PDA

View Full Version : Iran Promises Death of US Generals



djones520
12-15-2010, 02:11 PM
EXCLUSIVE: A leader of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard is promising that American generals will be targeted and killed in revenge for last week's attacks on two of his country's leading nuclear scientists -- a threat Middle East experts say must be taken seriously.

In a speech published in Farsi at an Iranian website linked to the Revolutionary Guard, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naghdi was quoted as saying that “the filthy Americans and the Zionists should not think that with killing our scientists, they can divert our nation from its path of Jihad and scare us.”

He continued with a specific threat: “We will mark the hanging sites of the American and Zionist generals and we will identify which hanging was in retaliation for the blood of our great martyr Shahriari.”

Naghdi, commander of the Revolutionary Guard's Basij Forces, was referring to Dr. Majid Shahriari, a leading Iranian nuclear scientist who was reportedly heading efforts to fight the Stuxnet virus that has crippled Iran’s nuclear program. Both Shahriari and another leading scientist, Fereidoun Abbasi, were targeted in simultaneous attacks last week in Tehran. As the men were driving to work, motorcyclists pulled up to their cars and attached magnetic explosive devices to them. The attackers drove off as the bombs exploded.

Shahriari was killed instantly; Abbasi, who was personally sanctioned by the United Nations for his part in the nuclear program, was wounded but managed to escape.



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/15/iran-threatens-kill-american-generals/

Good thing we've a got significant military presence on two borders of Iran.

Bleda
12-15-2010, 03:48 PM
Wait, the path of jihad? But Gator says they're not motivated by jihad or Islamism or anything of the sort. :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
12-15-2010, 04:12 PM
Iran's leaders are promising death to people? Wow, is it Wednesday again already?

Apache
12-15-2010, 04:35 PM
Just how do they propose to get close enough to do this?

lacarnut
12-15-2010, 05:16 PM
It is past time to flatten all governmental buildings in Tehran.

Apache
12-15-2010, 05:48 PM
It is past time to flatten all governmental buildings in Tehran.

What did the buildings do :confused:

Bailey
12-15-2010, 05:53 PM
What did the buildings do :confused:

The buildings hold the bad people so if u flatten them you get the bad people

Apache
12-15-2010, 06:08 PM
The buildings hold the bad people so if u flatten them you get the bad people

Save the buildings!
Save the buildings!
Save the buildings!

Just inject them with expanding foam...:cool:

megimoo
12-15-2010, 07:40 PM
Iran Threat to Kill American Generals Is Real, Experts Say

EXCLUSIVE: A leader of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard is promising that American generals will be targeted and killed in revenge for last week's attacks on two of his country's leading nuclear scientists -- a threat Middle East experts say must be taken seriously.



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/15/iran-threatens-kill-american-generals/

Odysseus
12-16-2010, 11:06 PM
Wait, the path of jihad? But Gator says they're not motivated by jihad or Islamism or anything of the sort. :rolleyes:
Gator couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a flashlight. :rolleyes:

Iran's leaders are promising death to people? Wow, is it Wednesday again already?
Unfortunately, a lot of our GOs are very vulnerable, although not the ones in the actual war zone. They could very easily target someone in CONUS.

Save the buildings!
Save the buildings!
Save the buildings!

Just inject them with expanding foam...:cool:

It would not surprise me if some antiwar idiot decided that saving Iranian revolutionary architecture was a cause worth taking up to try to undermine the war effort. "You can't bomb that building! The Iranians perfected the art of pulling the toenails off of Christians and Jews in that building after Khomeini returned! It's a national landmark!"

malloc
12-16-2010, 11:58 PM
Wait, the path of jihad? But Gator says they're not motivated by jihad or Islamism or anything of the sort. :rolleyes:

Gator couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a flashlight. :rolleyes:




Whoa, the rhetoric is getting a little a thick in here. Someone needs to clear the air:



“the filthy Americans and the Zionists should not think that with killing our scientists, they can divert our nation from its path of Jihad and scare us.”

Contrary to popular belief, Jihad does not mean, "Holy War to Spread Islam To The West", nor does it mean, "Kill Americans Because We Hate Their Freedom". Jihad means "struggle". Why every other Arab word, written in Farsi, was translated into English except the word 'Jihad' should be pretty obvious. Both of your comments above are framed to make it appear as though Naghdi's usage of the word 'jihad' is what explains the reasons behind his threats of violence, as if 'Jihad' is the reason in and of itself. That's dishonest and both of you knew it was dishonest when you made the claim. A call to jihad is the result of the perceived provocation, and not the provocation itself. Naghdi explained the actual provocation when he said, "killing our scientists", and "in retaliation ... Shahriari."

Whether or not you believe Naghdi is justified in his desire to retaliate against the U.S. for the death of Shahriari at (probably) Israeli hands is entirely irrelevant to the argument. The truth is that Iran believes Israel is responsible for the assassination of their scientists. Iran also believes the U.S. supports Israel with arms and money unconditionally, and they aren't too far off the mark there. Therefore, to the Iranian, the U.S. is just as culpable as Israel in this matter. Naghdi's statement actually proves gator's points more than it disproves them. Again, I must stress that your opinion on the Israeli/U.S. relationship, or whether Israel was justified in taking out the scientist is completely irrelevant to the argument. When the question is, "Why does radical Islam target the U.S.?", the answer is not "Jihad", "Holy War" or "Our Freedoms". The U.S. has put itself into this position by years of supporting Israel, and an interventionist foreign policy. That should be very obvious based on Naghdi's very own words. The real argument is whether or not being targeted like this is worth the benefits of supporting Israel and intervening in the Middle East.

Odysseus
12-17-2010, 10:31 AM
Whoa, the rhetoric is getting a little a thick in here. Someone needs to clear the air:



Contrary to popular belief, Jihad does not mean, "Holy War to Spread Islam To The West", nor does it mean, "Kill Americans Because We Hate Their Freedom". Jihad means "struggle". Why every other Arab word, written in Farsi, was translated into English except the word 'Jihad' should be pretty obvious. Both of your comments above are framed to make it appear as though Naghdi's usage of the word 'jihad' is what explains the reasons behind his threats of violence, as if 'Jihad' is the reason in and of itself. That's dishonest and both of you knew it was dishonest when you made the claim. A call to jihad is the result of the perceived provocation, and not the provocation itself. Naghdi explained the actual provocation when he said, "killing our scientists", and "in retaliation ... Shahriari."
The claim is neither dishonest nor wrong. The literal translation of the word "jihad" is "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depending on the context, and context is everything. The Hadiths, and Sira, or Sunnah, define what is meant by jihad, and from the Medina period, it was almost always used in the context of military action to advance or defend Islam. Military jihad is authorized wherever Islam is threatened, but the definition of the threat constitutes pretty much anything that goes against Islam, since the entire universe belongs to Allah, and thus, any violation of his laws or will constitutes an offense against Islam. For example, the loss of Islamic lands to infidels, no matter how tenuous the possession of the land was in the first place, is considered a conquest and affront. This is why there will never be peace between Jews and Muslims in the ME, since the very existence of Israel is an affront to Islam, and the same holds for Spain, most of India, etc. Thus, Israel's existence justifies Iran's stated intent to "wipe Israel off the map" and Iran's development of a nuclear capability. Any action taken in defense against jihad is further provocation. Thus, killing a scientist who is attempting to develop a WMD arsenal whose intent to kill you is not self-defense in the eyes of the mullahs, but an unjustified act in defiance of Islam.


Whether or not you believe Naghdi is justified in his desire to retaliate against the U.S. for the death of Shahriari at (probably) Israeli hands is entirely irrelevant to the argument. The truth is that Iran believes Israel is responsible for the assassination of their scientists. Iran also believes the U.S. supports Israel with arms and money unconditionally, and they aren't too far off the mark there. Therefore, to the Iranian, the U.S. is just as culpable as Israel in this matter. Naghdi's statement actually proves gator's points more than it disproves them. Again, I must stress that your opinion on the Israeli/U.S. relationship, or whether Israel was justified in taking out the scientist is completely irrelevant to the argument. When the question is, "Why does radical Islam target the U.S.?", the answer is not "Jihad", "Holy War" or "Our Freedoms". The U.S. has put itself into this position by years of supporting Israel, and an interventionist foreign policy. That should be very obvious based on Naghdi's very own words. The real argument is whether or not being targeted like this is worth the benefits of supporting Israel and intervening in the Middle East.
Wrong again. Iran targets Israel because Jews are ruling in land that once belonged to Islam, even if the Jews were there first and never left. None of this matters to any Muslim who takes the injunctions of the Qur'an seriously. Infidels outside of Islam, living in Dar al Harb, or the House of War, are to be defeated, forced to submit or converted or killed, whether they support Israel or not, whether they are nice to Muslims or not. This has nothing to do with US support of Israel and everything to do with Islamist supremacy. It is the same argument that justified Barbary Pirate attacks on American ships 150 years before the founding of Israel, and a century before the first Zionist conference, the same argument that justified (commanded, actually) the Islamic conquest of the Christian regions of the East (of the five great urban centers of early Christianity, only one is not Muslim today) that led to the Crusades (an attempt to reconquer Christian lands), and the ongoing conflicts everywhere in the world where Islam meets any other culture. Thailand, for example, doesn't have anything to do with Israel, but Thai Muslims are fighting and killing non-Muslims there. The Philippines doesn't have anything to do with Israel. Neither does Nigeria, Darfur, Chechniya, Chad or any of the other places where Islamic supremacists are fighting to impose Islam on unwilling natives. Blaming jihad on the US and Israel is like blaming all cancers on secondhand smoke.

This is more like the Cold War than the Crusades. The same dynamic that drove doctrinaire Marxists, the desire to see the entire world under one communist authority, is what drives Islam. Substitute Ummah for the masses, the Qur'an for the Communist Manifesto and jihad for revolution of the proletariat, and you'll understand the mindset. Pretending otherwise is just appeasement.

Apache
12-17-2010, 12:31 PM
It would not surprise me if some antiwar idiot decided that saving Iranian revolutionary architecture was a cause worth taking up to try to undermine the war effort. "You can't bomb that building! The Iranians perfected the art of pulling the toenails off of Christians and Jews in that building after Khomeini returned! It's a national landmark!"

I was just thinking of the money it would save us in re-construction costs. :p

Odysseus
12-17-2010, 12:42 PM
I was just thinking of the money it would save us in re-construction costs. :p

That's why we should have gone ahead with the neutron bomb.

Bleda
12-17-2010, 04:33 PM
The claim is neither dishonest nor wrong. The literal translation of the word "jihad" is "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depending on the context, and context is everything. The Hadiths, and Sira, or Sunnah, define what is meant by jihad, and from the Medina period, it was almost always used in the context of military action to advance or defend Islam. Military jihad is authorized wherever Islam is threatened, but the definition of the threat constitutes pretty much anything that goes against Islam, since the entire universe belongs to Allah, and thus, any violation of his laws or will constitutes an offense against Islam. For example, the loss of Islamic lands to infidels, no matter how tenuous the possession of the land was in the first place, is considered a conquest and affront. This is why there will never be peace between Jews and Muslims in the ME, since the very existence of Israel is an affront to Islam, and the same holds for Spain, most of India, etc. Thus, Israel's existence justifies Iran's stated intent to "wipe Israel off the map" and Iran's development of a nuclear capability. Any action taken in defense against jihad is further provocation. Thus, killing a scientist who is attempting to develop a WMD arsenal whose intent to kill you is not self-defense in the eyes of the mullahs, but an unjustified act in defiance of Islam.


Wrong again. Iran targets Israel because Jews are ruling in land that once belonged to Islam, even if the Jews were there first and never left. None of this matters to any Muslim who takes the injunctions of the Qur'an seriously. Infidels outside of Islam, living in Dar al Harb, or the House of War, are to be defeated, forced to submit or converted or killed, whether they support Israel or not, whether they are nice to Muslims or not. This has nothing to do with US support of Israel and everything to do with Islamist supremacy. It is the same argument that justified Barbary Pirate attacks on American ships 150 years before the founding of Israel, and a century before the first Zionist conference, the same argument that justified (commanded, actually) the Islamic conquest of the Christian regions of the East (of the five great urban centers of early Christianity, only one is not Muslim today) that led to the Crusades (an attempt to reconquer Christian lands), and the ongoing conflicts everywhere in the world where Islam meets any other culture. Thailand, for example, doesn't have anything to do with Israel, but Thai Muslims are fighting and killing non-Muslims there. The Philippines doesn't have anything to do with Israel. Neither does Nigeria, Darfur, Chechniya, Chad or any of the other places where Islamic supremacists are fighting to impose Islam on unwilling natives. Blaming jihad on the US and Israel is like blaming all cancers on secondhand smoke.

This is more like the Cold War than the Crusades. The same dynamic that drove doctrinaire Marxists, the desire to see the entire world under one communist authority, is what drives Islam. Substitute Ummah for the masses, the Qur'an for the Communist Manifesto and jihad for revolution of the proletariat, and you'll understand the mindset. Pretending otherwise is just appeasement.

http://i36.tinypic.com/e1ao00.gif

Molon Labe
12-17-2010, 06:52 PM
This is more like the Cold War than the Crusades. The same dynamic that drove doctrinaire Marxists, the desire to see the entire world under one communist authority, is what drives Islam. Substitute Ummah for the masses, the Qur'an for the Communist Manifesto and jihad for revolution of the proletariat, and you'll understand the mindset. Pretending otherwise is just appeasement.

that's one hell of a stretch bordering on conspiracy Ody.

Nevermind that stuff about scientists killed and that some Muslims might be angry because of that action. Couple that with Western military power in their back yard.

That's just a sneaky way for the Islamists to trick us into lowering our guard and feeling sympathy for them while imposing their will on us.

The whole religion is just a bunch of crazies wanting to rule the world cause they've drank the blood of Khali or something. You know...kinda like those Thuggies in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? I guess Ahmadinejad is Mola Ram.

Funny how most every major radicalized group in modern society has sprung out of some societal caotic event or perceived grievences, yet people ignore that history in favor of this current fairy tale about how every Muslim wants to rule the world because it's their doctrine..

The Cold War was about two superpowers of equal political and military strength and a war of ideas. The reason our political leaders, and strategy in the GWOT and dealing with the Middle east has been less than stellar is because too many of the policy makers still believe that we are in another cold war like you do.

Bleda
12-17-2010, 07:17 PM
Funny how most every major radicalized group in modern society has sprung out of some societal caotic event or perceived grievences, yet people ignore that history in favor of this current fairy tale about how every Muslim wants to rule the world because it's their doctrine..

Even though that is technically true (if by 'Muslim' you mean actual Muslims), I don't think anyone said anything about 'every Muslim' here.

And considering it's the avowed intention of Islamists to take over the world, I don't quite understand the bolded part. Why are so many Muslim nations in the world against Israel when Israel did nothing to them? Why do Muslims born and raised in Canada go to Afghanistan to kill US soldiers? Why does al-Qaeda talk about Andalusia and use it as a reason to attack the West? Why does Iran's constitution (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ir00000_.html) state that their hope/goal is "the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others"? Why does Hamas' charter use a hadith ("the hour of judgement shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them", I believe it says, quoting Muhammad, the perfect follower of Allah who every Muslim is advised to imitate) to justify their war against Israel? Among other things. Only a fool could deny that this is a religious war between the West and Islam.

“If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” - Ronald Reagan

Molon Labe
12-18-2010, 03:53 PM
Even though that is technically true (if by 'Muslim' you mean actual Muslims), I don't think anyone said anything about 'every Muslim' here.

And considering it's the avowed intention of Islamists to take over the world, I don't quite understand the bolded part. Why are so many Muslim nations in the world against Israel when Israel did nothing to them? Why do Muslims born and raised in Canada go to Afghanistan to kill US soldiers? Why does al-Qaeda talk about Andalusia and use it as a reason to attack the West? Why does Iran's constitution (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ir00000_.html) state that their hope/goal is "the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others"? Why does Hamas' charter use a hadith ("the hour of judgement shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them", I believe it says, quoting Muhammad, the perfect follower of Allah who every Muslim is advised to imitate) to justify their war against Israel? Among other things. Only a fool could deny that this is a religious war between the West and Islam.

“If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” - Ronald Reagan

That Reagan quote brings up a good point. The fact that more Americans...at least that believe as you do...think that they need fear Islam or other bugaboos from the outside, more than they need to fear their own government that are doing things as we speak that will affect American citizens far worse. If history has shown anything it's that nations fall from within.

djones520
12-18-2010, 06:42 PM
That's rich... going on about people being afraid of "bugaboos" and then railing on about Big Brother wanting to get you. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 06:44 PM
That's rich... going on about people being afraid of "bugaboos" and then railing on about Big Brother wanting to get you. :rolleyes:

The government does Mr. Jones!

djones520
12-18-2010, 06:49 PM
The government does Mr. Jones!

They already got me though. ;)

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 07:07 PM
They already got me though. ;)

Wait till you retire and decide to start your own business, then you will no what I mean.

djones520
12-18-2010, 07:09 PM
Wait till you retire and decide to start your own business, then you will no what I mean.

I'm not planning to. I'm going to continue work in government service.

Bleda
12-18-2010, 09:38 PM
That Reagan quote brings up a good point. The fact that more Americans...at least that believe as you do...think that they need fear Islam or other bugaboos from the outside, more than they need to fear their own government that are doing things as we speak that will affect American citizens far worse. If history has shown anything it's that nations fall from within.

I'm afraid of both, ML. And history has shown that nations fall due to external enemies as well.

Molon Labe
12-20-2010, 12:07 PM
That's rich... going on about people being afraid of "bugaboos" and then railing on about Big Brother wanting to get you. :rolleyes:

Well, I guess some fear certain bugaboos more than others. I guess I base it more on what I consider realistic chance. Here's a multiple choice question

Which is more likely in the next 10 years to bring down the U.S?

A. Al Qaeda and Muslim terror

B. Bad government policy such as bailouts, nanny state spending programs, deficit spending and just plain stupid ideas


Maybe I'm wrong but you think the later is "rich". But I'll take Orwell's vision that things break down from the inside before outside forces take over. Oh and the founders must have been pretty much in my court too.


If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison

djones520
12-20-2010, 12:09 PM
Neither will. Because we are combatting both. Some of us just don't live our lives looking at an empty glass.

Molon Labe
12-20-2010, 12:13 PM
I'm afraid of both, ML. And history has shown that nations fall due to external enemies as well.

Yep. Give me an example of a foreign enemy that is going to bring the US down militarily and enslave us all.

We're the greatest military to every march across the earth, so I gotta hear your answer.

malloc
12-20-2010, 03:05 PM
The claim is neither dishonest nor wrong. The literal translation of the word "jihad" is "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depending on the context, and context is everything. The Hadiths, and Sira, or Sunnah, define what is meant by jihad, and from the Medina period, it was almost always used in the context of military action to advance or defend Islam. Military jihad is authorized wherever Islam is threatened, but the definition of the threat constitutes pretty much anything that goes against Islam, since the entire universe belongs to Allah, and thus, any violation of his laws or will constitutes an offense against Islam. For example, the loss of Islamic lands to infidels, no matter how tenuous the possession of the land was in the first place, is considered a conquest and affront. This is why there will never be peace between Jews and Muslims in the ME, since the very existence of Israel is an affront to Islam, and the same holds for Spain, most of India, etc. Thus, Israel's existence justifies Iran's stated intent to "wipe Israel off the map" and Iran's development of a nuclear capability. Any action taken in defense against jihad is further provocation. Thus, killing a scientist who is attempting to develop a WMD arsenal whose intent to kill you is not self-defense in the eyes of the mullahs, but an unjustified act in defiance of Islam.

I don't think you quite understand what I was saying. I don't necessarily disagree with what you said in this post, but I do disagree with the untruthful premise you established with Bleda when you stated that Iran's motivation for retaliation was Jihad, as if the principles you described above were the true reason behind Naghdi's threats. Naghdi made the reason he leveled these threats perfectly clear, "[we] will identify which hanging was in retaliation for the blood of our great martyr Shahriari". There can be no misconception here, and there isn't any other way to interpret this quote except to conceede that attacks on generals, if they occur, is retaliation for the death of this scientist. If a U.S. general or leader is attacked by Iranians, then it will be in direct retaliation for the killing of the scientists, and not some greater Islamic conspiracy or way of thinking. Some, or even most, Islamic leaders in Iran may think the way you described above, but not every, or even most, Muslims in Iran. The killing of their scientists however gave their Iranian leadership more ammunition to use in the war for hearts and minds. Was giving people like Naghdi more ammunition in this arena in exchange for the death of their scientist a good trade? I have no idea, but if it prevents a nuclear Iran, I'm going to have to say that it probably was worth it.



Wrong again. Iran targets Israel because Jews are ruling in land that once belonged to Islam, even if the Jews were there first and never left. None of this matters to any Muslim who takes the injunctions of the Qur'an seriously. Infidels outside of Islam, living in Dar al Harb, or the House of War, are to be defeated, forced to submit or converted or killed, whether they support Israel or not, whether they are nice to Muslims or not. This has nothing to do with US support of Israel and everything to do with Islamist supremacy. It is the same argument that justified Barbary Pirate attacks on American ships 150 years before the founding of Israel, and a century before the first Zionist conference, the same argument that justified (commanded, actually) the Islamic conquest of the Christian regions of the East (of the five great urban centers of early Christianity, only one is not Muslim today) that led to the Crusades (an attempt to reconquer Christian lands), and the ongoing conflicts everywhere in the world where Islam meets any other culture. Thailand, for example, doesn't have anything to do with Israel, but Thai Muslims are fighting and killing non-Muslims there. The Philippines doesn't have anything to do with Israel. Neither does Nigeria, Darfur, Chechniya, Chad or any of the other places where Islamic supremacists are fighting to impose Islam on unwilling natives. Blaming jihad on the US and Israel is like blaming all cancers on secondhand smoke.

This is more like the Cold War than the Crusades. The same dynamic that drove doctrinaire Marxists, the desire to see the entire world under one communist authority, is what drives Islam. Substitute Ummah for the masses, the Qur'an for the Communist Manifesto and jihad for revolution of the proletariat, and you'll understand the mindset. Pretending otherwise is just appeasement.

I don't believe for a second that this has nothing to do with U.S. support for Israel. Especially since every radical Islamist who targets the U.S. says that it is, at least in part, due to U.S. support for Israel? Does Osama Bin Laden lie when he says this? Why would he lie about his reasons for killing Americans? What benefit does he gain for lying about it? If the U.S. were completely uninvolved with Israel, and didn't send them aid in the billions, or wasn't associated with Israel at all, would Naghdi have identified U.S. generals as targets in retaliation for scientists who he believes were killed by Israeli's? No, he would not have. If Britain was perceived by the world as the premier supporting power behind Israel, and Israel had attacked these scientists, would Naghdi have named British generals as targets instead of American Generals? You betcha.

Every time an incident like this occurs, Americans step back and look at the whole of Islam as if every Muslim and every Islamic country has both the desire and the means to take over the world. They don't ever look at the specifics which give radicalized leaders, who really do desire world domination, the talking points necessary to convince their people to radicalize.

djones520
12-20-2010, 03:19 PM
In the book "From Babel to Dragomans" is an essay written by Bernard Lewis, one of the foremost Arabic scholars in the world, discussed indepth why it is that Israel is the "boogeyman" and the US along with it.

I'd suggest reading it. Very informative.

Molon Labe
12-20-2010, 05:36 PM
Neither will. Because we are combatting both. Some of us just don't live our lives looking at an empty glass.

My concern is for people who look at America and get warm fuzzies about the great concept of America, and fail to see that what is and was great about America is not the same vision the federal government practices.

I used to look at everything as half full. I used to be just like you. Unfortunately reality has a way of sobering you up after you've been involved with the political process for 20 years, watching the next guy who said he was going to do something deal the same old policies that drive away and damage things that made America great. There's a lot of things to happy and good about in this country, but then there's some things that need to drastically change. Wanting that is not an empty glass.


In the book "From Babel to Dragomans" is an essay written by Bernard Lewis, one of the foremost Arabic scholars in the world, discussed indepth why it is that Israel is the "boogeyman" and the US along with it.

I'd suggest reading it. Very informative.

Sounds like a good read. From what I could glean from a quick search about him and the book, he seems to have one belief I can agree with. That Islam didn't get really radical until secular western society started encroaching (colonialism). I do think that that belief is incongruent with another of his beliefs; that the invasion of Iraq would start a "modernization" of the middle east. I doubt that will happen or ever could.

Molon Labe
12-20-2010, 05:44 PM
I don't think you quite understand what I was saying. I don't necessarily disagree with what you said in this post, but I do disagree with the untruthful premise you established with Bleda when you stated that Iran's motivation for retaliation was Jihad, as if the principles you described above were the true reason behind Naghdi's threats. Naghdi made the reason he leveled these threats perfectly clear, "[we] will identify which hanging was in retaliation for the blood of our great martyr Shahriari". There can be no misconception here, and there isn't any other way to interpret this quote except to conceede that attacks on generals, if they occur, is retaliation for the death of this scientist. If a U.S. general or leader is attacked by Iranians, then it will be in direct retaliation for the killing of the scientists, and not some greater Islamic conspiracy or way of thinking. Some, or even most, Islamic leaders in Iran may think the way you described above, but not every, or even most, Muslims in Iran. The killing of their scientists however gave their Iranian leadership more ammunition to use in the war for hearts and minds. Was giving people like Naghdi more ammunition in this arena in exchange for the death of their scientist a good trade? I have no idea, but if it prevents a nuclear Iran, I'm going to have to say that it probably was worth it.



I don't believe for a second that this has nothing to do with U.S. support for Israel. Especially since every radical Islamist who targets the U.S. says that it is, at least in part, due to U.S. support for Israel? Does Osama Bin Laden lie when he says this? Why would he lie about his reasons for killing Americans? What benefit does he gain for lying about it? If the U.S. were completely uninvolved with Israel, and didn't send them aid in the billions, or wasn't associated with Israel at all, would Naghdi have identified U.S. generals as targets in retaliation for scientists who he believes were killed by Israeli's? No, he would not have. If Britain was perceived by the world as the premier supporting power behind Israel, and Israel had attacked these scientists, would Naghdi have named British generals as targets instead of American Generals? You betcha.

Every time an incident like this occurs, Americans step back and look at the whole of Islam as if every Muslim and every Islamic country has both the desire and the means to take over the world. They don't ever look at the specifics which give radicalized leaders, who really do desire world domination, the talking points necessary to convince their people to radicalize.

That.
You can't radicalize a great number without real or perceived grievences. There are both. The same way the small Nazi party got the whold of Germany to go along...the same way the Chinese peoples party got the rural Chinese to go along against the Japanese invasion. To ignore this is folly.

I'm actually looking forward to Scheuer's biography of Bin Laden that comes out in early 11'. Actually from his other work there's very little to take away from it other than just what you concluded.

Bleda
12-23-2010, 11:04 PM
Yep. Give me an example of a foreign enemy that is going to bring the US down militarily and enslave us all.

We're the greatest military to every march across the earth, so I gotta hear your answer.

You sure love that straw man. Do you really believe we should only defend ourselves against enemies that can defeat us militarily (the old fashioned way)? You have no clue what damage terrorism can do.

PoliCon
12-23-2010, 11:12 PM
You sure love that straw man. Do you really believe we should only defend ourselves against enemies that can defeat us militarily (the old fashioned way)? You have no clue what damage terrorism can do.


Good point.

We won Independence from the British - who had a VASTLY superior force because they were unwilling to commit to victory - because the gorilla tactics that were used by US troops frustrated the superior British forces and the war cut into business profits. The terrorists know - from our own example - that all they have to do is out wait our superior forces and they will win.

As for supporting Israel - why the hell wouldn't we support Israel? :confused:

Bleda
12-23-2010, 11:24 PM
Contrary to popular belief, Jihad does not mean, "Holy War to Spread Islam To The West", nor does it mean, "Kill Americans Because We Hate Their Freedom". Jihad means "struggle". Why every other Arab word, written in Farsi, was translated into English except the word 'Jihad' should be pretty obvious.

There are types of jihad. There is the "inner struggle" sense, which is meant in only a minority of times it's used in the Quran, but that's besides the point. There are violent types of jihad, as well. There is the jihad against infidels (jihad al-kuffahr) and the jihad against the 'hypocrites' (jihad al-munafiqeen), for instance, which have nothing to do with "inner struggle" or any other hippie ideals, and which involve imposing the will of Islam on others.

Even the Wikipedia article on Jihad is [surprisingly] informative. You should take the time to read it.


Both of your comments above are framed to make it appear as though Naghdi's usage of the word 'jihad' is what explains the reasons behind his threats of violence, as if 'Jihad' is the reason in and of itself. That's dishonest and both of you knew it was dishonest when you made the claim. A call to jihad is the result of the perceived provocation, and not the provocation itself. Naghdi explained the actual provocation when he said, "killing our scientists", and "in retaliation ... Shahriari."

Malloc, you should read what the Brig Gen actually said. He said Iran is already waging jihad, not that Iran is now going to wage jihad in retaliation for whatever they think we or Israel did to them.


When the question is, "Why does radical Islam target the U.S.?", the answer is not "Jihad", "Holy War" or "Our Freedoms". The U.S. has put itself into this position by years of supporting Israel, and an interventionist foreign policy. That should be very obvious based on Naghdi's very own words. The real argument is whether or not being targeted like this is worth the benefits of supporting Israel and intervening in the Middle East.

My only response is, "Read the Quran and Sunna and see what Muhammad/Allah told his followers to do." This war has been going on since the advent of Islam, and has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel, or America.

Bleda
12-23-2010, 11:40 PM
Good point.

We won Independence from the British - who had a VASTLY superior force because they were unwilling to commit to victory - because the gorilla tactics that were used by US troops frustrated the superior British forces and the war cut into business profits. The terrorists know - from our own example - that all they have to do is out wait our superior forces and they will win.

As for supporting Israel - why the hell wouldn't we support Israel? :confused:

It's far easier to defeat a country like ours through terrorism than through conventional military tactics. Look at their war against Israel. Several wars (the old-fashioned way) and they lost every time. They gained nothing, and in fact lost quite a lot. That's when they switched to terrorism, which has caused far more victories (to them) and damage (to Israel) than all the conventional wars combined. And that's with bombs, rockets, guns and axes. Imagine what terrorist groups could do with, say, a few suitcase nukes courtesy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mere threat of using WMD in terrorist attacks would make most countries become submissive.

Molon Labe
12-23-2010, 11:59 PM
You sure love that straw man. Do you really believe we should only defend ourselves against enemies that can defeat us militarily (the old fashioned way)? You have no clue what damage terrorism can do.


you can't and don't defeat a concept. If that's the "new fashioned" way, then............Fail.

Bleda
12-24-2010, 12:00 AM
you can't and don't defeat a concept. If that's the "new fashioned" way, then............Fail.

What concept?

Molon Labe
12-24-2010, 01:02 AM
What concept?

Terrorism is a concept.

Merry Christmas if I don't see you all for a few days. i gotta get some sleep.

Bleda
12-24-2010, 01:14 AM
Terrorism is a concept.

Merry Christmas if I don't see you all for a few days. i gotta get some sleep.

Well, I'm not one of those who are under the impression we're fighting a war on 'terrorism.' Terrorism is a tactic they use. The enemy is Islam[ism]. Saying we're fighting terrorism is akin to saying WW2 was a war against kamikaze and blitzkrieg attacks.

And merry Christmas to you, too. :)

PoliCon
12-24-2010, 02:54 PM
Terrorism is a concept.

Merry Christmas if I don't see you all for a few days. i gotta get some sleep.

Communism is a concept too ya know . . . .

Odysseus
12-24-2010, 04:38 PM
that's one hell of a stretch bordering on conspiracy Ody.

The Cold War was about two superpowers of equal political and military strength and a war of ideas. The reason our political leaders, and strategy in the GWOT and dealing with the Middle east has been less than stellar is because too many of the policy makers still believe that we are in another cold war like you do.
No, the problem is that too many of our leaders don't understand that the Cold War wasn't that cold. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and the various Central American wars were conflicts between US and Soviet proxies. Today, the terror masters are the Iranians, and their proxies are Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and a host of other terror groups. They also supply weapons and technology to other enemies, or act as a conduit. They subsidize North Korea with oil revenues, in exchange for missile technology. They buy Russian and Chinese weapons and ship them to terror groups which use them against us and our allies. Their threat is very real, and you dismiss it at your peril.

That Reagan quote brings up a good point. The fact that more Americans...at least that believe as you do...think that they need fear Islam or other bugaboos from the outside, more than they need to fear their own government that are doing things as we speak that will affect American citizens far worse. If history has shown anything it's that nations fall from within.


Well, I guess some fear certain bugaboos more than others. I guess I base it more on what I consider realistic chance. Here's a multiple choice question

Which is more likely in the next 10 years to bring down the U.S?

A. Al Qaeda and Muslim terror

B. Bad government policy such as bailouts, nanny state spending programs, deficit spending and just plain stupid ideas

Maybe I'm wrong but you think the later is "rich". But I'll take Orwell's vision that things break down from the inside before outside forces take over. Oh and the founders must have been pretty much in my court too.
You are assuming that A and B are mutually exclusive. As Rome collapsed internally, it became incapable of policing itself and protecting its borders, and eventually, it fell to external forces. Right now, we have a war going on our southern border that has taken 30,000 lives, and threatens to drive Mexico into anarchy. We are under attack by terror groups that seek to destroy us from without, through military and terror acts, and from within, by immigration, stealth jihad and the undermining of American principles. The B policies weaken us internally, but also erode our capacity to project power, which is another win for the anti-American left. The people who favor the policies of B are also enablers of A.

I don't think you quite understand what I was saying. I don't necessarily disagree with what you said in this post, but I do disagree with the untruthful premise you established with Bleda when you stated that Iran's motivation for retaliation was Jihad, as if the principles you described above were the true reason behind Naghdi's threats. Naghdi made the reason he leveled these threats perfectly clear, "[we] will identify which hanging was in retaliation for the blood of our great martyr Shahriari". There can be no misconception here, and there isn't any other way to interpret this quote except to conceede that attacks on generals, if they occur, is retaliation for the death of this scientist. If a U.S. general or leader is attacked by Iranians, then it will be in direct retaliation for the killing of the scientists, and not some greater Islamic conspiracy or way of thinking. Some, or even most, Islamic leaders in Iran may think the way you described above, but not every, or even most, Muslims in Iran. The killing of their scientists however gave their Iranian leadership more ammunition to use in the war for hearts and minds. Was giving people like Naghdi more ammunition in this arena in exchange for the death of their scientist a good trade? I have no idea, but if it prevents a nuclear Iran, I'm going to have to say that it probably was worth it.
There is nothing false in our premise that Iran is motivated by jihad. The ongoing desire to get nukes, and the delivery systems to attack, not just Israel, but western Europe, are driven by the revolutionary ideas of a global Islamic caliphate under the auspices of Shiite Iran. This was Khomeini's vision, and it is the vision shared by his acolytes, including Ahmedinejad. The deaths of their scientists are part of the war that Iran declared on us in 1979, and which they have never stopped waging. For them to suddenly be shocked, shocked I tell you, that we are willing to fight back in order to prevent them from gaining the means to destroy our cities is extremely disingenuous.

I don't believe for a second that this has nothing to do with U.S. support for Israel. Especially since every radical Islamist who targets the U.S. says that it is, at least in part, due to U.S. support for Israel? Does Osama Bin Laden lie when he says this? Why would he lie about his reasons for killing Americans? What benefit does he gain for lying about it? If the U.S. were completely uninvolved with Israel, and didn't send them aid in the billions, or wasn't associated with Israel at all, would Naghdi have identified U.S. generals as targets in retaliation for scientists who he believes were killed by Israeli's? No, he would not have. If Britain was perceived by the world as the premier supporting power behind Israel, and Israel had attacked these scientists, would Naghdi have named British generals as targets instead of American Generals? You betcha.
The Islamic radicals see the world in terms that you would find highly simplistic, but to them, they are real. They see Islam as a single entity, and consider those who do not subscribe to their version of it as apostates. They see everything else as Dar al Harb, the House of War, and make no distinction between nations of infidels. To them, the west is a monolithic bloc of Christian states that conspires to keep Islam down, and Israel is our colony. If the US were as hostile to Israel as Sweden, France or Britain is, and make no mistake about it, Britain has been notoriously hostile to Israel since its origins, then there would still be terror attacks directed against us, just as there are against Sweden, France and Britain, not because of our support for Israel, but because of our position as the leader of western civilization. This is not a war of nations, but of civilizations, and cutting ties to our allies within the west does us no good. It will not appease the Islamists, and will not deter them.

Every time an incident like this occurs, Americans step back and look at the whole of Islam as if every Muslim and every Islamic country has both the desire and the means to take over the world. They don't ever look at the specifics which give radicalized leaders, who really do desire world domination, the talking points necessary to convince their people to radicalize.
Some Americans do. Some dismiss them as "bugaboos." Some of us, however, analyze the global threat and identify courses of action based on a deeper understanding of it.

Communism is a concept too ya know . . . .
Yep. And it's still in vogue in some places.