Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Paul's Here

A Religion of Peace

21 posts in this topic

Asked if a confession obtained "by applying psychological, emotional and physical pressure" was "valid and considered credible according to Islam," Mesbah-Yazdi replied: "Getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih ("Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists", or the regime of Iran's mullahs) is permissible under any condition." The ayatollah gave the identical answer when asked about confessions obtained through drugging the prisoner with opiates or addictive substances.

"Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?" was the follow-up question posed to the Islamic cleric.

Mesbah-Yazdi answered: "The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it's acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed."

This reply, and reports of the rape of teen male prisoners in Iranian jails, may have prompted the following question: "Is the rape of men and young boys considered sodomy?"

One aspect of these permitted rapes troubled certain questioners.

Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi: "No, because it is not consensual. Of course, if the prisoner is aroused and enjoys the rape, then caution must be taken not to repeat the rape."

A related issue, in the eyes of the questioners, was the rape of virgin female prisoners. In this instance, Mesbah-Yazdi went beyond the permissibility issue and described the Allah-sanctioned rewards accorded the rapist-in-the-name-of-Islam:

"If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi'ite holy city of] Karbala."

One aspect of these permitted rapes troubled certain questioners: "What if the female prisoner gets pregnant? Is the child considered illegitimate?"

Mesbah-Yazdi answered: "The child borne to any weakling [a denigrating term for women - ed.] who is against the Supreme Leader is considered illegitimate, be it a result of rape by her interrogator or through intercourse with her husband, according to the written word in the Koran. However, if the child is raised by the jailer, then the child is considered a legitimate Shi'a Muslim."

Ahmadinejad's Imam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is appalling, but completely consistent with a completely anti-life mindlessness.

From what vast, infallible source does this "authority" obtain these particular rules of conduct? It is consistent with the perverted logic of the Koran, but this monster takes depravity to a much deeper, more conscious level. In any rational court of law, his advocacy from a position of authority, would define him as a mass murderer/serial killer on the order of Charles Manson, but beyond.

He needs to be erased with extreme prejudice... by his own methods, if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is appalling, but completely consistent with a completely anti-life mindlessness.

From what vast, infallible source does this "authority" obtain these particular rules of conduct? It is consistent with the perverted logic of the Koran, but this monster takes depravity to a much deeper, more conscious level. In any rational court of law, his advocacy from a position of authority, would define him as a mass murderer/serial killer on the order of Charles Manson, but beyond.

He needs to be erased with extreme prejudice... by his own methods, if possible.

Although I agree with your feeling (and oh boy did I feel that way since 9/11!), and feel somewhat sad that foreign policy is being dealt with such a weak hand by many in NATO (there was a time when burning an embassy was considered a declaration of war), one must remember not to sink to their level. This is precisely what Putin has done in Chechnya (although I liked his methods in the Moscow theatre crisis - not a single terrorist walked out alive).

Once they present a threat to US interests, there is, however, a good reason to destroy the threat. And no good reason to restrain the might of the US military in doing so, nor to restrain it to "conventional" rules of engagement (e.g. the CIA should be expected to send assassins, which are a cheaper and more efficient way of getting the job done). But it still does not justify rape and torture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He needs to be erased with extreme prejudice... by his own methods, if possible.

Although I agree with your feeling (and oh boy did I feel that way since 9/11!), and feel somewhat sad that foreign policy is being dealt with such a weak hand by many in NATO (there was a time when burning an embassy was considered a declaration of war), one must remember not to sink to their level. This is precisely what Putin has done in Chechnya (although I liked his methods in the Moscow theatre crisis - not a single terrorist walked out alive).

Once they present a threat to US interests, there is, however, a good reason to destroy the threat. And no good reason to restrain the might of the US military in doing so, nor to restrain it to "conventional" rules of engagement (e.g. the CIA should be expected to send assassins, which are a cheaper and more efficient way of getting the job done). But it still does not justify rape and torture.

You are absolutely right. No, it does not... certainly not rape, and "aggressive interrogation techniques" only for that explicit purpose. I don't think this presents a problem to a rational defense. It is by the equivocation of method and purpose that the ACLU and the peace-niks base their opposition to such methods in the first place. If I were acting in defense of myself and my country and was able to confront this monster with a gun in my hand, I would have no desire to dehumanize him -- that would be redundant. I would take the opportunity to eliminate him. If I believed he had information of value to the effort to eliminate a further threat to our safety, I would delay that execution until I had made every reasonable effort to extract that information from him, in any way that might yield timely results. I am not an expert in such things, so I would probably turn him over to our experts to get those results. After he was of no more use, justice would demand his death, the most effective way to eliminate the threat of his continued existence.

The intent of the Islamists in conducting these acts of depravity is to dehumanize, humiliate, defile their enemies. They are not acting in self-defense, but out of a belief that those who do not believe as they dictate are less than human and should be used as examples for intimidation and, actually, under cloak of sanctimony, for the gratification of a lust for domination and destruction of their spirit. They want to see them reduced to terror and pain, to feel a power over others because of their own feeling of impotence without a weapon in their hands. This is not something a rational person wants or needs. It is not the purpose of the CIA's interrogation techniques(*). It's certainly not what I meant. A rational interrogator would be trying to gain information that would save lives and would stop when he has obtained it. You are certainly right to make the point that there is a world of difference b/w the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once they present a threat to US interests, there is, however, a good reason to destroy the threat. And no good reason to restrain the might of the US military in doing so, nor to restrain it to "conventional" rules of engagement (e.g. the CIA should be expected to send assassins, which are a cheaper and more efficient way of getting the job done). But it still does not justify rape and torture.

If I read the above correctly, you don't see the current Iranian state as a threat to the US and civilization in general, at least not one that merits a decisive, merciless response. Is that correct? If it is correct, and assuming you've worked out a POV you care to share, what more would a regime have to do in order to justify either a "'conventional'" or non-conventional reaction by the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once they present a threat to US interests, there is, however, a good reason to destroy the threat. And no good reason to restrain the might of the US military in doing so, nor to restrain it to "conventional" rules of engagement (e.g. the CIA should be expected to send assassins, which are a cheaper and more efficient way of getting the job done). But it still does not justify rape and torture.

If I read the above correctly, you don't see the current Iranian state as a threat to the US and civilization in general, at least not one that merits a decisive, merciless response. Is that correct? If it is correct, and assuming you've worked out a POV you care to share, what more would a regime have to do in order to justify either a "'conventional'" or non-conventional reaction by the US?

That is incorrect. I believe Iran is the single biggest threat facing civilization today (if you want to get more high level, Islam is, higher level still, altruism as per Kant etc., but Iran, getting closer to nukes and with the means to destroy a significant chunk of civilization before getting glassified). I believe the only way to deal with Iran right now is to send infiltrated assassins to dispatch the power crew and blow up anything vaguely related to nukes, failing that, an invisible fighter (F-117 or a modern drone version) squad to bomb them to death, failing that, I'm afraid every minute spent bending over and accepting every further insult from this mad regime is another step towards the explosion of further nuclear ordinance in this world. I despise the thought of wiping a county off a map, when civilians are really victims of socialism (even if it calls itself Islam) and could be so productive (which directly impacts my happiness - boy am I glad that Pakistanis and Egyptians are sewing my clothes) but it may well come to that.

Conventional warfare is in my mind not an option - the cost to Western nations will be far too high, since Iran has a well trained, well developed, fanatical army that has been designed to inflict maximum damage to Western forces (see for example the speedboat system they use to defend their coasts; I have heard they have invested a lot in anti-air systems). We lost too much money and time in Iraq. (by the way, stating this opinion in Europe has lost me many a "friend") The US, and NATO more generally, has the means to wage an efficient war, where casualties and costs are minimized on NATO's side and maximised on the other. I'm sure they'll eventually realise - I just hope the first Iranian nuke does not hit my family or friends (and I know it will, because I have many friends in Tel-Aviv).

Regarding torture, I have read and heard enough about what we (the French) did in Algeria to know the terrible consequences of gratuitous, systematic torture (not to mention, from a more cynical POV, that it is a waste of taxpayers' money). It is perfectly justified, however, when the person captured has information. A terrorist has made a choice when he signed up to fight, and he gave up the right to be treated like a civilian. The difference between us and them is that we do it for utilitarian purposes, whilst they do it for fun, like the depraved animals that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"aggressive interrogation techniques"

I prefer and am very comfortable with calling it torture. The aim is to break down the mind of the enemy fighter until he reveals information that saves lives. He can avoid it by talking. You can do it cleanly, cheaply and without lasting damage these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I despise the thought of wiping a county off a map, when civilians are really victims of socialism (even if it calls itself Islam) and could be so productive (which directly impacts my happiness - boy am I glad that Pakistanis and Egyptians are sewing my clothes) but it may well come to that.

The actions and justifications in the opening post of this thread are nowhere near socialism. Iran is a region under a brutal totalitarian regime that knows how to play the game.

Conventional warfare is in my mind not an option - the cost to Western nations will be far too high,

If conventional warfare is the best strategy, then we can't afford not to engage in one. Think of the costs if we don't. (Remember: a relatively low number of Marines, dispatched when Iran started nationalizing Western oil fields, could've spared the world who knows how much pain, suffering and money. Who knows where the Middle East would be today if the West had simply defended its rights in the region?)

since Iran has a well trained, well developed, fanatical army that has been designed to inflict maximum damage to Western forces (see for example the speedboat system they use to defend their coasts; I have heard they have invested a lot in anti-air systems)

I doubt our forces would have a tough time with Iran's uniformed force. (This is the country that couldn't beat Iraq in an eight year war.)

We lost too much money and time in Iraq.

That fact doesn't establish that Iraq was the wrong target, or that we shouldn't use conventional warfare elsewhere. What it shows is that we can't engage in war half-assed.

I just hope the first Iranian nuke does not hit my family or friends (and I know it will, because I have many friends in Tel-Aviv

If Israel is an immorally established state, then your friends need to go. Since, however, Israel, regardless of certain massive wrongs committed during her founding, is legitimate, the only solution is to strike relentlessly at those who insist on threatening the free.

Regarding torture, I have read and heard enough about what we (the French) did in Algeria to know the terrible consequences of gratuitous, systematic torture (not to mention, from a more cynical POV, that it is a waste of taxpayers' money).

Whatever the consequences to such an approach, it has yet to be shown that the Willing have engaged in such tactics as a matter of policy. Further, since when is France an example of anything when it comes to national defense?

It is perfectly justified, however, when the person captured has information.

Or if you have solid reasons to suspect that he has information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The actions and justifications in the opening post of this thread are nowhere near socialism. Iran is a region under a brutal totalitarian regime that knows how to play the game.

A few friends of mine have spent time in Islamic countries (Syria, Iran, South Lebanon, etc.). What they describe, the philosophy of Islam, is incredibly close to Toohey's speech: "don't think, just feel, you must feel for everything, your feelings are great. Don't use reason." I thought this was very interesting - it confirms that totalitarian regimes are similar to socialism in the philosophy they use to control crowds (hence my comment). To me there is little difference between Ahmadinejad's (well, Kahmeini's) regime and the government in Atlas or Ellsworth Toohey.

If conventional warfare is the best strategy, then we can't afford not to engage in one. Think of the costs if we don't. (Remember: a relatively low number of Marines, dispatched when Iran started nationalizing Western oil fields, could've spared the world who knows how much pain, suffering and money. Who knows where the Middle East would be today if the West had simply defended its rights in the region?)

I agree entirely with the second part. I still feel that the Arab countries nationalizing oil wells was theft. Just like burning embassies should be a declaration of war. Let's just say that with my friends, we ate a lot of Danish food after the cartoon crisis -_- (indeed one of my friends who edited the college paper had to go into police protection and relocate because he printed them again; I still have a copy of that legendary - and called back and destroyed - issue that dedicated 7 of its 8 pages at thrashing Islam in the most biting, cynical, and hilarious of British humour. A lot of people agreed. Nobody dared mention a word, and the college, in search of an apology, allowed a Muslim student to make 80 Muslim kids visit the college. I still remember sitting down in hall with a lunch tray, next to him. We were surrounded by teenage walking tents. Now THAT made for an interesting conversation.)

As for the first part, we have the most advanced nukes in the world. Why waste countless Western lives when the problem can be solved by glassifying desertic terrorist bases? We have so many elegant ways of delivering them, too. Plus, the hippies can't say anything, they won't know the bomb is launched, and once it's landed, then their lobbying to stop the war is a lot less effective on the outcome.

I doubt our forces would have a tough time with Iran's uniformed force. (This is the country that couldn't beat Iraq in an eight year war.)

Agree in principle and disagree in practice. See below. Iran unlike Iraq has specifically developed tactics to inflict maximum pain on an invading Western army; Iraq was merely a weak, impoverished dictatorship.

That fact doesn't establish that Iraq was the wrong target, or that we shouldn't use conventional warfare elsewhere. What it shows is that we can't engage in war half-assed.

100% agree. Vietnam could also have been over much quicker and at a lower cost. I know many boat people who would have been thrilled. The hippies are responsible for crimes against humanity.

Regarding Iraq, I do not share the views of my government (this is partly why I'm moving to the US). In fact, I'd like to thank the Americans for avoiding us getting Scudded.

ISince, however, Israel, regardless of certain massive wrongs committed during her founding, is legitimate, the only solution is to strike relentlessly at those who insist on threatening the free.

I'm certain Israel will strike before the jelly-backboned US government does, and I look forward to it -_-

Osiraq 2.0.

Whatever the consequences to such an approach, it has yet to be shown that the Willing have engaged in such tactics as a matter of policy. Further, since when is France an example of anything when it comes to national defense?

My grandfather was wounded in combat in WWII. My great grandfather (and my grandfather) ruled our colonies (Syria, Indochina, Congo, Maghreb...). Those were the days. Think of the French colony in Apocalypse Now - this used to be our spirit, and it has been destroyed by the communists. This is the destiny of the US if you don't stop the devastating spread of altruism. However, the gratuitous, systematic torturing of everybody with dark skin in Algeria really turned both the local population and the population at home against us and really helped the communists (as nationalism was associated with the right wing). The same is true with Chechnya.

I recently was reading Kessel's Mermoz, where he describes very well the political movement that led to the weakening of France not just militarily but industrially. As you can guess, it was that spirit that believes it is better to "freeze things as they are" (with accompanying nationalisations e.g. Aeropostale etc. into Air France).

This was not an attack on the Willing, merely following on the thread subject of torture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is madness. The whole world should know this, and expose these people.

To whom? Their followers? Their followers follow willingly. I have a hunch (perhaps a wrong hunch) that you think Islamic madness can be cured by reason and persuasion. It can't.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is madness. The whole world should know this, and expose these people.

To whom? Their followers? Their followers follow willingly. I have a hunch (perhaps a wrong hunch) that you think Islamic madness can be cured by reason and persuasion. It can't.

Bob Kolker

This is the ostrich head in the sand syndrome. "If I really believe muslims are peaceful and do not want to blow up Israel and the Western world, they won't."

Smart kids realise that the world doesn't revolve around them when they are about 10. Irrationals don't seem to ever reach that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me there is little difference between Ahmadinejad's (well, Kahmeini's) regime and the government in Atlas or Ellsworth Toohey.

Toohey was looking to establish an all-out totalitarian regime. But if you must use the same term to describe both what Iran has been for a long time and the intermediate steps Toohey needed to take in order to establish a similar degree of rule, then call both of them totalitarian.

As for the first part, we have the most advanced nukes in the world. Why waste countless Western lives when the problem can be solved by glassifying desertic terrorist bases?

But the condition I set for waging a conventional war was should it be the best approach...

As I remember the consequences of using nukes in that region, POVs offered on another Objectivist forum and never challenged, such an action will impact the masses of other nations, some of which are nowhere near totalitarian. Further, it is impossible to live or work in areas affected by the consequences of a blast.

I don't know if either nukes or a conventional approach is the better approach -- I'm not a learned military strategist. My point, however, was that we cannot take the conventional warfare option off the table either because of costs, the failures in Iraq, or because we didn't maximize the return on all that blood and treasure.

Iran unlike Iraq has specifically developed tactics to inflict maximum pain on an invading Western army;

They all plan for such contingencies. They all fail. No dictatorship that has lasted as long as the one in Iran has the reserves of brain power needed to stall an all-out, conventional war effort by the US, and even if it did, its rulers wouldn't listen.

Now if you wish to bring up the likelihood that Iran would counter an attack on "its" soil by unleashing covert Republican units in the US, causing, at the very least, incredible damage to infrastructure and collapsing the economy for X amount of time, no argument. However, the amount of damage Iran can counter with grows with every passing day so the cost of postponing is massive.

Iraq was merely a weak, impoverished dictatorship

Whereas Iran is...?

(Remember: Iraq had the fourth largest military in the wold prior to GWI, one equipped with some of the best hardware available to the Eastern Block. The 100 Hours War went OK, didn't it?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Points taken -_-

Yes, socialism is totalitarian. For me there can be no compromise. Any compromise is a slip towards Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Points taken -_-

Yes, socialism is totalitarian. For me there can be no compromise. Any compromise is a slip towards Iran.

My point is that it's inaccurate to talk about Iran as if its citizens suffer primarily because of limits on their economic freedoms.

From your post #7:

I despise the thought of wiping a county off a map, when civilians are really victims of socialism (even if it calls itself Islam) and could be so productive (which directly impacts my happiness - boy am I glad that Pakistanis and Egyptians are sewing my clothes) but it may well come to that

There are nations under socialism that have a free press, transparency, actual elections that give citizens the option of moving their economy either towards more or less regulation, etc. Iran, however, is a region under totalitarian rule -- her socialism, and I don't know if that term can be applied to Iran's economic system, isn't the problem of either the West or of those "living" in Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that it's inaccurate to talk about Iran as if its citizens suffer primarily because of limits on their economic freedoms.

I talked to survivors of Mao's China. The atmosphere was similar, if a bit more chaotic and deadly. Whether it's branded Koran or The Little Red Book, it's the same stuff everywhere. Altruism used to gain power.

There are nations under socialism that have a free press, transparency, actual elections that give citizens the option of moving their economy either towards more or less regulation, etc. Iran, however, is a region under totalitarian rule -- her socialism, and I don't know if that term can be applied to Iran's economic system, isn't the problem of either the West or of those "living" in Iran.

There are peaceful muslims. They eventually face the fact that either they should join the Jihad, since it says so in the book, or give up their religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that it's inaccurate to talk about Iran as if its citizens suffer primarily because of limits on their economic freedoms.

I talked to survivors of Mao's China. The atmosphere was similar, if a bit more chaotic and deadly. Whether it's branded Koran or The Little Red Book, it's the same stuff everywhere. Altruism used to gain power.

I'm not debating whether or not the atmospheres are similar, or whether Islamist totalitarians differ from their atheist counterparts. My point is that people currently living in Iran aren't suffering from socialism -- they're victims of totalitarianism. Why equivocate between an oppressive economic system and all-out control over all key aspects of the lives of those trapped under a given regime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is madness. The whole world should know this, and expose these people.

To whom? Their followers? Their followers follow willingly. I have a hunch (perhaps a wrong hunch) that you think Islamic madness can be cured by reason and persuasion. It can't.

Bob Kolker

I said the *whole world*, because this would present the Muslims, who consider themselves as non radical and peace loving, to confront this aspect of their religion. Nothing will change the fanatics, but the fanatics swim in a sea of toleration and evasion. The non-radical will either have to defend this ugly position, or insist that the fanatics have it wrong. If a large section of non-fanatics turn on the fanatics, they remove the moral sanction and blindness that gives life blood to the fanatics. If not, then the majority will never be able to pretend they have a religion of peace, and make no mistake, they attach great importance to their morality; it is their motivator.

The point is to confront, and make the non-fanatics take a stand, and not let what they believe, be represented by these evil monsters. Either that, or admit their true colours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not debating whether or not the atmospheres are similar, or whether Islamist totalitarians differ from their atheist counterparts. My point is that people currently living in Iran aren't suffering from socialism -- they're victims of totalitarianism. Why equivocate between an oppressive economic system and all-out control over all key aspects of the lives of those trapped under a given regime?

Because one is a step towards the other, and because socialism IS totalitarian.

In France I have seen lines of thinking that lead to supporting the Iranian regime, including those who state categorically that Iran has a "right to the bomb" to offset the balance of power with those "imperialist Americans". Those are atheist citizens of a politically free country.

My point is that whether the regime is openly totalitarian or not (such as Britain pre-Thatcher) the effects are the same, and the mechanisms.

If you are implying totalitarianism and socialism aren't necessarily linked, I agree (Pinochet post-Chicago and Franco post-technocrats spring to mind as regimes with little to no political freedom but strong economic freedom). But for me Iran is just an extreme version of altruism. They use Islam, the Soviets used The Common Good, and the key difference is that Islamists are more likely to do mad things like destroying the world since they believe in an afterlife which is particularly sweet for those who died in combat. But the mechanics are the same.

Regarding controlling key aspects of life, I don't see how this does not apply to economic controls. I'm flying to LAX from LHR in a week. The flight itself costs £100, the taxes on it about £300. Budget European flights from London are now £1 flight, £10 airport tax (it's a BAA monopoly in London), and £20 green tax. Cucumbers have to be straight, according to EU regulations, or they

Your owning an expensive house in France leads to you being taxed very heavily, sometimes with the amount outstanding being more than your pre-tax income (there was a bit of a shock when this "ISF" tax ended up forcing retired workers to sell their family home of 50 years because of the real estate bubble). These are government-implemented attempts at controlling our lives. Yes, it's not quite the religious police. But the control of the EU over our lives is increasing every day, just as the influence of altruism on our populations, so I'd say it's only a matter of time before we have our own religious police (which, to an extent, children indoctrinated to report environmentally unfriendly behaviour from their parents is).

To sum it up, no, I don't believe that Iran and socialism are two different things. For me, socialism (which really is the political name for altruism) is the method used by the mullahs. Look at how they came to power - they seized it on behalf of "the people".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because one is a step towards the other,

That doesn't make them the same thing. As a matter of fact it means they're not the same thing.

In France I have seen lines of thinking that lead to supporting the Iranian regime, including those who state categorically that Iran has a "right to the bomb" to offset the balance of power with those "imperialist Americans". Those are atheist citizens of a politically free country.

That sort of error isn't either built into, or a function of, socialism.

My point is that whether the regime is openly totalitarian or not (such as Britain pre-Thatcher) the effects are the same, and the mechanisms.

Would you say that the "effects" and "mechanisms" of pre-Thatcher Britain and today's Iran are the same?

Regarding controlling key aspects of life, I don't see how this does not apply to economic controls. I'm flying to LAX from LHR in a week. The flight itself costs £100, the taxes on it about £300. Budget European flights from London are now £1 flight, £10 airport tax (it's a BAA monopoly in London), and £20 green tax. Cucumbers have to be straight, according to EU regulations, or they
Your owning an expensive house in France leads to you being taxed very heavily, sometimes with the amount outstanding being more than your pre-tax income (there was a bit of a shock when this "ISF" tax ended up forcing retired workers to sell their family home of 50 years because of the real estate bubble). These are government-implemented attempts at controlling our lives. Yes, it's not quite the religious police. But the control of the EU over our lives is increasing every day, just as the influence of altruism on our populations, so I'd say it's only a matter of time before we have our own religious police (which, to an extent, children indoctrinated to report environmentally unfriendly behaviour from their parents is)

But there's still free speech in the western nations that are in this state, actual elections, panels and courts where these issues can be debated and regulations challenged, etc. If and when these options go, and they seem to erode with every passing day, then we'd have totalitarianism.

To sum it up, no, I don't believe that Iran and socialism are two different things.

The terms "dictatorship" and "socialism" cannot be used interchangeably. The proof is in the fact that you keep making the point that one leads to the other. We can attack socialism by pointing out that it can lead to totalitarianism. But there is no reason for the two concepts to be subsumed by the same term.

Unless a new point is made, I'm more or less done with this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is to confront, and make the non-fanatics take a stand, and not let what they believe, be represented by these evil monsters. Either that, or admit their true colours.

I concur. Removing the cover that the so-called "moderates" provide will expose the red hot Jihadis and make it possible to target them precisely. The alternative is; to Kille'm All and Let God Sort Out The Bodies.

Bob Kollker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0