[mojo2]

August 22
Does Iran have something in store?

BY BERNARD LEWIS
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 4:30 p.m. EDT

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

And for the record, I'm against Iranians attacking or threatening anyone with any kind of weapon.

[mojo2]

Nuke terror fears raised
by massive smuggling ops
662 confirmed cases worldwide, while GAO
showed how to bring them across border

Posted: August 11, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kyl, chairman of the Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security Subcommittee, is suggesting it's time for a "Manhattan Project" commitment by the U.S. to prevent nuclear terrorism, confirming "there have been plenty of efforts by terrorists and smugglers to acquire nuclear materials."

Pointing out that terrorists would need no more that nine pounds of plutonium or 35 pounds of highly-enriched uranium to create a nuclear explosion, Kyl headed a hearing with top government experts on the prospects of detection and prevention of the feared nuke attack on the U.S.

"A trained nuclear engineer – and there are plenty of them looking for work worldwide – could use this small chunk of material to create a nuclear device that would fit into a van or small watercraft," said Kyl.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1993 and 2004, there were 662 confirmed cases of smuggling of nuclear and radiological materials.

"And those were just the instances that we know about," said Kyl. "Of those confirmed cases, 21 involved materials that could be used to produce a nuclear weapon, and over 400 involved materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the U.S. is not immune from an attack with so much loose nuclear material around. She pointed out a recent Government Accountability Office undercover operation proved that nuclear materials could be smuggled into the United States.

"GAO actually shipped here to Washington enough nuclear materials to build two dirty bombs through our northern border and, again, through our southern border," she said. "Clearly, there is more that must be done, and clearly, we still have problems on both our northern and southern borders. We've got to put in place an integrated system that provides our citizens with maximum protection against nuclear smuggling, and do it in a way that is both efficient and cost-effective."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51418

[mojo2]

Iran to Nuke Israel on August 22?

by Robert Spencer
Posted Jul 26, 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frustrated Western officials by refusing to reply to their offer of various incentives in exchange for Iran’s discarding its nuclear program until August 22. The Western governments had asked Ahmadinejad to reply by June 29; why would Tehran need two extra months?

Farid Ghadry, the president of the Reform Party of Syria, has offered a provocative explanation for this delay. He asserts that the Supreme National Security Council of Iran chose the August 22 date “for a very precise reason. August 21, 2006 (Rajab 27, 1427) is known in the Islamic calendar as the Night of the Sira’a and Miira’aj, the night Prophet Mohammed (saas) ascended to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on a Bourak (Half animal, half man), while a great light lit-up the night sky, and visited Heaven and Hell also Beit al-Saada and Beit al-Shaqaa (House of Happiness and House of Misery) and then descended back to Mecca.…”

The Night Journey, or Miraj, is central to Islam’s claim to Jerusalem as an Islamic holy city. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was carried on a Buraq, a miraculous horse with a human head, from Mecca to Jerusalem, where he ascended into heaven and met the other prophets. The only thing the Qur’an has to say about it is this: “Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless, in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)” (17:1). There is no identification of the “farthest Mosque” with any mosque in Jerusalem in this, but the Hadith is very clear on the identification of its location with Jerusalem.

The traditions say that Muhammad and the Buraq, along with the angel Gabriel, went to the Temple Mount, and from there to heaven itself, where Muhammad encountered various prophets. In the sixth heaven was Moses, occasioning a dig at the Jews. “When I left him,” Muhammad says, “he wept. Someone asked him, ‘What makes you weep?’ Moses said, ‘I weep because after me there has been sent (Muhammad as a Prophet) a young man, whose followers will enter Paradise in greater numbers than my followers.’”

Evidently, however, Muhammad’s stories of his journey were not altogether convincing: some Muslims even abandoned Islam. Did he really go anywhere? According to his favorite wife, Aisha, he didn’t: “The apostle’s body remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night.” Nevertheless, the Night Journey has become firmly embedded in the Islamic consciousness, such that Muslims today celebrate it as one of the central events of Muhammad’s life. And now, according to Ghadry, Ahmadinejad is planning an illumination of the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey. What the Iranian President, he says, is “promising the world by August 22 is the light in the sky over the Aqsa Mosque that took place the night before. That is his answer to the package of incentives the international community offered Iran on June 6.”

Certainly a nuclear attack on Jerusalem or even an all-out conventional assault against Israel by Iran would be consistent with Ahmadinejad’s oft-repeated denials of Israel’s right to exist and recent predictions that its demise was at hand. He hinted at the use of nuclear weapons in his phrasing when he said that Israel “pushed the button of its own destruction” by finally retaliating against Hizballah’s relentless rocket barrage from south Lebanon.

“Arrogant powers,” Ahmadinejad said, “have set up a base for themselves to threaten and plunder nations in the region. But today, the occupier regime” -- that is, Israel -- “whose philosophy is based on threats, massacre and invasion, has reached its finishing line.”

Will he attempt to make good on these threats this year on the anniversary of the Miraj, illuminating the night sky over Jerusalem? Will Western powers heed Farid Ghadry’s words and move to stop Iran before it is too late?
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16208

[saddino]

Astroturfing via cut-n-paste is not really the best strategy, IMHO. Too transparent.

[hickey]

interesting stuff. I'm anxious to see if anything happens, but i dont think anything will. But it would be a nice wake up call.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by saddino

Astroturfing via cut-n-paste is not really the best strategy, IMHO. Too transparent.

What you talkin bout, Saddino?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by hickey

interesting stuff. I'm anxious to see if anything happens, but i dont think anything will. But it would be a nice wake up call.

Thanks, hickey!

I agree that too many of our fellow posters take a viewer's position on the war. If there is a nuclear detonation over Israel it could very easily trigger WMD's here in the US, if they really have been smuggled into the USA as has been feared.

I really think a nuclear wake up call would ruin everyone's day.

[MovieCutter]

They've got 3 hours left...still waiting

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by saddino

Astroturfing via cut-n-paste is not really the best strategy, IMHO. Too transparent.

Huh? I don't understand: what sense are you using the term "astroturfing" in? I've heard it applied to professional organizations which try to look like grassroots movements, but I'm not sure how that applies here.

[OreoCookie]

Yet another rule 8 violation

[besson3c]

It looks like they had negotiations in store for us!

Iran Presents ‘New Formula’ for Talks - New York Times



But maybe these are..... deadly negotiations....

DUH DUH DAARRNNNHHH!!!

[stevesnj]

[besson3c]

You know what I don't get?

I don't really care about these so-called rule 8 violations. Frankly, I think this is a silly and unnecessary rule. However, if I recall, this is what got mojo2 banned.

Shortly after his being banned from the P/L, he seemed very apologetic and talked very sweetly to the mods in the regular lounge. Being banned from the P/L seemed to make him rather morose. Now, it appears as if he is doing the very same thing again... go figure?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You know what I don't get?

I don't really care about these so-called rule 8 violations. Frankly, I think this is a silly and unnecessary rule. However, if I recall, this is what got mojo2 banned.

Shortly after his being banned from the P/L, he seemed very apologetic and talked very sweetly to the mods in the regular lounge. Being banned from the P/L seemed to make him rather morose. Now, it appears as if he is doing the very same thing again... go figure?

Rule 8 is perhaps the most important rule of the political lounge, because it forces people to give a personal opinion.

This rule makes life miserable for onle *one* type of posters. The Trolls.

No normal poster would ever violate rule 8. He probably wouldn't know it existed.

V

[Dakar]

People who violate the rule 8 usually don't want to tell you what they think because when you bitch, they say "Hey I just posted the story, I didn't say I agree with all of it."

[sek929]

Do I have to wait till tommorrow to say haw-haw?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Huh? I don't understand: what sense are you using the term "astroturfing" in? I've heard it applied to professional organizations which try to look like grassroots movements, but I'm not sure how that applies here.

Political organizations are quite similar.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Yet another rule 8 violation

You are speaking as a moderator or a poster?

This is why I hesitate to interact with mods. They sometimes have a difficult time with their own version of Rule 8.

Are they posting as one or the other?

When I respond to them am I responding to one or the other?

And for the record, I'm against Iranians attacking or threatening anyone with any kind of weapon.

This is how people can create a false impression. By commenting on an imaginary offense they can create the illusion that the offense is real.

Are you from the M.E. media corps?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You know what I don't get?

I don't really care about these so-called rule 8 violations. Frankly, I think this is a silly and unnecessary rule. However, if I recall, this is what got mojo2 banned.

Shortly after his being banned from the P/L, he seemed very apologetic and talked very sweetly to the mods in the regular lounge. Being banned from the P/L seemed to make him rather morose. Now, it appears as if he is doing the very same thing again... go figure?

Hmmm. I thought you thought my bellicosity was responsible for the bannination.

What will you you think of next? And thanks for caring.

Will you be adding this to the mojoshrine?™

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It looks like they had negotiations in store for us!

More time-buying by Iran. They're waiting for Bush's term to end, because they know he isn't going to allow them to become a nuclear power on his watch.

I'm sure there will be plenty of Iranian money flowing to MoveOn.org and the other liberal 527s as the 2008 election approaches.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Rule 8 is perhaps the most important rule of the political lounge, because it forces people to give a personal opinion.

This rule makes life miserable for onle *one* type of posters. The Trolls.

No normal poster would ever violate rule 8. He probably wouldn't know it existed.

V

In my experience, it is like pulling teeth to get several people to provide an opinion with some substance, and this happens in several threads not blemished with rule 8 violations. I'm just not sure that creating a rule prevents vacant posts lacking thought.

In fact, I'd suggest that we probably have almost as big a problem in people simply complaining about rule 8 violations, ironically

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

More time-buying by Iran. They're waiting for Bush's term to end, because they know he isn't going to allow them to become a nuclear power on his watch.

I'm sure there will be plenty of Iranian money flowing to MoveOn.org and the other liberal 527s as the 2008 election approaches.

What I wouldn't do to impose some sort of device on people like you that would activate a part of your brain currently dormant. I'm not suggesting that you are dumb, we all have under-utilized brain power, but these posts just seem so comfortably repetitive and extremely boring.

Yes, we get it, Liberals are ruining America... We've heard just about every variation on this argument before.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by analogika

Political organizations are quite similar.

Anyone familiar with our history of exchanges will certainly attest that you and I never fail to trade barbs when the occasions lend themselves.

However, one thing I have come to expect from you and is demonstrated here very plainly, is that you are very intelligent and more discerning than the average mojo basher.

Dear readers, take a hard look at the posts in this thread.

Starting from the original post until this one.

That examination will show that I DID NOT commit a Rule 8.

I've said before that I consider rule 8 helpful in preventing threads that go nowhere because the O.P.'s position can't be discerned and thus subsequent posters have nothing to comment on...even though subsequent posters COULD and SHOULD be able to comment on THEIR view of the article, very often they do not.

(And to the MacNN admins, that speaks to the INHERENT adversarial and confrontational aspect to discussion and debate here. If it weren't a contest why do people constantly use rule 8 violations as a club? When people watch the news on TV do they require CNN or Fox to tell them the network's opinion on the event? What about the Edward R. Murrow school of journalism where supposedly we were given news STRAIGHT and unbiased? How did people ever debate the events of the day without Rule 8??? )

There are some times when Rule 8 is helpful. It is an ice breaker of sorts or a navigational aid.

And that is fine.

However, there are times when Rule 8 simply does not apply. On 9/11, if someone had posted a thread saying an airplane had flown into one of the twin towers, there is no need for an adherence to Rule 8. To insist there should be is either a case of mindless enslavement to a suggestion meant to help promote discussion...

Or, an example of how petty minded individuals use anything they can to beat someone with.

They will turn rule 8 into a weapon in the same mean spirited way they might also use a person's medical condition or sexual orientation as a weapon. And how far is that from the mindset which permits the despicable use of innocent civilians as human shields?

Yes, there is a big difference in degrees of offense but they are borne from the same kind of desperation and reaching for whatever advantage exists without thought, imagination, scruples, foresight or concern for consequences.

In the case of this thread I asked the question, "August 22: Does Iran have something in store?" And even though I believed a rule 8 declaration was unnecessary in this case I provided my opinion in deference to the administration as my way of saying I will play by the rules.

Then I posted information with which all good posters might better understand the situation and gave a second opinion on the issue.

The writers of the posted articles looked at a possible event or scenario and gave their reason to support why the possible event MIGHT take place.

They never said it WOULD happen. They merely presented the evidence which would explain why the possible scenario MIGHT occur, IF IT DID. And in the spirit of giving us all fair notice of what might possibly be and also presenting more information about the threat we face (Islamic jihad and in this case, Iran) as well as providing an interesting theory to debate, I posted the thread.

Whether the event happens or not (and please take note of all the posts which seem angry or at best unconcerned at the number of lives that might be lost if there were to be a nuclear detonation), the information presented has been presented in good faith and the facts remain true and so there is no haw haw target to be assailed. It's just an event that did or did not happen which signs pointed to the possibility of happening.

The posters here who overlooked my Rule 8 statement in the O.P. are not thorough readers. They are not concerned with the truth. They simply want to scrum. And that's ok except that we need to recognize who those people are and not only what they are not but who they are not.

Anyone here who fashions himself as a scientist but who overlooked my rule 8 sentence, lacks the discipline of a scientist.

Anyone here who fashions himself as fair-minded but jumps to an unnecessary conclusion, one which has no substantiation, lacks the sense of justice needed to be called an objective observer.

I'm happy to say, analogika, you distinguish yourself by not being of the desperate, vindictive, unintelligent folks who will be identified only by their very own posts.

There are other good, smart posters in this thread, too. But this isn't about you all.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

More time-buying by Iran. They're waiting for Bush's term to end, because they know he isn't going to allow them to become a nuclear power on his watch.

I'm sure there will be plenty of Iranian money flowing to MoveOn.org and the other liberal 527s as the 2008 election approaches.

VERY GOOD CALL!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

In fact, I'd suggest that we probably have almost as big a problem in people simply complaining about rule 8 violations, ironically

I'm very pleasantly surprised to see that you recognize this.

[Spliffdaddy]

I thought Bill Clinton already fixed the Iran nuclear problem.

[besson3c]

It looks like the new Apache mod_rewrite stuff that gives us these nicely formatted URLs doesn't yet work in viewing posts of people on our ignore list.

Oh well, somebody let me know if Mojo2 says something entertaining about an Art Bell shrine of David Bowie or something.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I thought Bill Clinton already fixed the Iran nuclear problem.

He didn't fix them, he fixed em up!

[Spliffdaddy]

You should keep an open mind, besson3c. Come together. Find common ground.

Sometimes I wonder if you're even a liberal.

[voodoo]

Well it is the 23rd and change around here and nothing has happened. Don't worry, the four horsemen just stopped over at the bar. They could be there for a while though. Pestilence is a heavy drinker and Famine gets the worst hangovers. War and Death are out and about though first thing in the morning.

V

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

You should keep an open mind, besson3c. Come together. Find common ground.

Sometimes I wonder if you're even a liberal.

Sometimes I wonder when you'll realize that I'm not.

[Spliffdaddy]

But then I'd be wrong.

And that never happened to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

But then I'd be wrong.

And that never happened to me.

Why is it when I push you and try to get you to recognize some complexity to certain issues you insist are as plain and simple as the nose on your face, you kind of cower away? Why do you default back to your trademark tough talk whenever things become complicated?

I don't care what your arguments are, whether they are right, left, center, in outer space, I don't care... I would just live my left nut sack if people like you could consistently put together reasoned and well put together arguments.

[voodoo]

Plz don't live your left nut sack. It just doesn't sound right.

V

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Plz don't live your left nut sack. It just doesn't sound right.

V

Somebody's taking one of my nut sacks, and I don't care if it is my left or right one.

Do you want one? They are great for arts and crafts.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why is it when I push you and try to get you to recognize some complexity to certain issues you insist are as plain and simple as the nose on your face, you kind of cower away? Why do you default back to your trademark tough talk whenever things become complicated?

I don't care what your arguments are, whether they are right, left, center, in outer space, I don't care... I would just live my left nut sack if people like you could consistently put together reasoned and well put together arguments.

I believe that things are either right or wrong. Black or white.

There is never any gray area.

Frankly I don't see the point in abandoning my core beliefs in an effort to reach a compromise.

I'd rather win or lose.

Too many folks want to hand out trophies to all the participants.

I may sound very simplistic in my statements, and I know that bothers some people...because I leave no room for compromise - no room for gray areas.

I respect dissenting opinions when they are based on core values.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I believe that things are either right or wrong. Black or white.

There is never any gray area.

Never? If somebody broke into your house and killed your wife or loved one in front of your eyes, spat on her, raped her, or whatever, would it be wrong for you to seek revenge, if it meant breaking a law?

Do you ever drive past the speeding limit? Is it wrong to do so, no matter what the context?

Why do we need courts and trials if everything is black and white?

Frankly I don't see the point in abandoning my core beliefs in an effort to reach a compromise.

I'd rather win or lose.

I may sound very simplistic in my statements, and I know that bothers some people...because I leave no room for compromise - no room for gray areas.

I respect dissenting opinions when they are based on core values.

Here is one then: there is no black and white, only shades of gray. Heard that one before?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Plz don't live your left nut sack. It just doesn't sound right.

V

And for multiple reasons!

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There is never any gray area.

Don't look now but you're in one.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I believe that things are either right or wrong. Black or white.

There is never any gray area.

Frankly I don't see the point in abandoning my core beliefs in an effort to reach a compromise.

I'd rather win or lose.

Too many folks want to hand out trophies to all the participants.

I may sound very simplistic in my statements, and I know that bothers some people...because I leave no room for compromise - no room for gray areas.

I respect dissenting opinions when they are based on core values.

I agree and that is one of the things I could never understand about besson3c. How he could possibly believe I came to have these solid beliefs, beliefs which came about through reason and testing and research and examination of the facts and then compromise them for the sake of compromise.

It would be like saying to him, I want you to agree that you are not Canadian.

mojo2: For the sake of compromise agree that you are not Canadian.

besson3c: But I AM Canadian!

mojo2: Doesn't matter. Compromise is good.

besson3c: But at what cost?

mojo2: Why can't you see things from someone else's point of view???

This says some things that are disturbing.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Never? If somebody broke into your house and killed your wife or loved one in front of your eyes, spat on her, raped her, or whatever, would it be wrong for you to seek revenge, if it meant breaking a law?

Yes, it would be wrong. I don't see any gray area here.

Do you ever drive past the speeding limit? Is it wrong to do so, no matter what the context?

Yes, I do. Yes, it is.

Why do we need courts and trials if everything is black and white?

To determine if there was a wrong.

Here is one then: there is no black and white, only shades of gray. Heard that one before?

I've heard that. Probably stated by a liberal.

I've heard a lot of statements I don't agree with.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What I wouldn't do to impose some sort of device on people like you that would activate a part of your brain currently dormant. I'm not suggesting that you are dumb, we all have under-utilized brain power, but these posts just seem so comfortably repetitive and extremely boring.

Why is it so hard to believe that:

(1) Iran wants to develop nuclear weaponry
(2) Iran may fear a US-led attack under GWB if they get too close to realizing their nuclear dream
(3) Iran would prefer to wait out GWB's term and hope for new US leadership that is not as hawkish
(4) Iran could try to influence the US Presidential campaign so that a less hawkish person is elected.

It really doesn't take much brain power to see the sense in this. Yet you refuse to argue ideas. You just want to put people down who don't agree with your shallow and indecisive positions.

[Wiskedjak]

Sadly for mojoaberdeen, it doesn't appear that we'll be getting the wake up call he was apparently hoping for.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Sadly for mojoaberdeen, it doesn't appear that we'll be getting the wake up call he was apparently hoping for.

For your sake I wouldn't object to your shortening that, somewhat.

[Dakar]

Joab it is, then.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Joab it is, then.

Hmmm...

Can anyone do better than that?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

For your sake I wouldn't object to your shortening that, somewhat.

Right, my bad.

I believe 'Mojaberdeen' is the correct spelling.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Right, my bad.

I believe 'Mojaberdeen' is the correct spelling.

Leave it to you!

Mojaberdeen ≠ Mujahideen

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Leave it to you!

Mojaberdeen ≠ Mujahideen

Nah ... that's just coincidence.

Mojo+aberdeen = Mojaberdeen
We wouldn't want anyone to forget that mojo2=abe=aberdeenwriter (especially given how long you denied it as abe)
credit goes to Troll

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Nah ... that's just coincidence.

Mojo+aberdeen = Mojaberdeen
We wouldn't want anyone to forget that mojo2=abe=aberdeenwriter (especially given how long you denied it as abe)
credit goes to Troll

One can also credit Troll for the first of my several coveted...



awards.

But you were the most insightful in ascertaining the truth of the matter, that there are and were more than one of us sharing several nicks.