is a believer that dinnerjacket is evil?
Can't watch the video at work; no sound driver on my system.
What does he say?
He went to Geneva for Durban II and was in the same hotel as the poison dwarf. Meeting him made Simon reflect on his beliefs about evil. In brief, he felt that for the first time, he had seen a purely evil person, an evil which he felt was qualitatively different from that, say, of Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson. He felt that in the face of such evil, there had to be a force for good. It made him reflect on his Jewish upbringing.
"Being in the presence of Ahmadinejad's evil, fleetingly and haltingly put me in the presence of something else."
He went to Geneva for Durban II and was in the same hotel as the poison dwarf. Meeting him made Simon reflect on his beliefs about evil. In brief, he felt that for the first time, he had seen a purely evil person, an evil which he felt was qualitatively different from that, say, of Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson. He felt that in the face of such evil, there had to be a force for good. It made him reflect on his Jewish upbringing.
"Being in the presence of Ahmadinejad's evil, fleetingly and haltingly put me in the presence of something else."
The thot - This is the guy my president wants to meet - gave him pause as well.
He went to Geneva for Durban II and was in the same hotel as the poison dwarf. Meeting him made Simon reflect on his beliefs about evil. In brief, he felt that for the first time, he had seen a purely evil person, an evil which he felt was qualitatively different from that, say, of Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson. He felt that in the face of such evil, there had to be a force for good. It made him reflect on his Jewish upbringing.
"Being in the presence of Ahmadinejad's evil, fleetingly and haltingly put me in the presence of something else."
Ahmadinejad's evil oozes from even a photograph or video of him. I can only imagine how overpowering the stench of sulfur must be in person.
Summarizing: Encountering Ahmadinejad in Geneva made the hair stand up on agnostic Simon's neck. He describes encountering pure evil, something akin to Hitler. He states that it has changed him, and that he now believes in evil-- and in good.
Charles may have had a similar experience as a consequence of 9/11. I can say that 9/11 changed me forever.
dang, I installed the flash player v.10 on this computer and still can't get the darn video to play. I rebooted and looked at add/remove programs and it's there but the video still doesn't play. oh well, I'll just have to take your word on that OLT.
That was certainly entertaining and I learned more about Roger L. Simon then I did about myself. One need not be a believer as Simon concludes to believe that Ahmadinejad is an embodiment of evil which is my own personal conclusion based on my own experience.
Meeting the evil who would cause a holocaust if he could makes him a believer, yet the holocaust makes him a non-believer.
The holocaust makes him a non-believer. Then he meets evil, Ahmadinejad, the man who seeks a holocaust, and again he believes (maybe). That's not faith in God, just evidence of evil.
Your usual excellent analysis. A Roman Catholic would say that reason supports moral good, and moral good supports reason. That why the Pope's speech several months ago drove many Muslims crazy. Some teachings of Islam have been interpreted to separate G-d and reason.
The holocaust makes him a non-believer. Then he meets evil, Ahmadinejad, the man who seeks a holocaust, and again he believes (maybe). That's not faith in God, just evidence of evil.
Pakistan, a country whose stability has been questioned of late, is building two large plutonium reactors unconnected to the electricity grid. Most experts think the Pakistanis are radically increasing their nuclear warhead production capacity. The question is why and what that development portends.
Interesting. I'm still atheist - and yes I've had some gut churning encounters with people I still consider to be purely evil, not on the scale of A'Jad, but granted power they surely would be.
Evil doesn't take a god to create - it always takes a human.
There is evil in this world, true enough. It resides in all all hearts--it is ingrained in our nature. Why else are we admonished to be good--goodness does not come naturally. Why else did Lincoln hope that the country would listen to the better angels of our nature when facing the daunting task of reconstruction. Shakespeare knew this when he wrote in Julius Caesar (not Bab's Streisand's version) "the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves (Act I, scene ii, ll.140-141)
The evil Roger saw was the ability of one man to exploit the base emotions of millions and to channel that energy to a malevolent purpose.
"Do you believe there is evil in the world?" This was asked of me by a couple 7th Day Adventists (iirc) who knocked on my door, Monday Sep 10, 2001.
I answered pretty much as a liberal would -- that there's injustice, poverty, blah blah. I was so wrong. I'd all but forgotten a couple books I'd read about 1964, which I then promptly burned. One was Mein Kampf.
Palestinian Authority representative in Lebanon Abbas Zaki says the two-state solution is his preferred approach, as it will lead to Israel’s collapse.
Speaking with Lebanese ANB Television on May 7, Zaki said that any ceasefire, or hudna, deal with Israel is not desirable. Instead, the long-time PLO member said, “we must go towards the two-state solution, a solution that even [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmedinajad supports.”
“In my opinion,” Zaki explained, “with such a solution, Israel will collapse. Because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will be left of all their [the Jews’] talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen Nation? What will be with all the sacrifices they gave and then they are told to leave?”
This should be required reading of anyone who is pushing Israel into a "two state solution".
wow, they have 60 to 80 nukes already? I didn't know it was that many, no wonder there is so much concern about one of them falling into the wrong hands. And now they want to build more and improve them too? holy shit it's worse than I thought.
They're obviously for "scientific research". This is the reason the Iraqis gave for the development of the Orisak reactor that was subsequently bombed by the IAF in 1981.
Interesting. I'm still atheist - and yes I've had some gut churning encounters with people I still consider to be purely evil, not on the scale of A'Jad, but granted power they surely would be.
Evil doesn't take a god to create - it always takes a human.
Most agreed. Evil exists, whether one believes in a god or not. Sad to say though, the ability to commit evil acts exists within each and every one of us.
I agree. The capacity for good or evil resides in every person. It is that struggle that defines our moral lives.
In Judaism, the metaphor is Jacob wrestling with the angel, after which he is renamed "Israel", or "He wrestles with G-d." "Yisrael comes from the same root word as "jihad", a holy struggle.
Libya's representatives at the United Nations Security Council presented a resolution draft proposal Wednesday which included a series of severe condemnations of Israel in the wake of Operation Cast Lead
"My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of enlightenment vaunted, that the devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist!"
They're obviously for "scientific research". This is the reason the Iraqis gave for the development of the Orisak reactor that was subsequently bombed by the IAF in 1981.
I don't think they were counting on that "visiting" professor from Israel?
While I have no trouble seeing Ahmanidjit as evil, it's difficult for me to believe that Cohen would have the same reaction upon meeting the little creep as a busboy, let's say. As young Jakob Dylan sings, "evil is alive and well."
I agree. The capacity for good or evil resides in every person. It is that struggle that defines our moral lives.
In Judaism, the metaphor is Jacob wrestling with the angel, after which he is renamed "Israel", or "He wrestles with G-d." "Yisrael comes from the same root word as "jihad", a holy struggle.
Without speaking for a two-state solution, which I don't see happening, what other bloody options are still left on the table?
Having Jordan accept its role it was supposed to take in 1947-8, as the Palestinian state.
However, if you read the article, it is clear that he was referring to the idea that Israel would go back to 1967 borders, which is what the Arabs insist on.
Interesting. I'm still atheist - and yes I've had some gut churning encounters with people I still consider to be purely evil, not on the scale of A'Jad, but granted power they surely would be.
Evil doesn't take a god to create - it always takes a human.
God didn't create evil...he allowed free will and evil was invented by morally free beings... Ah you know that.
Most agreed. Evil exists, whether one believes in a god or not. Sad to say though, the ability to commit evil acts exists within each and every one of us.
I think Roger might describe evil as a bit more than a character flaw. Very evil men often have great charisma that allows otherwise decent people to follow them to the end.
While I have no trouble seeing Ahmanidjit as evil, it's difficult for me to believe that Cohen would have the same reaction upon meeting the little creep as a busboy, let's say. As young Jakob Dylan sings, "evil is alive and well."
There are evil people who have limited power. Lots of evil people simply act out their evil on their families, their coworkers, people who cross their paths.
Those who achieve power are more dangerous to more people, and more obvious.
A rather good book on this is People of the Lie by Scott Peck. He talks about encountering people in his therapy practice who he comes to believe are simply evil. He comes to it from a Christian perspective, but I think it's universally accessible. A bit pop-ish, but good.
Excellent find however...
Hard to fathom that after all he's seen..he needed this to "come to believe"..at which point he makes sure to say he may not be spending much time in a synagogue after all..
Too bad.
Missed opportunity if ya ask me..
Hmmm.
There are evil people who have limited power. Lots of evil people simply act out their evil on their families, their coworkers, people who cross their paths.
Those who achieve power are more dangerous to more people, and more obvious.
A rather good book on this is People of the Lie by Scott Peck. He talks about encountering people in his therapy practice who he comes to believe are simply evil. He comes to it from a Christian perspective, but I think it's universally accessible. A bit pop-ish, but good.
No argument here. I meant, it's easier to recognize evil when it is out in the open, identified by its words and actions. If he had have encountered dinnerjacket thirty years ago, would it have been as obvious?
CS Lewis said that if you remove the teaching of morality from modern education, all you get is a clever devil.
In The Screwtape Letters he has the devil saying that his biggest victory was convincing people he didn't exist. I don't know when CB said it. Maybe first. I haven't read him.
I used to be all embarrassed about justifying Israel's existence by saying "G-d gave the Land of Israel to the Jews." I was a nice, rational sort; I would argue history (prior existence of an independent Jewish state, continuous presence in the Land), justice (past oppression), transactions (purchase of the land, "international law"), right of conquest.
Then one day I realized that while all those are nice, the Western world was giving full credence to the Islamic religious view--that any land once Muslim was Muslim forever, that the Muslims had the right to rule just because, that they had the right, if they wanted, to make the land judenrein.
And so I said--"WTF? Why should the Islamic religious view take precedence over the Jewish religious view? Why should I be in the slightest bit embarrassed at saying, yes, the Jews' title in the Land goes back to G-d, and if the Muslims or anyone else does not like that, it's just too bad."
I insist on using the language of identity politics, given to me in college, to describe Jewish struggle and survival. It drives people NUTS. Words like 'indigenous' and 'oppressed' are not supposed to describe Jews.
If you read Joshua and Judges, you see where God told the Israelites to wipe out the tribes living in the Promised Land--and they failed to do so. Moreover, Israel kept forgetting God and resorting to the "detestable" practices of the indigenous population, only to fall from favor every 40-50 years and have to have a some troubles befall them before turning back to God.
I wonder if there are some in Israel wondering if they are merely repeating an ancient cycle.
There are certain people who simply do not have any moral compass. They're living for themselves. Most of the time they don't have the charisma to attract followers. However, it seems that Ahmadinejad does.
This is what Evil looks like. It's clothed in hatred, disguised as pride, they help others to the extent that they can then be useful idiots for the cause.
I don't often say such things, but if he were to be assassinated, I'd breath a sigh of relief, and then hope that whoever did it got away cleanly without leaving any evidence as to who they were.
Having Jordan accept its role it was supposed to take in 1947-8, as the Palestinian state.
However, if you read the article, it is clear that he was referring to the idea that Israel would go back to 1967 borders, which is what the Arabs insist on.
I ain't waiting on Jordan. Egypt might have potential.
I really do not know what might work at this point.
Yes. It is worse that anybody is letting on. These plutonium reactors will allow Pakistan to build more bombs, more powerful bombs, and smaller, lighter bombs. It will even give them enough surplus bombs they could go into the business of selling them.
These reactors are the seeds of a coming nuclear war that will kill hundred of millions of people.
No argument here. I meant, it's easier to recognize evil when it is out in the open, identified by its words and actions. If he had have encountered dinnerjacket thirty years ago, would it have been as obvious?
This should be required reading of anyone who is pushing Israel into a "two state solution".
A 2 state solution is inevitable and most Israelis want it. One would argue they already have it and I'm not even talking Jordan.
But at any rate, let them have Gaza. It's not part of biblical Israel anyway. However, They can never, ever have Jerusalem. Better to fight until the end of time then to give them Jerusalem.
I merely wanted to make the point that we hobble ourselves by being too embarrassed to cite the non-rational unapologetically, even as opponents give full, tacit credence to the non-rational arguments of Israel's enemies.
I think it is important to call those who accept the Islamic view--but who are otherwise contemptuous of any religious leanings--to account for giving a selected pass to that particular religious view.
No, got that, and quite agree. I think we too often back off calling out that sort of thinking.
True--but they have been pretty good at striking back at their attackers. Problem is that they kept pissing off God until he decided to really let them have it from the Babylonians and Assyrians. (sorry--that's how the OT really reads)
There are certain people who simply do not have any moral compass. They're living for themselves. Most of the time they don't have the charisma to attract followers. However, it seems that Ahmadinejad does.
This is what Evil looks like. It's clothed in hatred, disguised as pride, they help others to the extent that they can then be useful idiots for the cause.
I don't often say such things, but if he were to be assassinated, I'd breath a sigh of relief, and then hope that whoever did it got away cleanly without leaving any evidence as to who they were.
I'd like to see Ahamadinejad dead in a way that makes it clear Who did it:
Either a big lightening strike or a meteor. Or maybe the ground opens up, swallows him and the entire Iranian nuclear program.
BTW, just finished Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radials".
Don't bother, it's really a tire-some read.
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
Sun Tsu
Tiresome it maybe.
So is Qutb's Milepost and Gramsci, Marx and Lenin.
I'd like to see Ahamadinejad dead in a way that makes it clear Who did it:
Either a big lightening strike or a meteor. Or maybe the ground opens up, swallows him and the entire Iranian nuclear program.
The idea of a highly kinetic meteorite is rather attractive. It has the added value that most of his religious followers may think the rock is holy and worship it. :-D
The idea of a highly kinetic meteorite is rather attractive. It has the added value that most of his religious followers may think the rock is holy and worship it. :-D
I wouldn't go so far as to worship it, but I might send a nice card to any rock that squished Haman II.
Yes. It is worse that anybody is letting on. These plutonium reactors will allow Pakistan to build more bombs, more powerful bombs, and smaller, lighter bombs. It will even give them enough surplus bombs they could go into the business of selling them.
These reactors are the seeds of a coming nuclear war that will kill hundred of millions of people.
Thanks kenneth, I already have trouble enough sleeping at night.
/
Just read Simon's piece, his discription of how he felt when he met Dinnerjacket reminded me of these guys Image: Nazgul.jpg
The idea of a highly kinetic meteorite is rather attractive. It has the added value that most of his religious followers may think the rock is holy and worship it. :-D
He reminds me that there are two types of smiles: One that is genuine and raises the cheek muscles, and crinkles the eyes called a Duchenne smile after the scientist who recognized it.
Then there is a non-Duchenne smile that is the mouth only - and indicates insincerity. Think of Joe Biden saying that we all need skin in the game and that paying taxes was patriotic. HIs smile is aggressive rather than sincere.
Hey, lefty radicals out there who worship at the altar of Alinsky. How'd ya like folks making fun of him? What? You didn't? It's only okay for you to trash conservative writers?
BTW, just finished Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radials".
Don't bother, it's really a tire-some read.
So you read about his genius fart protest idea? Get a bunch of black people together. Get them tickets to the symphony. Feed them a big bean dinner ahead of time. Then during the concert get them all farting so that the white people are so disturbed by the smell that it is upsetting to them.
I don't even like looking at a picture of Ahmadinejad. His eyes are so black, cold and evil. I can't imagine being in his presence.
And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's formative years were aided by a less than resolute US foreign policy during the Carter years. Now he's in power and threatening world peace and freedom.
I shudder to think what our current appeasement is fomenting for future generations to have to deal with.
In all honesty, I can't quite figure out why Pelosi is digging herself such a deep hole?
Because she is a liar. She started to lie to pretend to be pure to her leftist followers, but now her lies are revealed and she refuses to admit that she's cuaght - because she's arrogant.
Many of the claims the White House is making are based on anecdotes selected to fit the Obama administration's message. For instance, the report cites a newspaper article about workers being rehired at a factory in Chicago. That account is true, but is no more an accurate snapshot of the nation's economy than a story, not cited in the report, about a Roanoke, Va., railcar factory closing.
Capturing the full effect of the stimulus at this early stage is difficult, but the administration has set high bars for success. In championing those successes, however, the White House plays a little loose with the facts.
Unless we have the power to cause meteors to hit something, or lightening, or earthquakes, I'm not calling on anyone to use violence.
Of course, some people believe jooos have evil machines to do all those things...
But seriously, assassinating Ahamaninejad wouldn't stop the Iranian nuclear program but would upset Iran more, thus wouldn't be worth it.
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
Great video, Roger! Best thing I've ever seen on PJTV.
By the way, I myself once had that exact same feeling (sensing the palpable existence of evil) when in the presence of someone. And no, it wasn't when I shook hands with Obama -- that left me unmoved one way or the other. Nor was it from Bill Ayers. It was the time when I was confronted by Hatem Bazian. I still get waves of nausea just thinking about it.
Though, like Roger, I'm still pretty much an agnostic.
The idea of a highly kinetic meteorite is rather attractive. It has the added value that most of his religious followers may think the rock is holy and worship it. :-D
And if it knocks him into the Mahdi's well and blocks it, another plus.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's formative years were aided by a less than resolute US foreign policy during the Carter years. Now he's in power and threatening world peace and freedom.
I shudder to think what our current appeasement is fomenting for future generations to have to deal with.
Sounds like Dr Evil's formative years. I wonder if he has a penchant for buggery?
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
I guess you missed all that stuff with suicide bombers?
Most Israelis want peace, if they can get it. That's very different from wanting "a two-state solution." Those who support "two-state" are merely hoping that it will bring the desired result of peace--which, of course, any such "two-state solution" brokered at this time is guaranteed not to do.
Talking about "inevitabilities" is self-hobbling and stupid. There was absolutely no "inevitability" to Israel's creation in the first place, nor has there been any "inevitability" to Israel's survival--in 1948, in 1967, or in the Yom Kippur War.
People make their own "inevitabilities"--at least, those who built Israel did; they did not sit back and let other people tell them what the "inevitabilities" were.
With that in mind, it is well past time that Israel stopped comparison-shopping between shit and excrement, and telling itself that these are the only two "inevitable" choices.
I'm not an Israeli. I don't know if you are. I have a lot of family there. This is what I hear from family and friends, as well as from what I read in the Israeli news.
Of course they want peace and will do almost anything to get it. No one could (or should) blame them for that. They are sick of burying their sons and daughters.
Inevitability is neither self-hobbling nor stupid, but thanks for insulting me. It was surely inevitable that the Jews should rule over Israel don't you think? Since it's our land to begin with? Isn't that what you just said? God gave it to us and we shouldn't be ashamed to say so?
I am not an Israeli. I destest the 3 state solution which is exactly what it is, but I don't live there. I don't live with that threat and I can completely understood my families ideas about that matter. THEY think it's inevitable btw. What do you suggest you do with the Arabs then?
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
They'll nuke Tel Aviv or New York -- not Jerusalem. Jerusalem has too many fellow Muslims in the vicinity. Tel Aviv is overwhelmingly Jewish. Also, easier to sneak a nuke there by ship.
Unless we have the power to cause meteors to hit something, or lightening, or earthquakes, I'm not calling on anyone to use violence.
Of course, some people believe jooos have evil machines to do all those things...
But seriously, assassinating Ahamaninejad wouldn't stop the Iranian nuclear program but would upset Iran more, thus wouldn't be worth it.
Hey I am cool. I feel the same. I would just love to see him "leave this earthly place". I was just trying to say watch how your articulate your feelings. I have seen "less worthy" Lizards get the stick for less.
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
Because leaders are suicidal as part of their faith. They call it martyrdom. It guarantees them salvation. Without a savior, like Christ, they have no guarantee that after even one innocent mistake that Allah won't send them to hell. But martyrdom gives them their guarantee.
They'll nuke Tel Aviv or New York -- not Jerusalem. Jerusalem has too many fellow Muslims in the vicinity. Tel Aviv is overwhelmingly Jewish. Also, easier to sneak a nuke there by ship.
Since when did they give a shit about fellow Muslims?
They'll nuke Tel Aviv or New York -- not Jerusalem. Jerusalem has too many fellow Muslims in the vicinity. Tel Aviv is overwhelmingly Jewish. Also, easier to sneak a nuke there by ship.
Haifa, don't forget Hiafa. That's a 2for after all. They also get the Bahi also.
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
Do you even have an ounce of understanding of religious fanaticism over the ages?
Why don't you go look up the subject before you make such silly statements.
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
You are assuming that a 6th century mentality thinks the same as a 21st.
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
The Iranians don't have the same grasp of Western logic that the Soviets had.
it will bring upon the prophecy of their beliefs...and I'm not going to look it all up for you either. do your own homework. it's all there in the koran. the teachings of their liar prophet.
They'll nuke Tel Aviv or New York -- not Jerusalem. Jerusalem has too many fellow Muslims in the vicinity. Tel Aviv is overwhelmingly Jewish. Also, easier to sneak a nuke there by ship.
And if the Taliban get nukes, Iran could say "It wasn't us, it was them. They gave a nuke to Al Qaeda."
If Tel Aviv gets nuked, Iran is a bigger suspect.
One suicide bomber blowing himself up is a little different than guaranteeing that every man, woman and child in your entire nation will be vaporized by launching a first strike.
The leader of a statewide veterans group who fought for homeless veterans in Colorado Springs was in the Denver County jail on Wednesday, unmasked as a former psychiatric patient who posed as a wounded Marine officer and 9/11 survivor.
Federal authorities are looking into whether Rick Duncan, whose real name is Richard Glen Strandlof, could have pilfered money he raised in the name of Colorado veterans, said Daniel Warvi of the Colorado Veterans Alliance (CVA), the group that Duncan founded.
"We were all taken aback," Warvi said.
Strandlof, 31, who invented the name Duncan and claimed he was a former Marine captain and 1997 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, never served in the military and falsely claimed that he was in the Pentagon during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the group said.
Remember that Code Pink idiot (ok, they're all idiots) who assaulted Conoleza Rice with her fake blood hands? I once walked right by her outside of Union Station. I got a similar vibe Simon must have gotten from her, but more of extreme nasty hate than evil.
In all honesty, I can't quite figure out why Pelosi is digging herself such a deep hole?
she sees the empty suit o getting away w/ all his lies and gaffes and missteps and
ineptitude. and she is thinking why not her.
she is out of touch w/ the public.
they have never considered her a lightworker messiah who should be exonerated for everything.
she needs to recall how few books she sold. a couple of thousand.
she is dispensable.
Hey I am cool. I feel the same. I would just love to see him "leave this earthly place". I was just trying to say watch how your articulate your feelings. I have seen "less worthy" Lizards get the stick for less.
That's why I was careful to use examples that would be clearly G-d and not people. It might make me look a bit crazy, but no one can say I'm calling for someone to kill Ahamaninejad without looking crazier. (Saying Jooos have secret earthquake machines or similar)
she sees the empty suit o getting away w/ all his lies and gaffes and missteps and
ineptitude. and she is thinking why not her.
she is out of touch w/ the public.
they have never considered her a lightworker messiah who should be exonerated for everything.
she needs to recall how few books she sold. a couple of thousand.
she is dispensable.
What public? She's from San Fran - she's completely in touch with her constituency. She could murder someone on live TV & they'd still reelect her over a Republican.
One suicide bomber blowing himself up is a little different than guaranteeing that every man, woman and child in your entire nation will be vaporized by launching a first strike.
Do a little REsearch...They don't care. THEY LIVE TO DIE!
I do truly believe that Ahmadinejad is an idiot lunatic. But coming from a realist foreign policy perspective I fail to see how the threat of military action is going to do anything but firm up Iran's resolve to acquire a nuke. The mullahs know that a nuclear weapon is the way to guarantee they are never invaded, it's as simple as that.
Yes, I don't like the thought of a nuclear Iran. But the idea of Iran launching a first strike seems crazy. Not only would they guarantee the death of every single Iranian, but they'd also be blowing up the Dome of the Rock, as well as killing plenty of Arabs. Mutually assured destruction has worked for 50 years, why should it fail to work in the Middle East?
"You have people who prize life in the hereafter more than life on earth, they're not subject to classic theories of deterrence."
John Bolton.
The cult of the 12th Imam, to which Ahmadinejad and the Mad Mullahs subscribe believe they have a duty to bring about Armageddon which brings the return of the Mahdi.
One suicide bomber blowing himself up is a little different than guaranteeing that every man, woman and child in your entire nation will be vaporized by launching a first strike.
This is going to be a long, hard lesson for you. What part of " This is what they are taught and believe" do you not understand. Almost all Muslim Nations are on record calling for the total destruction of Israel.
One suicide bomber blowing himself up is a little different than guaranteeing that every man, woman and child in your entire nation will be vaporized by launching a first strike.
You really think so. If your leader believes that "Allah" will take care of everything, then that doesn't matter. Evidently, Hitler thought it was fine to do all the things he did, with not so much care for what may or may not happen to his people. Who cities were fire bombed because of him (see Dresden).
Why do you think the Japanese fought the way they did, emperor worship, they had no care about killing, getting killed or how many were killed. And we obliged.
Honestly, those are only two simple examples of nations who cared little about the final outcome of their actions, as long as there actions advanced the cause of their fervor or religious beliefs.
One suicide bomber blowing himself up is a little different than guaranteeing that every man, woman and child in your entire nation will be vaporized by launching a first strike.
Man, I would love some of the sand you've been burying your head in. That must be some really good shit.
The left fails to recognize evil, and treats it as a pathology with a root cause that can be treated.
That is an excellent and concise statement my friend.
BUT - it doesn't go quite far enough. The Left believes that acts of Terrorism are not commited by Evil men or women, but those acts are those of people who are criminals at worst, and would be best dealt with by the Criminal Justice system.
If they recognized EVIL, they they would know that some - if not all real Evil simply needs to be eradicated.
That is an excellent and concise statement my friend.
BUT - it doesn't go quite far enough. The Left believes that acts of Terrorism are not commited by Evil men or women, but those acts are those of people who are criminals at worst, and would be best dealt with by the Criminal Justice system.
If they recognized EVIL, they they would know that some - if not all real Evil simply needs to be eradicated.
I thought about adding that, then deleted a very similar thought.
Old Persian proverb: It's better to poke the fire with someone else's hand.
OK, that's actually an old Yiddish proverb, but you get the idea. Iran is crazy like a fox. They won't do anything to deliberately destroy themselves.
But people do crazy things all the time, and it would boil down to the craziness of a few individuals. I've heard abused women say: "Oh, I don't think he'd do anything to really endanger us." And yet women and their children are murdered every day by the so-called protective husband.
It's a mental error on the part of the victimized: a normality bias. Yet look how willing Iran is to create political chaos, and international angst, all the while attacking American soldiers in Iran. Theses are sociopaths.
Or, he could run for Congress in Western PA like another anti-war, lying, so-called Marine.
Don't even get me started on that creature. When I learned he'd been reelected by a 16 point margin, I decided he may have been right when he called his own constituents stupid.
That is an excellent and concise statement my friend.
BUT - it doesn't go quite far enough. The Left believes that acts of Terrorism are not commited by Evil men or women, but those acts are those of people who are criminals at worst, and would be best dealt with by the Criminal Justice system.
If they recognized EVIL, they they would know that some - if not all real Evil simply needs to be eradicated.
They think acts of terror are committed by VICTIMS of the west.
Do a little REsearch...They don't care. THEY LIVE TO DIE!
Oh, that's too easy. Who is they? The Saudis, who make deals with us to get richer? Iran, who hedges their bets and works through Hezbollah long-distance? Egypt, who rely on U.S. aid to keep the Muslim Brotherhood down? If they LIVE TO DIE, why hasn't the whole Arab world converged on Israel since the last time they tried it and got their asses handed to them?
Islam contains a big, increasingly politically influential, crazed element, but the Muslim world is not that one-dimensional. They'd rather win than die. If we start thinking of the whole Muslim world as one homogenous fanatical hunk o' hate, we're going to make crucial mistakes.
This is going to be a long, hard lesson for you. What part of " This is what they are taught and believe" do you not understand. Almost all Muslim Nations are on record calling for the total destruction of Israel.
Sure, and have been for a long time. But they have NOT exhibited a willingness to destroy themselves for that goal.
BTW, the "one bomb" theory is crap. The mullahs have no appreciation of what a nuclear exchange over such short distances would be like. It would be like Denver attacking Chicago. They also do not understand the concept of a retaliatory strike. Nor do the appreciate the limited destructive power of a standard size 10-15 kt device--it only has a 1 mile kill radius at ground level and a 3 mile radius for an airburst. Most modern cities are far more spread out than that. And this assumes the device will work and won't fizzle.
If Iran only cares about killing Jews without care for repercussion, why would they wait to acquire a nuke? Why haven't they just carpet-bombed Israel right now with conventional weapons?
I don't condone Iran's absurd rhetoric, and I'd love to see Ahmadinejad dead as much as all of you. But taking the words of an idiot puppet like Ahmadinejad at face value is quite naive. He doesn't control jack shit in Iran, all of the power lies with the mullahs. And there is no evidence that they are stupid enough to launch a first strike. Why spend so much time and effort running their nation, building the economy and maintaining a death-grip on power when the end goal is nuclear suicide?
But people do crazy things all the time, and it would boil down to the craziness of a few individuals. I've heard abused women say: "Oh, I don't think he'd do anything to really endanger us." And yet women and their children are murdered every day by the so-called protective husband.
It's a mental error on the part of the victimized: a normality bias. Yet look how willing Iran is to create political chaos, and international angst, all the while attacking American soldiers in Iran. Theses are sociopaths.
True. But sociopaths aren't necessarily self-destructive. 'At's my only point here.
One of the results is he criminalization of terror. They react to the "behavior" and criminalize it, suggesting the actors can be rehabilitated. Other results are the willingness to appease and negotiate. The results of the failure to recognize evil takes many forms. I just wanted the statement to stand on it's own.
...But taking the words of an idiot puppet like Ahmadinejad at face value is quite naive. He doesn't control jack shit in Iran, all of the power lies with the mullahs.
Correct. And he doesn't make pronouncements without the mullahs expressed permission.
You contradict yourself with your own logic (actually a big stretch calling you comment logical).
BTW, the "one bomb" theory is crap. The mullahs have no appreciation of what a nuclear exchange over such short distances would be like. It would be like Denver attacking Chicago. They also do not understand the concept of a retaliatory strike. Nor do the appreciate the limited destructive power of a standard size 10-15 kt device--it only has a 1 mile kill radius at ground level and a 3 mile radius for an airburst. Most modern cities are far more spread out than that. And this assumes the device will work and won't fizzle.
Do they not understand, or is that not relevent to their public rhetoric?
"Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal."
If you like your account, you will refrain from comments like that.
I'm actually not advocating anything. I'm making conjecture about what may be going on behind the scenes. Are you finking me out? Hall monitor duty must be gruelling. :)
I'm actually not advocating anything. I'm making conjecture about what may be going on behind the scenes. Are you finking me out? Hall monitor duty must be gruelling. :)
Look dude, it's your account, I don't care. All the Lizard's monitor comment here, and if you look above, I was not the only one that suggested that you back off from making statements about bombing Mecca.
If you want to talk smack, you may get smaked, bu Stinky and his stick.
Look dude, it's your account, I don't care. All the Lizard's monitor comment here, and if you look above, I was not the only one that suggested that you back off from making statements about bombing Mecca.
If you want to talk smack, you may get smaked, bu Stinky and his stick.
'Tay with me.
Conjecture about what may or may not be Israeli policy is not exactly a statement. However, as to advocating violence, the hope that a comet hit or someone assasinate dinnerjacket got by you.
If Iran only cares about killing Jews without care for repercussion, why would they wait to acquire a nuke? Why haven't they just carpet-bombed Israel right now with conventional weapons?
With what airforce? They have no delivery system let alone the essential conventional ordnance. Besides, the IAF would shred them before they got with in striking distance--and no, Iran has no viable stand-off weapons systems.
I don't condone Iran's absurd rhetoric, and I'd love to see Ahmadinejad dead as much as all of you.
Then who else would would we poke fun at?
But taking the words of an idiot puppet like Ahmadinejad at face value is quite naive. He doesn't control jack shit in Iran, all of the power lies with the mullahs.
Agreed. He is the focal point--a distraction from the real powers that be.
And there is no evidence that they are stupid enough to launch a first strike.
Why have nukes at all--it adds prestige. They want to be the dominant power in the region. The issue is that their economy is a fascist model-like Germany's in the 1930's. It will reach a breaking point at which the only options will be war or a collapse of the government. The mullahs won't let their power collapse.
Why spend so much time and effort running their nation, building the economy and maintaining a death-grip on power when the end goal is nuclear suicide?
If Iran only cares about killing Jews without care for repercussion, why would they wait to acquire a nuke? Why haven't they just carpet-bombed Israel right now with conventional weapons?
I don't condone Iran's absurd rhetoric, and I'd love to see Ahmadinejad dead as much as all of you. But taking the words of an idiot puppet like Ahmadinejad at face value is quite naive. He doesn't control jack shit in Iran, all of the power lies with the mullahs. And there is no evidence that they are stupid enough to launch a first strike. Why spend so much time and effort running their nation, building the economy and maintaining a death-grip on power when the end goal is nuclear suicide?
Ahmadinejad serves at the pleasure of the Mullahs. As long as he speaks it's with the approval of the Mullahs.
They aren't building an economy, it's circling the same drain as Zimbabwe, only they have oil to keep it floating longer.
You really need to study up on the Cult of the 12th Imam.
They are insane enough to launch the only warhead they have at Tel Aviv and revel in the consequences. It's the a mentality of a homicide bomber writ large.
One suicide bomber blowing himself up is a little different than guaranteeing that every man, woman and child in your entire nation will be vaporized by launching a first strike.
Born yesterday, were you? Happy first day on earth. You got a lotta catching up to do.
One suicide bomber blowing himself up is a little different than guaranteeing that every man, woman and child in your entire nation will be vaporized by launching a first strike.
In quantity yes, but the philosophy that you would send even your young children, and girls to boot, on missions like that, shows a particular mind set.
The people probably do not understand what it is they are asking for. Also, they may not have the information that Israel has nuclear weapons--albeit unofficially. They are demagogues.
And how do we know if this one is or isn't? I rather expect the worst, prepare for it and then back off if needed.
Oh, sure. ;) I'm married to an Eagle Scout, after all. I'm not suggesting that we (Israel we or U.S. we) stake anything on the sanity of Iran. We need to be prepared for baaad shit coming down the pike if Iran successfully goes nuclear.
I do, however, guess that Iran currently wants a nuke to have one, rather than to detonate one. That's not good, but it's better than it could be. That's my guess, based on some small knowledge of Iran, and from reading the papers. I don't get the CIA briefings, I could be totally off. (I also don't make policy, or anything like that.)
I do sometimes get frustrated that political speculation on this blog (which I enjoy greatly) gets shut down not with relevent arguments, but lectures on the general craziness and evil of nutjob radical Islam. I think we're all on that page here. This ain't directed at you, Walter, it's a general gripe.
Conjecture about what may or may not be Israeli policy is not exactly a statement. However, as to advocating violence, the hope that a comet hit or someone assasinate dinnerjacket got by you.
Fine. Check back above, Charles already deleted your comment. Keep the smack mouth shit up and it will be your account next. The first time I mentioned it to you, I was trying to pass on some info, friendly like.
We like to keep it clean here, we don't want this place coming across like Kos of Huffinpuff Post. If you want to dirty the carpet, you'll be asked to leave.
In quantity yes, but the philosophy that you would send even your young children, and girls to boot, on missions like that, shows a particular mind set.
Iran, though, for the most part, has preferred to let other people--Arabs in particular--do that sort of work.
I think we've lost control of the language on this. We really need to be talking about whats proposed now as a 3 state solution (Israel, Syria, and Palestine) and what happened shortly after WW2 as a Two State Solution (Israel, Jordan)
The people probably do not understand what it is they are asking for. Also, they may not have the information that Israel has nuclear weapons--albeit unofficially. They are demagogues.
Iran's got a pretty educated population, and more pro-Western than much of the ME. I do wonder what information they have, and what the thinking at street level is about the nuclear situation.
They make the comments at their own peril. Some get chided for it. but many a time when someone suggests the nuking of an enemy's city, or the desolation of the populace for grins, then Charles has been know to revoke their privileges. I understood what you were saying, but, honestly, it took me a second read to see it.
Just be smart--there are people out there who would love to take some of the things said here and sully us all with those words.
Iran, though, for the most part, has preferred to let other people--Arabs in particular--do that sort of work.
Well since we are mostly on the same page, i am not going to quibble over esoteric points, but I don't trust them and never will. And if they gave the bomb to a third party to use, is that really any different?
I grew up in Iran. Still have contacts in Iran. The country lives in abject fear of the Mad Mullahs. When you see the mass demonstration think 1984 and two minute hate.
The Cult of the 12th Imam is that crazy and suicidal, and thats the bunch in charge.
I think we've lost control of the language on this. We really need to be talking about whats proposed now as a 3 state solution (Israel, Syria, and Palestine) and what happened shortly after WW2 as a Two State Solution (Israel, Jordan)
I know a few Iranian ex-pats who still communicate with their families. He's not that popular with the younger voters --neither are the mullahs. The know that he's not playing to the "hometown crowd" but to the region. It's a tough sell--given the Persian vs. Arab traditional hostility.
There is plenty of evidence that psycho-boy Ahmadinejad is not exactly on the best of terms with the mullahs. One cannot assume every bat-shit insane rant he utters has been expressly approved by the ruling theocracy.
But back to the thrust of my argument which has thus-far been ignored. If loss of Iranian life is of no importance, why hasn't Iran simply launched a conventional first-strike attack? If suffering massive casualties is of secondary importance to killing Jews why wait for a nuke? Iran has had the chance to try and wipe Israel off the map for almost 50 years, but they haven't done so. If the death of every Iranian is of no matter, what's the hold up?
The existence of evil is one of the reasons why I call myself an agnostic vs an atheist.
That's actually a bit backwards, and the guy in the video falls in the same trap. If you think about it from a purely logical standpoint, though, the existence of evil tends to disprove the Christian interpretation of god - namely, the "omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent" bit. It's an old argument and I don't want to go into excessive detail, but, basically, the presence of evil shows that at least one of those qualities cannot be true. If evil exists because god wants it to exist, then he's not omnibenevloent - he's actually rather malicious. If evil exists and God doesn't want it to exist, then he's not omnipotent. There's a whole slew of iterations to the argument, but that's it in a nutshell.
Of course, it doesn't disprove the existence of A god - only the Christian interpretation of him/her/it. But it's silly to consider the existence of evil a justification for faith-based belief.
Fine. Check back above, Charles already deleted your comment. Keep the smack mouth shit up and it will be your account next. The first time I mentioned it to you, I was trying to pass on some info, friendly like.
We like to keep it clean here, we don't want this place coming across like Kos of Huffinpuff Post. If you want to dirty the carpet, you'll be asked to leave.
Not my rules, not my blog. Understand?
Charles doesn't have to ban me. I'm a visitor, if he asks me to stop posting, I will. I quit posting on SDA voluntarily when they started attacking Charles. I don't think I'm a problem but like you say, it's not my sand box. I can still be a lizard within and without. I'm not acting as a hall monitor, however.
Well since we are mostly on the same page, i am not going to quibble over esoteric points, but I don't trust them and never will. And if they gave the bomb to a third party to use, is that really any different?
Not at all. If anyone thinks my purpose in this dialogue is to defend Iran, let me be clear--*** Iran. I'm just speculating about what game they're actually playing right now.
I know a few Iranian ex-pats who still communicate with their families. He's not that popular with the younger voters --neither are the mullahs. The know that he's not playing to the "hometown crowd" but to the region. It's a tough sell--given the Persian vs. Arab traditional hostility.
I grew up in Iran. Still have contacts in Iran. The country lives in abject fear of the Mad Mullahs. When you see the mass demonstration think 1984 and two minute hate.
The Cult of the 12th Imam is that crazy and suicidal, and thats the bunch in charge.
Think in terms of how that plays to the West, though. Playing crazy is a great way to keep all your potential adversaries off-balance.
The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.
One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.
[snip]
Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.
The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?
[snip]
Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries".
The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".
This a mild version of the vision of the Mahdi suitable for printing in the MSM.
Carpet bomb Israel with what? They haven't the air force to do that.
Iran is a theocratic dictatorship, and like all dictatorships, the ruling council of mullahs has it's factions. One faction that has been rising in influence is the religious fanatics of whom Ahmadinejad is their creature. In the upcoming election, Ahmadinejad's closest rival is also from the extremist faction. This faction also controls the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. The particular religious ideology of this faction is an apocalyptic devotion to the return of the Mahdi. They believe only a war of chaos will bring the Mahdi back & that he will lead the faithful in Armageddon against the Jews & Christians.
The president of Iran writes his name in two parts, like this: Ahmadi Nejad
In Farsi, his name means "decendent of the Mahdi". His followers beleive he has a special role to play in bringing back the Mahdi.
Charles doesn't have to ban me. I'm a visitor, if he asks me to stop posting, I will. I quit posting on SDA voluntarily when they started attacking Charles. I don't think I'm a problem but like you say, it's not my sand box. I can still be a lizard within and without. I'm not acting as a hall monitor, however.
Fine, but we all do act as a hall monitor, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with that tact or not, whether it makes any sense to you. What do you think those up ding, down dings and report buttons are for?
There is plenty of evidence that psycho-boy Ahmadinejad is not exactly on the best of terms with the mullahs. One cannot assume every bat-shit insane rant he utters has been expressly approved by the ruling theocracy.
But back to the thrust of my argument which has thus-far been ignored. If loss of Iranian life is of no importance, why hasn't Iran simply launched a conventional first-strike attack? If suffering massive casualties is of secondary importance to killing Jews why wait for a nuke? Iran has had the chance to try and wipe Israel off the map for almost 50 years, but they haven't done so. If the death of every Iranian is of no matter, what's the hold up?
Because they do NOT in any shape or form have the force or technology to launch a conventional strike against Israel.
The existence of evil is one of the reasons why I call myself an agnostic vs an atheist.
I'd say that is fair...
Any agnostic can safely says that Evil is something that destroys life -- whereas the Good is that which supports life. These are moral absolutes which require no God.
There is plenty of evidence that psycho-boy Ahmadinejad is not exactly on the best of terms with the mullahs. One cannot assume every bat-shit insane rant he utters has been expressly approved by the ruling theocracy.
But back to the thrust of my argument which has thus-far been ignored. If loss of Iranian life is of no importance, why hasn't Iran simply launched a conventional first-strike attack? If suffering massive casualties is of secondary importance to killing Jews why wait for a nuke? Iran has had the chance to try and wipe Israel off the map for almost 50 years, but they haven't done so. If the death of every Iranian is of no matter, what's the hold up?
Kenneth answered, but just to add..iran and it's army is not up to the challenge to take on the IDF. a conventional attack would not give them the desired result. their prophecyt would not be fufilled in that scenario.
I know several sane, intelligent, Western educated Iranians who believe some rather peculiar things:
1. Fire was "invented" by the ancient Persians. Everybody else got it from them.
2. Jimmy Carter put Khomeini in power.
3. The Arabs are a dirty, backward people.
The idea that some of them believe in an apocalyptic theology is not at all far fetched.
It is absolutely logic in the that framework. We fail to make the transition and understand that.
The best I can do is tell you it's logical in that frame work to line up 12 year old boys and use them to clear a mine field by walking through it.
It is Allah's Will that they precipitate the return of the Mahdi.
Anything to that end is a "rational" action.
I've been attempting to explain this to a buddy of mine for some 7 years. He will not budge. He believes it's mass insanity. You got it - it's logic in that framework.
Not at all. If anyone thinks my purpose in this dialogue is to defend Iran, let me be clear--*** Iran. I'm just speculating about what game they're actually playing right now.
I understand. Sometimes your (Irans I mean) rhetoric can overtake your actual intentions. Especially when your bat shit mad?
Fine, but we all do act as a hall monitor, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with that tact or not, whether it makes any sense to you. What do you think those up ding, down dings and report buttons are for?
Shit Walter, I thought they were for rating my jokes.
I've been attempting to explain this to a buddy of mine for some 7 years. He will not budge. He believes it's mass insanity. You got it - it's logic in that framework.
I don't if I should be afraid or not. I spent enough time in Iran, I can get into that framework and at least see the logic...
iran and it's army is not up to the challenge to take on the IDF. a conventional attack would not give them the desired result. their prophecyt would not be fufilled in that scenario.
By your logic Iran isn't hellbent on taking over Israel. They are hellbent on simply killing as many Jews as possible. Preferably with nuclear weapons, and with no regard for corresponding loss of Iranian life.
If that is all true, Iran doesn't have to worry about defeating the IDF. They simply launch all of their ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, send every plane they have loaded with bombs on suicide missions, and then wait for the Israeli counter-attack to kill them all and achieve "prophecy."
It doesn't take a great military to slaughter innocent civilians. It takes a great military to win a war with the intent of conquering your enemy. If Iran simply wished to kill many Israelis with no concern for Iranian casualties, this is easily achievable today. That's a fact.
I can't type the Hebrew or Arabic, but check out Genesis 32: 28 and Koran, Sura 100 to compare.
The name "yisrael" derives from "sarra", apparently. The verse is "For you have struggled with God..." or "Ki sarrita im el" in my rather bad transliteration. So, I see the root now of "yisrael". I think "jihad" simply means struggle. So, they don't sound the same, but they are both derived from the word for "struggle" in Hebrew and Arabic.
Fine, but we all do act as a hall monitor, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with that tact or not, whether it makes any sense to you. What do you think those up ding, down dings and report buttons are for?
I believe you mean tactic because tact does not actually seem to concern you. I plead innocent to the present charges. My comment was misconstrued. I would take it back if I could. Charles has a terrific site and I consider myself a guest. I don't mean to upset the applecart and will try to doublethink at all times to make sure I say nothing to disturb the watchers. As for participation in hall monitoring, however, I'm not good at it and tend to rebel against it. I did that for a week in grade school and ended up giving everyone a free pass. You do whatever you think is right, however. I suppose he has a use for you and I hope Charles won't consider my distaste for your activities and the fact that the fur on my back is up due to your tone, reason to ask me to leave.
Is "Ahmadi Nejad" really a Farsi word? Does it really mean Mahdi Descendent?
Ahmad comes from the hard H, m, d root; its Semitic cognates point to an origin in "choice"; so, "chosen one". Usually something in the af'al form means a superlative (like akbar is the most great) so ahmad would be something like "the muhammad-est Muhammad".
Mahdi comes from soft h, d, alif maqsura; this root deals with "guidance". I don't know the form of "Mahdi" (maf'il?) but it means, I recall being told, the one giving guidance.
The 12th Imam's name was "Muhammad al-Mahdi", so maybe the "Ahmad" refers to him, but I suspect it would be blasphemous to say that. In Islam, even Shi'a, the Ahmad should be Muhammad the Prophet, and not his Imam.
And Nejad isn't usually the Farsi for descendent. That's zadeh like with Pejman Yousefzadeh, or Shahrazadeh. n-j-d could be Semitic too, but I've only seen it refer to the Arabian highlands (najd). Google translate hints that a nijaad would be something "found" or "upholstered", which has got to be a mistake.
Maybe "Ahmadinejad" means "guy with a Napoleon complex in a padded cell"
What you call exhausted defeatism I call reality. You and I and the rest of the world who talk about sending them to Jordan or having another Arab state take them certainly aren't the first. All the great minds over the last 60 years haven't been able to do it so how long do we hit our heads against the wall about it. Of course, if they had accepted the partition in the first place, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Nor would Israel be in the position it is now. And they would have had their own country anyway. There are few, if any other options.
Excellent video. Very interesting. I felt a similar way when watching one of the beheading videos of an American. Hearing those screams made me think that not only evil exists, but it must have some sort of form (the devil), and therefore God must exist. Sort of like if hot exists, so must cold. I'm aware that probably doesn't make logical sense, but that was the feeling I had after about two seconds of hearing the screams. I think Mr. Simon felt similar.
Mind fart on 366
Maybe Paul Simon does know it was Spencer tracy in "Inherit the Wind", but my comment was aimed at Roger Simon
my apologies to all concerned.
Awesome video. I enjoy listening to Mr. Simon. He is a first-rate story-teller and uses that talent to make an interesting point that only he could have made, giving us food for thought. Gotta watch more of that guy from now on. :D
That's odd, I get the same feelings when I see and hear Obama...and that's not even considering an 'in person' event. If I saw or heard him in person, without doubt the only tingly feeling I'd get would also include unscontrollable salavation consistent with pre-hurl symptoms.
Frank says:
