philburger1 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 An advertisement in an Iranian publication has called for people to come forward for "martyrdom operations" against the enemies of Islam. It is published by an institute managed by one of Iran's most conservative and radical clerics, Ayatollah Masbah Yazdi, who has declared his support for Iran's new President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The advertisement calls for men and women to enlist with the "Martyrdom Lovers' Headquarters". It says the idea is to achieve "all-out readiness" against the enemies of Islam - and the Islamic Republic of Iran. PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: INSERT MORALLY AMBIGUOUS COMMENT MENTIONING CHRISTIANS, NECONS, AND GEORGE BUSH REPLY HERE..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 An advertisement in an Iranian publication has called for people to come forward for "martyrdom operations" against the enemies of Islam. It is published by an institute managed by one of Iran's most conservative and radical clerics, Ayatollah Masbah Yazdi, who has declared his support for Iran's new President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The advertisement calls for men and women to enlist with the "Martyrdom Lovers' Headquarters". It says the idea is to achieve "all-out readiness" against the enemies of Islam - and the Islamic Republic of Iran. PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: INSERT MORALLY AMBIGUOUS COMMENT MENTIONING CHRISTIANS, NECONS, AND GEORGE BUSH REPLY HERE..... 390633[/snapback] Does not your point that this is one of Iran's "most conservative and radical clerics" negate your larger point that all Islam is evil and violent? This line would seem to indicate that there are elements less conservative and radical than this not-so-gentleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Does not your point that this is one of Iran's "most conservative and radical clerics" negate your larger point that all Islam is evil and violent? This line would seem to indicate that there are elements less conservative and radical than this not-so-gentleman. 390637[/snapback] You are right. Many Islamics are wonderful people. I could be wrong but I think at some point, this will matter little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Does not your point that this is one of Iran's "most conservative and radical clerics" negate your larger point that all Islam is evil and violent? This line would seem to indicate that there are elements less conservative and radical than this not-so-gentleman. 390637[/snapback] His point is not that "all of Islam is violent". Nodbody thinks that. His point is that the notion that "only a very very small minority of Islam is violent" is being whittled away day by day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 His point is not that "all of Islam is violent". Nodbody thinks that. His point is that the notion that "only a very very small minority of Islam is violent" is being whittled away day by day. 390696[/snapback] Or rather, the problem isn't that the vast majority of Islam is violent, but that the vast majority of Islam does not publicly denounce violence, i.e. terrorism. Until the vast majority of Islam does so, unfortunatley the negative Western stereotypes and general racism towards the Islamic people will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Or rather, the problem isn't that the vast majority of Islam is violent, but that the vast majority of Islam does not publicly denounce violence, i.e. terrorism. Until the vast majority of Islam does so, unfortunatley the negative Western stereotypes and general racism towards the Islamic people will continue. 390746[/snapback] Fareed Zackaria had a good article on just this fact: How to Stop the Contagion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Right wingnuts in America kill people in the name of Christianity - Eric Rudolph comes to mind. So therefore according to PPP CW: 1) all rightwingers are violent and must be immediately detailed and/or killed 2) All Christians are bloodthirsty monsters. Now doesn't that sound stupid? That's because udging one large homgeneous group by the actions of extremists is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 1) all rightwingers are violent and must be immediately detailed and/or killed2) All Christians are bloodthirsty monsters. 390757[/snapback] You're an idiot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Right wingnuts in America kill people in the name of Christianity - Eric Rudolph comes to mind. So therefore according to PPP CW: 1) all rightwingers are violent and must be immediately detailed and/or killed 2) All Christians are bloodthirsty monsters. Now doesn't that sound stupid? That's because udging one large homgeneous group by the actions of extremists is stupid. 390757[/snapback] Are you normally this dense or are you just trying to instigate? Read my previous post. Last time I checked, the VAST majority of American Christians (well over 99%) have publicly denounced Christian terrorists like Rudolph. There was ZERO sympathy from any news network across the US over Rudolph's fate. Even the Nazi-based propaganda machine you call FOX News had no sympathy for such Christian terrorists. Yet check out al-Jazeera sometime, and you won't get the same reaction towards Palestinian/Iraqi suicide bombers. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 An advertisement in an Iranian publication has called for people to come forward for "martyrdom operations" against the enemies of Islam. It is published by an institute managed by one of Iran's most conservative and radical clerics, Ayatollah Masbah Yazdi, who has declared his support for Iran's new President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The advertisement calls for men and women to enlist with the "Martyrdom Lovers' Headquarters". It says the idea is to achieve "all-out readiness" against the enemies of Islam - and the Islamic Republic of Iran. PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: INSERT MORALLY AMBIGUOUS COMMENT MENTIONING CHRISTIANS, NECONS, AND GEORGE BUSH REPLY HERE..... 390633[/snapback] And your surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Right wingnuts in America kill people in the name of Christianity - Eric Rudolph comes to mind. So therefore according to PPP CW: 1) all rightwingers are violent and must be immediately detailed and/or killed 2) All Christians are bloodthirsty monsters. Now doesn't that sound stupid? That's because udging one large homgeneous group by the actions of extremists is stupid. 390757[/snapback] Nothing like that was even CLOSE to being said in this thread or any other discussion o nthe topic. The only person on PPP who ever came even CLOSE to lumping all muslims together is a libertarian. The other is Richio (no explanation needed). But dont let that get in the way of yet another half-baked, half-assed, smug comment. Seriously, Deb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 INSERT MORALLY AMBIGUOUS COMMENT MENTIONING CHRISTIANS, NECONS, AND GEORGE BUSH REPLY HERE..... 390633[/snapback] Just wondering, what is a "morally ambigous comment?" The double modifier has me scratching my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Right wingnuts in America kill people in the name of Christianity - Eric Rudolph comes to mind. So therefore according to PPP CW: 1) all rightwingers are violent and must be immediately detailed and/or killed 2) All Christians are bloodthirsty monsters. Now doesn't that sound stupid? That's because udging one large homgeneous group by the actions of extremists is stupid. 390757[/snapback] Great analogy. I didn't know that Eric Rudolph was advertising for suicide bombers in the newspapers and was setting up an apparently legal organization to recruit, train and arm them. Yup, that sure does sound stupid. But then again, you're an idiot so it's hardly a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Are you normally this dense or are you just trying to instigate? 390766[/snapback] Um, yes she is, and yes she is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Fareed Zackaria had a good article on just this fact: How to Stop the Contagion 390751[/snapback] thats a good read...thanks for the link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 An advertisement in an Iranian publication has called for people to come forward for "martyrdom operations" against the enemies of Islam. It is published by an institute managed by one of Iran's most conservative and radical clerics, Ayatollah Masbah Yazdi, who has declared his support for Iran's new President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The advertisement calls for men and women to enlist with the "Martyrdom Lovers' Headquarters". It says the idea is to achieve "all-out readiness" against the enemies of Islam - and the Islamic Republic of Iran. PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: INSERT MORALLY AMBIGUOUS COMMENT MENTIONING CHRISTIANS, NECONS, AND GEORGE BUSH REPLY HERE..... 390633[/snapback] And in what context would these "martyrdom operations" be carried out? If they are advertising for people to go and blow themselves and civilians up, that is one thing. If they are advertising for people to carry out these operations against military targets in the event of an invasion of Iran, that is quite another. Can you provide more details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 And in what context would these "martyrdom operations" be carried out? If they are advertising for people to go and blow themselves and civilians up, that is one thing. If they are advertising for people to carry out these operations against military targets in the event of an invasion of Iran, that is quite another. Can you provide more details? 391288[/snapback] Probably doesn't matter much. For the past fifty years, the Middle Eastern idea of defense has basically been one of "active" defense - i.e. defend yourself by attacking the other guy on his turf (case in point: the Palestinians "defending" themselves by attacking busses in Tel Aviv. That's just one example, I can name others). A call to "defend Iran against foreign aggression" using terrorist attacks is effectively a call to attack other countries using terrorist attacks, unless you're postulating a drastic shift in not just policy but the culture of the country and region. I'm not saying there's anything right or wrong with "active defense" either...I'm just saying it is what it is, and distinguishing between "defensive" and "aggressive" action in the Middle East as you just did is fallacious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Probably doesn't matter much. For the past fifty years, the Middle Eastern idea of defense has basically been one of "active" defense - i.e. defend yourself by attacking the other guy on his turf (case in point: the Palestinians "defending" themselves by attacking busses in Tel Aviv. That's just one example, I can name others). A call to "defend Iran against foreign aggression" using terrorist attacks is effectively a call to attack other countries using terrorist attacks, unless you're postulating a drastic shift in not just policy but the culture of the country and region. I'm not saying there's anything right or wrong with "active defense" either...I'm just saying it is what it is, and distinguishing between "defensive" and "aggressive" action in the Middle East as you just did is fallacious. 391305[/snapback] You're missing my point. From the original post, it is not clear whether or not terrorist attacks are being advocated. For instance, if someone drives a truck laden with explosives into a tank from an invading army in the centre of Tehran, would that actually be terrorism? Now, it may be that he was actually advocating attacks on civilians (as you seem to be assuming) but that's not really clear from the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 You're missing my point. From the original post, it is not clear whether or not terrorist attacks are being advocated. For instance, if someone drives a truck laden with explosives into a tank from an invading army in the centre of Tehran, would that actually be terrorism? Now, it may be that he was actually advocating attacks on civilians (as you seem to be assuming) but that's not really clear from the original post. 391342[/snapback] "Conservative and radical clerics" take the view that the Koran only distinguishes between believers and unbelievers, not civilians and soldiers. The original post says quite clearly that he's recruiting for operations against "enemies of Islam", which would typically mean anyone perceived as an "enemy of Islam", regardless of the western distinction of "soldier" and "civilian". Frankly, I don't see how he's advocating anything else. "martyrdom operations against the enemies of Islam" is pretty damned unambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 "Conservative and radical clerics" take the view that the Koran only distinguishes between believers and unbelievers, not civilians and soldiers. The original post says quite clearly that he's recruiting for operations against "enemies of Islam", which would typically mean anyone perceived as an "enemy of Islam", regardless of the western distinction of "soldier" and "civilian". Frankly, I don't see how he's advocating anything else. "martyrdom operations against the enemies of Islam" is pretty damned unambiguous. 391370[/snapback] I believe some dude named Osama made a similar statement a few years back. So it's pretty safe to assume this kook is recruiting for terrorist operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 "Conservative and radical clerics" take the view that the Koran only distinguishes between believers and unbelievers, not civilians and soldiers. The original post says quite clearly that he's recruiting for operations against "enemies of Islam", which would typically mean anyone perceived as an "enemy of Islam", regardless of the western distinction of "soldier" and "civilian". Frankly, I don't see how he's advocating anything else. "martyrdom operations against the enemies of Islam" is pretty damned unambiguous. 391370[/snapback] "Enemies of Islam" is pretty standard mullah speech which could mean several things. Does he mean all enemies of Islam?. Some enemies of Islam?Selected enemies of Islam? The statement talks of "all-out readiness" which implies that these operations are not to be carried out now but at some future time (an invasion of Iran, perhaps?). Why wait? Are there not already "enemies of Islam" (in his view) in the world? If he was incapable of making judgements (as you seem to be suggesting) as to which enemies of Islam are to be attacked, why shouldn't he be advocating attacks against them right now? Also, where are these "martyrdom operations" to be carried out? In Iran? Abroad? If the latter, it seems a strange policy to forewarn western nations by publicly announcing his intentions in this way. Again, you may be right that he is indeed advocating terrorist attacks against civilians but I don't think the snippet provided makes that clear by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 "Enemies of Islam" is pretty standard mullah speech which could mean several things. Does he mean all enemies of Islam?. Some enemies of Islam?Selected enemies of Islam? The statement talks of "all-out readiness" which implies that these operations are not to be carried out now but at some future time (an invasion of Iran, perhaps?). Why wait? Are there not already "enemies of Islam" (in his view) in the world? If he was incapable of making judgements (as you seem to be suggesting) as to which enemies of Islam are to be attacked, why shouldn't he be advocating attacks against them right now? Also, where are these "martyrdom operations" to be carried out? In Iran? Abroad? If the latter, it seems a strange policy to forewarn western nations by publicly announcing his intentions in this way. Again, you may be right that he is indeed advocating terrorist attacks against civilians but I don't think the snippet provided makes that clear by any means. 392058[/snapback] You've GOT to be kidding me. Post of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 You've GOT to be kidding me. Post of the year. 392073[/snapback] Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 "Enemies of Islam" is pretty standard mullah speech which could mean several things. Does he mean all enemies of Islam?. Some enemies of Islam?Selected enemies of Islam? The statement talks of "all-out readiness" which implies that these operations are not to be carried out now but at some future time (an invasion of Iran, perhaps?). Why wait? Are there not already "enemies of Islam" (in his view) in the world? If he was incapable of making judgements (as you seem to be suggesting) as to which enemies of Islam are to be attacked, why shouldn't he be advocating attacks against them right now? Also, where are these "martyrdom operations" to be carried out? In Iran? Abroad? If the latter, it seems a strange policy to forewarn western nations by publicly announcing his intentions in this way. Again, you may be right that he is indeed advocating terrorist attacks against civilians but I don't think the snippet provided makes that clear by any means. 392058[/snapback] This is the most stunning piece of double-talk I have ever read. For twenty years, "martyrdom" in "attacking the enemies of Islam" has meant terrorist attacks against Western, primarily civilian, targets in Western countries. And suddenly, it means something completely different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 This is the most stunning piece of double-talk I have ever read. For twenty years, "martyrdom" in "attacking the enemies of Islam" has meant terrorist attacks against Western, primarily civilian, targets in Western countries. And suddenly, it means something completely different? 392100[/snapback] Given that there is plenty of speculation about an attack on Iran at the moment, I don't think it is at all out of the question that it could just as easily refer to attacks on an invading army. They would still be "martyrdom operations" and a US force invading Iran would certainly be seen as "enemies of Islam and the Islamic republic of Iran". BTW the BBC spin on it is that it's a load of hot air: BBC Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 This is the most stunning piece of double-talk I have ever read. For twenty years, "martyrdom" in "attacking the enemies of Islam" has meant terrorist attacks against Western, primarily civilian, targets in Western countries. And suddenly, it means something completely different? 392100[/snapback] There have also been suicide bombings against US troops in Iraq (as well as those targetting civilians). Care to hazard a guess as to how the groups that have carried out those attacks would describe them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 There have also been suicide bombings against US troops in Iraq (as well as those targetting civilians). Care to hazard a guess as to how the groups that have carried out those attacks would describe them? 392116[/snapback] The same way they characterize 9/11. "Defense" against "enemies of Islam". WHICH WAS PRECISELY MY POINT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 The same way they characterize 9/11. "Defense" against "enemies of Islam". WHICH WAS PRECISELY MY POINT. 392248[/snapback] So in other words, "martyrdom operations against enemies of Islam" can mean attacks on military targets as well as attacks on civilians, which was precisely my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 So in other words, "martyrdom operations against enemies of Islam" can mean attacks on military targets as well as attacks on civilians, which was precisely my point. 392270[/snapback] You guys just seem to agree funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 I heard part of an interesting article on NPR this morning from a gentleman in the Middle East who's been monitoring the Islamic reaction to terror over a period of time. Here's the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 So in other words, "martyrdom operations against enemies of Islam" can mean attacks on military targets as well as attacks on civilians, which was precisely my point. 392270[/snapback] No, actually you'd said it doesn't mean attacks on civilians. But then, it makes it much easier to win the argument when you change your words in mid-stream, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemur King Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 No, actually you'd said it doesn't mean attacks on civilians. But then, it makes it much easier to win the argument when you change your words in mid-stream, doesn't it? 392419[/snapback] Can't you two just disagree to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts