Sarge Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Just so you all know, allah says it's OK to nuke us http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD109606 February 17, 2006 No.1096 Reformist Iranian Internet Daily: A New Fatwa States That Religious Law Does Not Forbid Use of Nuclear Weapons On February 16, 2006, the reformist Internet daily Rooz (www.roozonline.com ) reported for the first time that extremist clerics from Qom had issued what the daily called "a new fatwa," which states that "shari'a does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons." The following are excerpts from the Rooz report by Shahram Rafizadeh: [1] "When the Entire World is Armed With Nuclear Weapons, it is Permissible to Use These Weapons as a Counter-[Measure]" "The spiritual leaders of the ultra-conservatives [in Iran] have accepted the use of nuclear weapons as lawful in the eyes of shari'a. Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi [who is Iranian President Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor], has spoken for the first time of using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure. He stated that 'in terms of shari'a, it all depends on the goal.' "The religious leadership of the Islamic Republic [of Iran], which has until now regarded the use of nuclear weapons as opposed to shari'a, and has repeated this point again and again, has so far kept silent about this. In spite of the fact that, in the last few weeks, some of the senior [leaders] of the Islamic Republic have tried to reduce the pressure [exerted by] the radical [conservatives], the radicals nevertheless seem to have complete control over the [political] arena. "[iranian National Security Council Secretary] Ali Larijani, who is in charge of the nuclear dossier, has spoken to reporters only once since the [iAEA] Board of Governors approved its resolution - and his silence is significant. [2] But yesterday, the IraNews news agency published recent remarks by Mohsen Gharavian regarding the nuclear issue. Gharavian is a lecturer at the religious schools of Qom, and is a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi. In his recent remarks, he said for the first time that the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem according to shari'a. He further said that 'when the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-[measure]. According to shari'a, too, only the goal is important...' "[Gharavian] said that he sees no problem with the military use of nuclear weapons [sic]: 'One must say that when the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is only natural that, as a counter-measure, it is necessary to be able to use these weapons. However, what is important is what goal they may be used for." "The Ultra-[Conservatives] in Iran Have Launched a New Effort to Prepare the Religious Grounds for Use of These Weapons" "This cleric, who is close to the government, also referred to the nuclear talks and to the future phases of the negotiations. He called the 'reporting' - rather than 'referring' - of the Iranian nuclear dossier [to the Security Council] playing with semantics, and said: 'The main goal of the West has been to put pressure on the Islamic Republic regime of Iran in order to generate fear. However, we will wait [to see] the future behavior of Europe and America, and then make the best decision.' "Gharavian's statement is the first public statement by the Mesbah Yazdi group on the nuclear issue. Until now, none of the top-ranking religious [leaders] have authorized, on religious grounds, the use of nuclear weapons. But now it seems that the ultra-[conservatives] in Iran have launched a new effort to prepare the religious grounds for use of these weapons..." "Mr. Ahmadinejad Has Managed to Take the Place of Bin Laden" "Within the six months [of Ahmadinejad's presidency], all the achievements of former president Khatami in the international arena have been lost. Through strange proposals and radical approaches, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad managed, in a very short time, to get the world to forget all about bin Laden. Now all eyes are on the Islamic Republic, and everyone is talking about the danger it [poses]. Two weeks ago, the strategy of assaulting [foreign] embassies was formed as well. America regards Iran and Syria as being behind the recent violent incidents, including the setting fire to embassies in Islamic countries. Mr. Ahmadinejad has managed to take the place of bin Laden..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 does this mean we can nuke them without breaking the law of allah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Sounds kinda like when Pat Robertson called for the assasination of Chavez to me. Just yet another religous nutjob justifying killing people in the name of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 WO, WO, HOLD IT!!! It is a religoin of peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runs with Scissors Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 They can fly planes into building,beheadings,suicide bombings..now nukes.Just don't draw a cartoon...thats going to far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Sounds kinda like when Pat Robertson called for the assasination of Chavez to me. Just yet another religous nutjob justifying killing people in the name of religion. Of course you couldn't comment on this article. Another typical "they(meaning we, the US) did it first". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Sounds kinda like when Pat Robertson called for the assasination of Chavez to me. Just yet another religous nutjob justifying killing people in the name of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 All through history, the religous fanatics have gone to war claiming it was for religion. Why should they be any different? But honestly, I think they need to get laid, and just calm the freak down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Sounds kinda like when Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez to me. Just yet another religious nut-job justifying killing people in the name of religion. For someone that likes to talk about nuance: For your statement to be correct it would have to be something to the effect of (The United States Bishops have come forth and stated the above). (i'm sure you can see the differences here right?) Can you name another Religion that says using Nuclear weapons is acceptable? Please try again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well, if any one didn't see this coming, they need their eyes checked. I think it is time Israel takes care of some reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well, if any one didn't see this coming, they need their eyes checked. I think it is time Israel takes care of some reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well, if any one didn't see this coming, they need their eyes checked. I think it is time Israel takes care of some reactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I've got kind-of the same problems with this statement that I have with N Korea's actions: Why go out of the way to dare the world to stop you, before you have nukes? Whatever happened to the traditional approach of developing the things in secret, then "declaring" that you have them (by setting one off), and then getting delusions of grandeur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 For someone that likes to talk about nuance:For your statement to be correct it would have to be something to the effect of (The United States Bishops have come forth and stated the above). (i'm sure you can see the differences here right?) Can you name another Religion that says using Nuclear weapons is acceptable? Please try again... Chommie strikes again. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I've got kind-of the same problems with this statement that I have with N Korea's actions: Why go out of the way to dare the world to stop you, before you have nukes? Whatever happened to the traditional approach of developing the things in secret, then "declaring" that you have them (by setting one off), and then getting delusions of grandeur? That's an interesting point. Maybe it's all a bluf and we're calling it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 For someone that likes to talk about nuance:For your statement to be correct it would have to be something to the effect of (The United States Bishops have come forth and stated the above). (i'm sure you can see the differences here right?) Can you name another Religion that says using Nuclear weapons is acceptable? Please try again... Religion does not SAY anything, religion gets inerpreted by people. As far as I know nobody in the Christian world has ruled out usage of nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 For someone that likes to talk about nuance:For your statement to be correct it would have to be something to the effect of (The United States Bishops have come forth and stated the above). (i'm sure you can see the differences here right?) Can you name another Religion that says using Nuclear weapons is acceptable? Please try again... Religions do not say anything, people say things. As far as I know nobody in the Christian world has ruled out usage of nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 That's an interesting point. Maybe it's all a bluf and we're calling it That's part of my problem. I can't see any motive for why Iran (or NK) would want to get attacked. (Well, there is some evidence that NK wants the US to pay them not to make nukes. In their case, I might be willing to do that, too.) But Iran has to know that, while there are several possible responses, including nothing, sanctions, and several grades of military responses, none of the possible responses will to Iran a whole lot of good. (Unless they're hoping for an oil-for-food program that the politicians can get rich off of.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Sounds kinda like when Pat Robertson called for the assasination of Chavez to me. Just yet another religous nutjob justifying killing people in the name of religion. Uh-----No on the first point. Not even remotely close, even though Roberston is an idiot for that statement. The second point is spot on, though it is not easily dissmissable because at some point on of these nutjobs is going to get a nuke. Whether they can pull off smuggling it in and setting it off is another issue, but one I think would be easy to accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well, if any one didn't see this coming, they need their eyes checked. I think it is time Israel takes care of some reactors. Dont be surprised when this happens.Probably sooner than later. :rubeyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Dont be surprised when this happens.Probably sooner than later. :rubeyes: Quote from one of Brian Daly's Han Solo books: "Do you always shoot first and ask questions later?" Solo: "I prefer to shoot first. As opposed to shooting second." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Just so you all know, allah says it's OK to nuke us Why would anyone assume otherwise? What do you think would happen if i published an article saying that i feel it is my duty to nuke allah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 What do you think would happen if i published an article saying that i feel it is my duty to nuke allah? Make sure you're family's in the Jehovha's Witness Protection Program first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I've got kind-of the same problems with this statement that I have with N Korea's actions: Why go out of the way to dare the world to stop you, before you have nukes? Whatever happened to the traditional approach of developing the things in secret, then "declaring" that you have them (by setting one off), and then getting delusions of grandeur? I thought of that, but I can't decide whether they are cunning enough to start a small war so they can gain more power for themselves in the country, or if they are just stupid. I think it might be more of the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Plenty of people on this board have suggested that the use of nuclear weapons is appropriate under certain circumstances. Many would identify themselves as Christians. Conceptually, how is this any different? And NO I am not being an apologist for the jerkoffs in Iran, so don't even suggest it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.