Or you could install this GM script [userscripts.org] which expands them to the real URL without actually loading it.
What about all of the Twitter users using IE? How do they know what's safe to click on? Should people be expected to install software to expand shortened URLs?
That's great, but that's not practical for most people. This comes back to the expected level of (internet) education for internet users, and the fact that most internet users are operating at a lower level than a lot of people like you or I think they should be. For most people, when one of their friends sends them a link on Twitter they're going to click it, it doesn't really matter where it goes.
I've already done the research - as is evident from the content of my posts.
The only content your posts had is to tell me to do research. That's not evidence of anything.
You might want to ask yourself how come Iran has no problem with IAEA supervising their nuclear program
Oh, really? They have no problems?. That's a pretty fantastic level of cooperation they're displaying. I bet you also think the reason they build their nuclear facilities underground is to save on cooling bills. It's pretty easy to monitor those underground enrichment facilities, isn't it?
It found that the Islamic republic was pressing ahead with its uranium enrichment despite four rounds of U.N. sanctions, and refusing to answer questions about possible military dimensions to its nuclear program.
"Iran's refusal to fully cooperate with the IAEA and its deliberate attempts to prevent it from carrying out its mandate in Iranian territory are... troubling and reprehensible," Mangin said.
"The only conclusion we can draw is that Iran remains determined to pursue a nuclear program which could provide it with military capabilities."
Yep, sounds like they're perfectly willing to be completely transparent.
while the US commanded all allies to vote against the same happening to the Israeli nuclear program this week.
Don't try to change the issue, we're talking about Iran, not Israel.
The CIA is involved in the collection and analysis of foreign data.
Building an attack drone is, let's say, missing the mark.
You don't understand. Sometimes the foreign data they need to collect and analyze (mostly just analyze) is in a hardened bunker, or warehouse, or mud compound. They can't just land the drone and drive it into the mud compound very well, can they? The easiest way to expose the data they need to analyze is to remove the roof of the building. This allows the drone to take pictures of whatever used to be in the building, without landing, so that they can analyze it.
Iran is poised to begin producing nuclear weapons after its uranium program expansion in 2009, even though it has had problems with thousands of its centrifuges, according to a newly released CIA report.
"Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," the annual report to Congress states.
The CIA report is the latest official study expressing concern over Iran's continuing nuclear activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency on March 3 issued a report warning that continuing nuclear activities in violation of U.N. resolutions raise "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."
On Iran, the report says that it is "keeping open" its options for building nuclear arms, "though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."
Last year, Iran disclosed it is building a second gas-centrifuge plant near the city of Qom that will house an estimated 3,000 machines. U.S. officials have said the Qom facility, which was discovered in 2007, is a clear sign Iran's nuclear program is geared toward producing weapons, because the facility is too small for nonmilitary uranium enrichment.
On missiles, the report said Iran is building more short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and stated that "producing more capable medium-range ballistic missiles remains one of its highest priorities."
The report also said that Iran has the capability of producing both chemical and biological weapons, and Tehran continued to seek dual-use technology for its bioweapons program.
Clearly nuclear fits the "dual-use" goal perfectly.
Maybe you can get us started, by pointing to information that shows that it's not possible to produce weapons given the enrichment capabilities of Iran. Between Natanz and Esfahan, their enrichment capabilities aren't exactly minor.
Unless, of course, you've toured Natanz and Esfahan and you've personally seen what capabilities they do and do not have.
Maybe you could compare the capabilities of Iran with Pakistan, India, and North Korea, given that they do have nuclear weapons, and show what Iran is lacking that those other countries have.
I applaud Iran for pursuing nuclear power, but nuclear is not necessary for them to power their country. It's a good choice, but it's not necessary given the low financial cost of other alternatives and Iran's natural resources. I think that if they wanted to invest so much money into powering their country then, given their leadership's aggressive stance, they would probably be willing to throw in a little extra for some additional capabilities. That scenario is not exactly difficult to imagine. It's not like I'm making a massive leap in logic.
You're reading a lot into what I write and you think you know a lot about me. You're completely misinformed. Scroll up to what I wrote earlier. I'm using terms like "extremist Arab Muslims", "fundamentalist", "jihadi", etc. In no way, shape, or form have I ever even implied that I am speaking about all Muslims. It should be blatantly obvious that I am speaking about the fundamental extremists in the Arab Muslim world, and moreso, specifically about those who live in Iran. Even more specifically, since it's obviously required in this discussion with you, I'm speaking about the fundamentalist Muslims who currently rule Iran and the fighters who follow them. Those are the people I'm speaking about, not your neighbors down the street. And to answer your question, yes, I believe those people do in fact interpret hadith and the passages of the Koran dealing with martyrdom the way that I think they do. It's not difficult to imagine what the Ayatollahs are thinking when they are making proclamations themselves about the same.
What does "the same hostile environment" mean, anyway?
Have you been to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi, Yemen, etc? It's not exactly lush trees and green rolling hills all over. They live in a very hostile physical desert environment. This is their home on earth. Look at their description of paradise to see what kind of place they want to live in. Their view of paradise is not a desert.
Or are you implying that whackjob Christian fundamentalists never harmed anyone?
You brought Christianity into this discussion, not me. I have far less respect for Christianity and its "accomplishments" than I do for Islam. Especially in the US, our unique brand of Christianity where people want to tell me how to live, but then they break their own rules, doesn't exactly sit well with me. Islam has actively contributed to scientific progress (in the old days, at least), while it seems like historically Christianity has tried to stifle progress.
But I think we're getting closer to the real foundation of your posts today, which is that A.) that you hate Islam, probably because you're a fundamentalist Christian yourself or close to it; B.) you therefore hate Arabs because you believe all Muslims are Arabs or Arab-controlled;
Neither of those are even remotely true, but if that's how you've viewed this discussion then I can understand why you're taking such a hostile stance with me. This has been the least substantive track of this discussion, ever since you started comparing things with Christianity, so I'm glad for it to be done.
For the record, I am not anti-Muslim. I am pro-Persian.
It's difficult to find the ethnicities of the various people in power, other than Khameni, who is Azeri. The Azeri regions were inhabited by Arabs during the middle ages.
Like I said, it's difficult to identify the ethnicities of the specific players. It's clear that the government follows Muslim and Arab ideals, not Persian ones, regardless of the background of the specific people. I probably got the idea that the government is specifically Arabic from this article from 2008, which is definitely worth a read if you haven't already:
Where do you get your information from? Prime time news? Late night TV?
Mostly from various documentaries on the subject and from speaking to people from the region.
Iran is the only thing standing in the way of US hedgemony over the Middle East.
I would disagree with that assessment, but I don't think that the US has any place fighting Muslims at all, especially in their countries. Our beef is (should be) with Al-Qaeda, and only Al-Qaeda. The US killing Muslims in the Middle East is exactly what Al-Qaeda wants.
The Quran declares that "those who are slain in Allah's way" are not dead, but alive (3:169),[11] and this has often been interpreted to mean that any fighter who is killed in a jihad attains automatic salvation. Though most Muslims came to renounce holy war as an honorable pursuit, a characteristic of the early community and among extremists today is a zeal for fighting "in Allah's way" and attaining martyrdom.[12]
Three distinct Quranic and hadith themes proved a powerful and volatile combination: the call to war, the call to martyrdom, and the martyr's reward. Some branches of Islam, such as the Khariji, declared participation in jihad to be one of the key requirements for all able-bodied male Muslims. Passages in the Quran explain that martyrdom in the cause of God is a means to enter paradise:
"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah...the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They rejoice in the Grace and the Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least)." (3:169-71)[13]
That last passages describes exactly what jihadi martyrs hope to achieve by dying. On earth they live in a world full of suffering, violence, fear, and humiliation, which all goes away once they die and gets replaced with grace and paradise. Modern Christians do not live in the same hostile environment as Muslims do.
Allah's Apostle said, "Someone came to me from my Lord and gave me the news that if any of my followers dies worshipping none along with Allah, he will enter Paradise." I asked, "Even if he committed adultery and theft?" He replied, "Even if he committed adultery and theft." (Volume 2, Book 23, Number 329)[15]
Further rewards, as reported by hadith, are that the fighter in God's cause will, if killed in the struggle, receive privileges otherwise unattainable: he escapes the examination in the grave by the "interrogating angels"; he does not need to pass through barzakh, the purgatory limbo; he receives the highest of ranks in paradise, sitting near the throne of God--Muhammad described the "house of martyrs," dar al-shuhada', as the most beautiful abode of paradise; on the Day of Judgment any wounds the martyr received in battle will shine and smell like musk; his death as a martyr frees him of all sin such that he does not require the intercession of the Prophet; he is purified by his act and so he alone is not washed before burial.[16] The popular understanding of the Quranic descriptions of this paradise for the believer (martyr or not) could not but be of the greatest appeal to the desert-dwelling nomad: awaiting him is a garden of cool breezes, beautiful companions, couches, fruit and drink, and nearness to God. Particularly deserving martyrs are even eligible for double the standard reward, some hadith report.[17] This is an incentive so great that the Prophet is reported to have said that no one who dies and enters paradise "would wish to come back to this world," even if he were to be given ownership of "the whole world and whatever is in it," except the martyr who, "on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again."[18] Finally, the martyr enacts the greatest act of worship possible for a human, for only he, the shahid, witnesses to, shahida, God Himself.
And we haven't even gotten to the virgins yet.
This doesn't sound a whole lot like Christianity to me, and I don't think I'm being bigoted. Middle-Eastern Muslims live in a fundamentally different world than virtually everyone else. No where is there such a high level of stress and violence combined with such a harsh and unforgiving natural environment.
The idea that there's some sort of insidious infestation of Arabism that has festered in Iran for over a thousand years seems pretty silly.
I doubt Persians feel the same way. Only 50 years ago Persians had a vibrant arts culture, with music and poetry. The Islamic Revolution put a stop to that. That's hardly ancient history.
"Many" is a weasel word.
What, like "mostly discredited"?
If Iran was "invaded by Arabs" in 1979 and everything since has been part of some big Arab conspiracy, how do you explain that the majority Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, and Kuwait are Sunni, while Iran is a Shi'a republic?
I don't know enough about the region to provide an explanation for why the denominations of Islam are located where they are, but I never claimed conspiracy.
And if Iran has been "invaded by Arabs" since 1979, how do you explain the events of 1980 when Iran was, oddly enough, invaded by Arabs?
I don't see how that requires an explanation. Like you pointed out, Shia Muslims were fighting Sunni Muslims during the Iran-Iraq war.
Likewise your comment that Larijani must secretly be an Arab because he's the son of an Ayatollah doesn't make sense either.
I'm pretty sure I said "I believe", not "He must be". I could not find an answer for his ethnicity, only his parentage.
You sound like a fundamentalist Christian wack job
I don't subscribe to any religion, but thanks for the judgment anyway.
Given that we're close to or past Peak Oil at this point, does it really seem so far fetched that the Iranians want a different energy source?
Of course not. I don't doubt that Iranians want nuclear power. But that doesn't mean that they also don't want nuclear weapons. Those goals are not mutually exclusive.
Even if they are building a bomb, they are a long way from having a delivery system.
What, like a truck? There have already been many attacks where a donkey cart has been used as the delivery vehicle. They don't exactly need a missile. There are nukes that can be carried in a suitcase. I don't think they're trying to build the largest bomb ever produced. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that Iran does in fact have missiles that can reach Israel. So, that does sort of sound like a delivery vehicle to me. The missile doesn't care if its warhead is nuclear or conventional.
Iran has been pushing to upgrade its missile arsenal, which is already capable of hitting Israel and other parts of the region.
Even if they get a delivery system, they are unlikely to use it for the reasons stated.
I don't buy it. You would be unlikely to use it because you don't want to die and you don't want to get blamed. I don't think they share those same concerns. They don't care about dying as long as they kill the enemy. Preservation of life is not their primary goal, destruction is.
What makes you think that the the Arabs are any more likely to do so in the Middle East?
Well, I suppose the fact that they believe they will be divinely rewarded has something to do with it.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. If Iran became Persia again, I think it could quickly become a world tourist destination. Nearly all of the things that the Persian people and culture are known for are positive.
Wouldn't the current president count? His mother is believe to be descended from Muhammad's bloodline. The VP, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, is from Kurdistan Province. Many Kurds are also Arabs. I believe the Larijani family is also Arabic, descended from an Ayatollah.
Nuking Israel would result in the total annihilation of Iran.
Ahh. And you're assuming that the extremist Arab Muslims want to live long, happy lives here on earth, right? Islam's rewards happen in death, not life. There's nothing for a fundamental Muslim in this world other than armageddon. Why does an Arab care if Persia gets destroyed?
If you were a fundamentalist jihadi fighter, what would you believe your rewards in the afterlife would be if you destroyed the enemy of your religion? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? How about the way your family and friends would see you, would they be proud of you for attacking their eternal enemy or embarrassed because you caused so much death?
Don't make the mistake of assuming that Muslim mentality is anything like what your experiences have been. Priorities are completely different.
Jesus is a prophet in Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity. It would be great if Jesus appears in a puff of smoke, every side yells "our prophet!", and he says "You're all fucked, I'm here for the Mormons."
Why, do Iranians look down on the Arabs or something?
I don't think they look down on them so much as resent them. The Arabs invaded and conquered the Persians, and replaced the native Zoroastrian religion with Islam. In public the Persians generally do not speak out against the Arab rulers, but in private they most definitely resent the fact that their country is being run by Muslim Arabs instead of Persians. It's not an issue of racism so much as cultural identity, many Persians believe that the Arabs have been actively trying to destroy Persian culture and replace it with their own.
Yeah, that sounds familiar. Several years ago there was an article in National Geographic about Persia and the current Persians. It was a very interesting read, much of it talked about the ability to lie or deceive, which is a very important trait to have. Since Persians as a people have been conquered or invaded so many times, they have learned that they cannot speak openly about what they believe. They make a big show of being hospitable (and actually are), they smile and talk, but the people interviewed mentioned how this isn't actually what they're like. In private they're different, but in a culture that is constantly being invaded and attacked, they've learned that it is in their interests not to openly talk about what they really believe. No doubt many Persians harbor ill feelings towards Arabs and the religion they brought with them, they still see them as invaders.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could install this GM script [userscripts.org] which expands them to the real URL without actually loading it.
What about all of the Twitter users using IE? How do they know what's safe to click on? Should people be expected to install software to expand shortened URLs?
That's great, but that's not practical for most people. This comes back to the expected level of (internet) education for internet users, and the fact that most internet users are operating at a lower level than a lot of people like you or I think they should be. For most people, when one of their friends sends them a link on Twitter they're going to click it, it doesn't really matter where it goes.
You have to use twitter and be the type of person who clicks on questionable links without regard.
Which of these links is "questionable":
http://tinyurl.com/2tx
http://bit.ly/heezy
http://xrl.us/bh2p3m
That's what all of the links on Twitter look like, which are OK and which are questionable? How does one distinguish?
It's HIGHLY doubtful a small group of scruffy super smart hackers a la Angeline Jolie and friends in "Hackers"
Did you just call Angelina Jolie "scruffy"?
I've already done the research - as is evident from the content of my posts.
The only content your posts had is to tell me to do research. That's not evidence of anything.
You might want to ask yourself how come Iran has no problem with IAEA supervising their nuclear program
Oh, really? They have no problems?. That's a pretty fantastic level of cooperation they're displaying. I bet you also think the reason they build their nuclear facilities underground is to save on cooling bills. It's pretty easy to monitor those underground enrichment facilities, isn't it?
It found that the Islamic republic was pressing ahead with its uranium enrichment despite four rounds of U.N. sanctions, and refusing to answer questions about possible military dimensions to its nuclear program.
"Iran's refusal to fully cooperate with the IAEA and its deliberate attempts to prevent it from carrying out its mandate in Iranian territory are ... troubling and reprehensible," Mangin said.
"The only conclusion we can draw is that Iran remains determined to pursue a nuclear program which could provide it with military capabilities."
Yep, sounds like they're perfectly willing to be completely transparent.
while the US commanded all allies to vote against the same happening to the Israeli nuclear program this week.
Don't try to change the issue, we're talking about Iran, not Israel.
So a 13 meter error is acceptable, even though that's the result of a bug caused by copying software that was accurate?
You must be in the military, Mr. Ghandi, if that is your real name...
Rumor has it that Jersey Shore is offensive to Americans.
The CIA is involved in the collection and analysis of foreign data.
Building an attack drone is, let's say, missing the mark.
You don't understand. Sometimes the foreign data they need to collect and analyze (mostly just analyze) is in a hardened bunker, or warehouse, or mud compound. They can't just land the drone and drive it into the mud compound very well, can they? The easiest way to expose the data they need to analyze is to remove the roof of the building. This allows the drone to take pictures of whatever used to be in the building, without landing, so that they can analyze it.
Ah, you're one of those guys who likes to tell other people to do research but don't want to bother to do it yourself.
From this article, from March of this year:
Iran is poised to begin producing nuclear weapons after its uranium program expansion in 2009, even though it has had problems with thousands of its centrifuges, according to a newly released CIA report.
"Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," the annual report to Congress states.
The CIA report is the latest official study expressing concern over Iran's continuing nuclear activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency on March 3 issued a report warning that continuing nuclear activities in violation of U.N. resolutions raise "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."
On Iran, the report says that it is "keeping open" its options for building nuclear arms, "though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."
Last year, Iran disclosed it is building a second gas-centrifuge plant near the city of Qom that will house an estimated 3,000 machines. U.S. officials have said the Qom facility, which was discovered in 2007, is a clear sign Iran's nuclear program is geared toward producing weapons, because the facility is too small for nonmilitary uranium enrichment.
On missiles, the report said Iran is building more short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and stated that "producing more capable medium-range ballistic missiles remains one of its highest priorities."
The report also said that Iran has the capability of producing both chemical and biological weapons, and Tehran continued to seek dual-use technology for its bioweapons program.
Clearly nuclear fits the "dual-use" goal perfectly.
Here's the complete CIA report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29296633/CIA-Report-WMD-Proliferation-721-Apr10
Maybe you can get us started, by pointing to information that shows that it's not possible to produce weapons given the enrichment capabilities of Iran. Between Natanz and Esfahan, their enrichment capabilities aren't exactly minor.
Unless, of course, you've toured Natanz and Esfahan and you've personally seen what capabilities they do and do not have.
Maybe you could compare the capabilities of Iran with Pakistan, India, and North Korea, given that they do have nuclear weapons, and show what Iran is lacking that those other countries have.
I applaud Iran for pursuing nuclear power, but nuclear is not necessary for them to power their country. It's a good choice, but it's not necessary given the low financial cost of other alternatives and Iran's natural resources. I think that if they wanted to invest so much money into powering their country then, given their leadership's aggressive stance, they would probably be willing to throw in a little extra for some additional capabilities. That scenario is not exactly difficult to imagine. It's not like I'm making a massive leap in logic.
You're reading a lot into what I write and you think you know a lot about me. You're completely misinformed. Scroll up to what I wrote earlier. I'm using terms like "extremist Arab Muslims", "fundamentalist", "jihadi", etc. In no way, shape, or form have I ever even implied that I am speaking about all Muslims. It should be blatantly obvious that I am speaking about the fundamental extremists in the Arab Muslim world, and moreso, specifically about those who live in Iran. Even more specifically, since it's obviously required in this discussion with you, I'm speaking about the fundamentalist Muslims who currently rule Iran and the fighters who follow them. Those are the people I'm speaking about, not your neighbors down the street. And to answer your question, yes, I believe those people do in fact interpret hadith and the passages of the Koran dealing with martyrdom the way that I think they do. It's not difficult to imagine what the Ayatollahs are thinking when they are making proclamations themselves about the same.
What does "the same hostile environment" mean, anyway?
Have you been to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi, Yemen, etc? It's not exactly lush trees and green rolling hills all over. They live in a very hostile physical desert environment. This is their home on earth. Look at their description of paradise to see what kind of place they want to live in. Their view of paradise is not a desert.
Or are you implying that whackjob Christian fundamentalists never harmed anyone?
You brought Christianity into this discussion, not me. I have far less respect for Christianity and its "accomplishments" than I do for Islam. Especially in the US, our unique brand of Christianity where people want to tell me how to live, but then they break their own rules, doesn't exactly sit well with me. Islam has actively contributed to scientific progress (in the old days, at least), while it seems like historically Christianity has tried to stifle progress.
But I think we're getting closer to the real foundation of your posts today, which is that A.) that you hate Islam, probably because you're a fundamentalist Christian yourself or close to it; B.) you therefore hate Arabs because you believe all Muslims are Arabs or Arab-controlled;
Neither of those are even remotely true, but if that's how you've viewed this discussion then I can understand why you're taking such a hostile stance with me. This has been the least substantive track of this discussion, ever since you started comparing things with Christianity, so I'm glad for it to be done.
For the record, I am not anti-Muslim. I am pro-Persian.
Might as well just post it..
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text/1
You may enjoy the National Geographic article I linked to below, it's almost entirely about how ancient Persia factors into modern Iran.
It's difficult to find the ethnicities of the various people in power, other than Khameni, who is Azeri. The Azeri regions were inhabited by Arabs during the middle ages.
Like I said, it's difficult to identify the ethnicities of the specific players. It's clear that the government follows Muslim and Arab ideals, not Persian ones, regardless of the background of the specific people. I probably got the idea that the government is specifically Arabic from this article from 2008, which is definitely worth a read if you haven't already:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text/1
Where do you get your information from? Prime time news? Late night TV?
Mostly from various documentaries on the subject and from speaking to people from the region.
Iran is the only thing standing in the way of US hedgemony over the Middle East.
I would disagree with that assessment, but I don't think that the US has any place fighting Muslims at all, especially in their countries. Our beef is (should be) with Al-Qaeda, and only Al-Qaeda. The US killing Muslims in the Middle East is exactly what Al-Qaeda wants.
You basically know absolutely nothing about what you are commenting on.
I see you know quite a lot about me personally though. Thanks for your feedback.
From http://bahai-library.com/theses/dying/dying4.islam.html:
The Quran declares that "those who are slain in Allah's way" are not dead, but alive (3:169),[11] and this has often been interpreted to mean that any fighter who is killed in a jihad attains automatic salvation. Though most Muslims came to renounce holy war as an honorable pursuit, a characteristic of the early community and among extremists today is a zeal for fighting "in Allah's way" and attaining martyrdom.[12]
Three distinct Quranic and hadith themes proved a powerful and volatile combination: the call to war, the call to martyrdom, and the martyr's reward. Some branches of Islam, such as the Khariji, declared participation in jihad to be one of the key requirements for all able-bodied male Muslims. Passages in the Quran explain that martyrdom in the cause of God is a means to enter paradise:
"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah...the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They rejoice in the Grace and the Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least)." (3:169-71)[13]
That last passages describes exactly what jihadi martyrs hope to achieve by dying. On earth they live in a world full of suffering, violence, fear, and humiliation, which all goes away once they die and gets replaced with grace and paradise. Modern Christians do not live in the same hostile environment as Muslims do.
Allah's Apostle said, "Someone came to me from my Lord and gave me the news that if any of my followers dies worshipping none along with Allah, he will enter Paradise." I asked, "Even if he committed adultery and theft?" He replied, "Even if he committed adultery and theft." (Volume 2, Book 23, Number 329)[15]
Further rewards, as reported by hadith, are that the fighter in God's cause will, if killed in the struggle, receive privileges otherwise unattainable: he escapes the examination in the grave by the "interrogating angels"; he does not need to pass through barzakh, the purgatory limbo; he receives the highest of ranks in paradise, sitting near the throne of God--Muhammad described the "house of martyrs," dar al-shuhada', as the most beautiful abode of paradise; on the Day of Judgment any wounds the martyr received in battle will shine and smell like musk; his death as a martyr frees him of all sin such that he does not require the intercession of the Prophet; he is purified by his act and so he alone is not washed before burial.[16] The popular understanding of the Quranic descriptions of this paradise for the believer (martyr or not) could not but be of the greatest appeal to the desert-dwelling nomad: awaiting him is a garden of cool breezes, beautiful companions, couches, fruit and drink, and nearness to God. Particularly deserving martyrs are even eligible for double the standard reward, some hadith report.[17] This is an incentive so great that the Prophet is reported to have said that no one who dies and enters paradise "would wish to come back to this world," even if he were to be given ownership of "the whole world and whatever is in it," except the martyr who, "on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again."[18] Finally, the martyr enacts the greatest act of worship possible for a human, for only he, the shahid, witnesses to, shahida, God Himself.
And we haven't even gotten to the virgins yet.
This doesn't sound a whole lot like Christianity to me, and I don't think I'm being bigoted. Middle-Eastern Muslims live in a fundamentally different world than virtually everyone else. No where is there such a high level of stress and violence combined with such a harsh and unforgiving natural environment.
The idea that there's some sort of insidious infestation of Arabism that has festered in Iran for over a thousand years seems pretty silly.
I doubt Persians feel the same way. Only 50 years ago Persians had a vibrant arts culture, with music and poetry. The Islamic Revolution put a stop to that. That's hardly ancient history.
"Many" is a weasel word.
What, like "mostly discredited"?
If Iran was "invaded by Arabs" in 1979 and everything since has been part of some big Arab conspiracy, how do you explain that the majority Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, and Kuwait are Sunni, while Iran is a Shi'a republic?
I don't know enough about the region to provide an explanation for why the denominations of Islam are located where they are, but I never claimed conspiracy.
And if Iran has been "invaded by Arabs" since 1979, how do you explain the events of 1980 when Iran was, oddly enough, invaded by Arabs?
I don't see how that requires an explanation. Like you pointed out, Shia Muslims were fighting Sunni Muslims during the Iran-Iraq war.
Likewise your comment that Larijani must secretly be an Arab because he's the son of an Ayatollah doesn't make sense either.
I'm pretty sure I said "I believe", not "He must be". I could not find an answer for his ethnicity, only his parentage.
You sound like a fundamentalist Christian wack job
I don't subscribe to any religion, but thanks for the judgment anyway.
Given that we're close to or past Peak Oil at this point, does it really seem so far fetched that the Iranians want a different energy source?
Of course not. I don't doubt that Iranians want nuclear power. But that doesn't mean that they also don't want nuclear weapons. Those goals are not mutually exclusive.
Even if they are building a bomb, they are a long way from having a delivery system.
What, like a truck? There have already been many attacks where a donkey cart has been used as the delivery vehicle. They don't exactly need a missile. There are nukes that can be carried in a suitcase. I don't think they're trying to build the largest bomb ever produced. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that Iran does in fact have missiles that can reach Israel. So, that does sort of sound like a delivery vehicle to me. The missile doesn't care if its warhead is nuclear or conventional.
Look at that, news from today: Iran's Revolutionary Guard gets new missile.
Iran has been pushing to upgrade its missile arsenal, which is already capable of hitting Israel and other parts of the region.
Even if they get a delivery system, they are unlikely to use it for the reasons stated.
I don't buy it. You would be unlikely to use it because you don't want to die and you don't want to get blamed. I don't think they share those same concerns. They don't care about dying as long as they kill the enemy. Preservation of life is not their primary goal, destruction is.
What makes you think that the the Arabs are any more likely to do so in the Middle East?
Well, I suppose the fact that they believe they will be divinely rewarded has something to do with it.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. If Iran became Persia again, I think it could quickly become a world tourist destination. Nearly all of the things that the Persian people and culture are known for are positive.
Wouldn't the current president count? His mother is believe to be descended from Muhammad's bloodline. The VP, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, is from Kurdistan Province. Many Kurds are also Arabs. I believe the Larijani family is also Arabic, descended from an Ayatollah.
Nuking Israel would result in the total annihilation of Iran.
Ahh. And you're assuming that the extremist Arab Muslims want to live long, happy lives here on earth, right? Islam's rewards happen in death, not life. There's nothing for a fundamental Muslim in this world other than armageddon. Why does an Arab care if Persia gets destroyed?
If you were a fundamentalist jihadi fighter, what would you believe your rewards in the afterlife would be if you destroyed the enemy of your religion? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? How about the way your family and friends would see you, would they be proud of you for attacking their eternal enemy or embarrassed because you caused so much death?
Don't make the mistake of assuming that Muslim mentality is anything like what your experiences have been. Priorities are completely different.
Baby Jesus doesn't fit in to that very well.
Jesus is a prophet in Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity. It would be great if Jesus appears in a puff of smoke, every side yells "our prophet!", and he says "You're all fucked, I'm here for the Mormons."
Why, do Iranians look down on the Arabs or something?
I don't think they look down on them so much as resent them. The Arabs invaded and conquered the Persians, and replaced the native Zoroastrian religion with Islam. In public the Persians generally do not speak out against the Arab rulers, but in private they most definitely resent the fact that their country is being run by Muslim Arabs instead of Persians. It's not an issue of racism so much as cultural identity, many Persians believe that the Arabs have been actively trying to destroy Persian culture and replace it with their own.
Yeah, that sounds familiar. Several years ago there was an article in National Geographic about Persia and the current Persians. It was a very interesting read, much of it talked about the ability to lie or deceive, which is a very important trait to have. Since Persians as a people have been conquered or invaded so many times, they have learned that they cannot speak openly about what they believe. They make a big show of being hospitable (and actually are), they smile and talk, but the people interviewed mentioned how this isn't actually what they're like. In private they're different, but in a culture that is constantly being invaded and attacked, they've learned that it is in their interests not to openly talk about what they really believe. No doubt many Persians harbor ill feelings towards Arabs and the religion they brought with them, they still see them as invaders.