Nukes = Insurance against U.S. invasion.
Iraq: no nukes = U.S. invasion
North Korea: nukes = no U.S. invasion
Posted by hedagem at February 20, 2007 11:09 AM
While North Korea’s formidable missile defenses, army, and forbidding terrain no doubt give pause to any American pretensions of aggression, there’s more to American timidity in the Pacific than simple deterrence. Iran has, or almost has all of the things that North Korea does; forbidding terrain, an enormous national army, and a developing or perhaps already developed nuclear program. That doesn’t stop Bush, Inc. deploying elements of the U.S Fifth Fleet closer to the Strait of Hormuz, and into the Persian Gulf, as a means of intimidation.
The difference, of course, is China. Beijing may not be happy with Dear Leader’s little nuclear test, but when push comes to shove, threatening North Korea means threatening China, and no power in their right mind would want to put their military in an offensive posture against the Chinese.
The Chinese are rightly aware, however, that the specter of Japanese militarism is the single greatest obstacle to their continued meteoric economic rise. For all their progress, the Chinese are still lagging behind the Japanese in overall economic strength, and Japan is second only to the U.S as a dynamic and technologically developed economic power; unlike the U.S, they have cash to spare, and also have ancient military and nationalist traditions that are easily revived. What the Americans can’t do on their own militarily, they might be able to accomplish with the help of a militarily re-invigorated Japan.
It’s almost funny to say that, considering that Japanese militarization was the one things MacArthur feared most over six decades ago when he wrote their constitution for them.
That said, if Iran was expressly protected by a mighty neighbor, like Russia, or even militarily empowered one like Pakistan, the Americans would be far more timid in their excitement to deploy billions of dollars in warships to the Persian Gulf.
Posted by chatman at February 20, 2007 12:36 PM
Just a small reminder.
The 1994 framework agreement is only a small document, in simple language. It states the obligations undertaken by the DPRK, and by the US. The DPRK’s initial obligations were to mothball their graphite moderated reactors, which produce copious amounts of plutonium, to place their existing stockpiles of plutonium rich materials under UN supervision, to sign on to the NPT, and to proceed towards normalising relations with South Korea. These obligations were met.
The DPRK would undertake the further commitment to dismantle its graphite moderated reactors once light water reactors were supplied.
The US obligations, were to facilitate construction of two light water reactors, to provide heavy oil to replace the output of the graphite moderated reactors in the interim, and to sign on to a nuclear non-aggression treaty with North Korea. After 8 years, there was no progress towards the construction of the light water reactors. On the pretext of North Korea’s supposed uranium enrichment program, the US stopped the supply of heavy oil, in the midst of a cold winter. Finally, rather than sign a non-aggression treaty, US officials dubbed North Korea as a part of the “axis of evil”, and repeatedly refused to rule out attacks.
As for the pretext, that the DPRK were clandestinely refining uranium, one has only to note that they had voluntarily placed stocks of plutonium under UN supervision. Plutonium can be used as highly enriched uranium can, to produce nuclear bombs. The difference is that refinement of plutonium from spent fuel is many orders of magnitude simpler and cheaper than the enrichment of uranium. It is the option chosen by tiny Israel in order to develop its nuclear arsenal. It is preposterous to suggest that the DPRK would choose to place its Plutonium stocks under UN supervision, and then mount a clandestine program to enrich uranium. Has anyone asked what the fuel or their recent test was?
The advantage of the light water reactors, that were promised to North Korea, not as a gift, but in return for the mothballing and eventual dismantling of their graphite moderated reactors, is that they do not produce the large quantities of plutonium. It is this replacement program that the DPRK agreed to, and met its obligations towards. It is this program that the US abrogated its responsibilities towards.
Kim Jong Il may have a reputation for breaking deals, but this was not the case here.
Best regards.
Posted by Raven at February 20, 2007 12:51 PM
Raven:
Thanks for the instructive comments. I’m not well versed in nuclear technology, so the perspective was an eye-opener for me. In retrospect (trying to summon what little I remember of college chemistry), what you say about refining spent fuel, versus enriching Uranium, (238?) makes a lot of sense; why surrender the easier approach to inspection while keeping mum on the more difficult approach?
Posted by chatman at February 20, 2007 12:56 PM
chatman:
The DPRK has three other things going for it that Iran does not, which would give the U.S. pause before attacking it.
1. It does not have huge deposits of oil.
2. It actually has nuclear weapons capability.
3. Israel does not feel threatened by it.
However, I do agree that the presence of China is probably the largest deterrent.
Posted by Weary at February 20, 2007 01:48 PM
If our Dear Scientist (AQ Khan) has given Dear Leader something called a “P-2 Centrifuge”, then the Uranium route is just as easy… or easier.. then the Plutonium method.
Plus it has the advantage of better secrecy. No reactor needed to make weapons.
The question is, if AQ Khan gave Dear Leader a cetntrifuge, was it the P-1 design or the P-2?
The P-2 (Pakistan-2) is a very advanced version of the P-1, which Iran seems to be monkeying with (and not getting anywhere). The P-1 was almost a twin of the design AQ Khan stole from the Europeans (he sez, he stole his own work back from them, so it wasn’t really stealing).
To give you an example… the US has no equal to the P-2 technology we developed (nobody does). They don’t use Uranium anyway, since in the days they were creating their arsenal, the enriching of Uranium was horribly, horribly complicated and power consuming. So they used Plutonium mostly (they still do). Which is fine.
Now.. I’ve heard once mentioned in the press…. each P-2 takes as much power as a light-bulb to spin Uranium Hexafloride at supersonic speeds.
Dear Leader must be happy with all the electricity we have saved him.
If indeed he has the P-2, that is. I hope we haven’t been that stupid. Nobody knows what AQ Khan gave N.Korea. Was it a centrifuge even?
If you can find it, see the book “Long road to Chaggai”. It contains a picture… the only one I have ever seen.. of a centrifuge cascade.
Or perhaps, Dear Leader has no P-2 (or no centrifuge even). Perhaps, he is sticking to Uranium enrichment, because he has no other option?
If he is said to be diverting power and causing blackouts to his cities (I once read that is what he is doing), then he isn’t using our technology. He is trying to enrich Uranium the old fashioned horribly complicated way.
In which case, the poor guy is desperate.
Posted by The Questioner at February 20, 2007 02:05 PM
Chatman: Yes, you have the general idea, although it is the enrichment of thee U235 component of the natural mixture of roughly 99% U238 and 0.7% U235, to make reactor grade with 3 to 4% U235, or weapons grade of roughly 85% U235.
Questioner, I’m not sure where you are getting your data, but even with the most advanced centrifuges, which the P2 is not, it is not anywhere near as easy to enrich uranium as to refine plutonium. There are still orders of magnitude difference in the difficulty. Although the elements to be refined are highly toxic, the technology for refining metals has been around for centuries, if not millenia. What is required here, is the capacity to confine the reactants during the refinement.
Now, even if North Korea had the P2 centrifuge, the enrichment process is far from easy. The P2 design is an improvement from the 1 - 3 SWU/yr (Separative Work Unit / year) capacity of the P1, to approximately 5 SWU/yr. Approximately 5000 SWU/yr is needed in order to produce 25 kg of weapons grade uranium per year. (about enough for a small bomb) Thus a cascade of about 1000 P2s might do it, of they could be kept operational.
In the case of Libya, where two working models (or one working and one almost working model) of the P2 were provided, neither they, nor the clandestine network were able to replicate them.
Iran, who are anxious to boast of their capacity to enrich uranium, were shown to have obtained the design for the P2 in 1995. They have not been able to take advantage of that design, having still technical problems with bearing failures in the P1 design, where they have placed their main effort. The major difference between P1 and P2, is that the rotor is designed to spin faster in the P2. This would augment the problems with bearings.
All of the above is simply to place the problem in perspective. No, P2 does not make the process simpler. It would make production faster, if it did not, in the first place, make construction of the facility much more difficult.
Posted by Raven at February 20, 2007 04:51 PM
Hey Raven:
You’ve piqued my interest in this process; so what are you doing in separating the isotopes? Do you treat them with flourine to create the uranium-hexaflouride, and then spin the gas at extraordinarily high speeds to weed out the heavier isotope, collecting the U 235 gas “supernatant,” so to speak?
Thanks. Again, I find your comments on this area quite enlightening, and I’d be interested to read a primer on this stuff (Given my academic workload, I can’t delve into anything that’s treatise-length at this time).
Posted by chatman at February 20, 2007 05:06 PM
Raven:
I meant from our perspective… and from Dear Leader’s perspective… it would be easier to go the Uranium route than the Plutonium one.
We were denied technology for a reprocessing plant in the 70s so we had no other option.
As for difficulties… a humorous story:
At one point Pakistan could not produce Hexafloride gas of more than (I think) 50% purity. Absolutely shit.
AQ Khan complained to the President (Zia-ul-Haq). The President gave him full authority to solve the problem as he saw fit.
A few days later President Zia got a letter from AQ Khan which said something like:
Congratulation! Now that Mr.XXX has been fired from his job as YYYY, Uranium Hexafloride purity has increased to over 98%!
LOL
——The major difference between P1 and P2, is that the rotor is designed to spin faster in the P2.——-
Which is the whole point of the centrifuge. If it spins a lot faster with less time off for breakdowns, you have a much more efficient cascade.
I am sure the US, for example would come up with a better design than the P-2 (and there are better out there) but this thing is like the AK-47 of nuke-fuel engineering. It does the job better and cheaper than any other consuming far less power than previous methods used. In short it is Dear Leader’s wet dream.
When AQ Khan was working with URENCO, his main job was to stop the centrifuges from bursting into flame (from the intense friction of the bearings).
This is the same problem the Iranians are having. Their centrifuges keep catching fire. It doesn’t help the Hex is super corrosive and will destroy anything it comes in contact with.
Anyway (as it was once claimed … reality might be different, LOL) he tried all kinds of bearings from artificial rubies to exotic alloys until he came upon a solution…. which he took with him to Pakistan.
So yes, you right. The problems with Uranium enrichment are much more than with Plutonium reprocessing. But if once you have the metallurgical skills to make these things, it is easier than making a reactor. And easier to hide it. That is what I’m saying.
Posted by The Questioner at February 20, 2007 05:22 PM
About the nuclear black market… as was reported in the press… it seemed like AQ Khan had a habit of selling crap through his network while claiming it was the good stuff.
From some of the things the inspectors said when they visited Iran early on and from the fact that Iran’s centrifuges keep catching fire, I would speculate that they have were given P-1 designs. AQ Khan probably figured (correctly) that Iranians are too dumb to tell the difference. That would be just like him.
Now they are going gee why does this keep catching fire? The only threat Iran is to anyone, is itself.
Posted by The Questioner at February 20, 2007 05:48 PM
Rampart: apart from hating Iranians, making racist comments against Iranians, advertising the superiority of Pakstan over Iran and making fun of the latter, do you actually have a job or is that indeed your full-time job?
A main difference between Pakstan and Iran is that whereas Iran refuses to bow down to orders from the U.S., your president sold his nation and Pakstan is now officially a loyal slave nation of the U.S.
Posted by hedagem at February 20, 2007 09:32 PM
Questioner:
You’re right, you did comment on the need for a reactor, and I forgot to add my answer, which is that the DPRK’s reactors are not hidden. The graphite moderated reactors, which produce large quantities of Plutonium, were mothballed under the 1994 framework agreement. There was no secrecy about their reactivation when that agreement fell apart, nor about the removal of the stored materials from UN supervision.
Chatman, I’ll try to look up a few references for you. Have to rush off to take a child to piano practice.
Posted by Raven at February 20, 2007 09:46 PM
As for Iranians being dumb: Rampart, I am sorry to hear that your whole national pride lies in the fact that Pakstan has nuclear weapons, whereas Iran does not. I have seen far more dumb Paks than Iranians. I will have to disappoint you, but having nuclear weapons does not a nation make. Neither does having a big powerful army. It is a shame that in our world the greatness of nations is measured by the size of their armies. Look at North Korea: the country is starving to death, yet they are still proud, because they have nuclear weapons and a large army. Humans are pathetic.
Posted by hedagem at February 20, 2007 09:55 PM
Hedagem:
It has apparently escaped you in your continuing emotional overdrive that perhaps I was trying to do Iran a favor (in my own very small way) by asserting that Iran can’t be a threat to anyone and will never produce a nuke? By your standards that is a good thing right?
As for N.Korea… read this week’s article again. Dear Leader has played his cards (nukes, army, bad hair-cut) very well under the circumstances. He did Iran a favor at least by creating a precedent of direct talks as Eric notes:
—-why not direct talks with Iran over its so far peaceful nuclear program? The neocons want war with Iran, not talks, so the example of North Korea is undermining their carefully developed strategy.—-
So instead of calling the Koreans pathetic, maybe you ought to be thankful to them .. and their nukes…for giving Iran some chance. Every little bit helps.
Posted by The Questioner at February 21, 2007 12:05 AM
For a bit of a primer
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/libya/cent_procure.html
Posted by oldfan at February 21, 2007 01:02 AM
Eric, in your recent Sun article on the ‘true’ supply of NA oil (canada, mexico, SA) to America, I suspect that many Americans would be very surprised that their presumption of “war” for oil, was not even for their own supplies, but those of Europe et. al., and therefore, at best, it was for U.S. oil business interests in the middle-east, especially, considering britian, has just announced a pull out plan for Iraq… In any case, that article, which might appear to be of Canadian interest only, is, in making that point, likely of interest to Americans…
Posted by bigsugar999 at February 21, 2007 10:33 AM
Two comments about Bigsugar999’s post.
The fact that Middle East oil mostly goes to Europe would seem to undermine ‘war for oil’ as a rationale for invading Iraq. After all, if the oil isn’t going to us, then how can we be protecting “our” oil? This would bolster the argument for an ideological basis for the invasion, e.g., protecting Israel, world domination, etc.
On the other hand, one could argue that making sure the Middle East supplies the world with oil at a cheap price will consequently depress prices everywhere, so that no matter where the U.S. buys its oil, it will pay a low price.
Two difficulties follow from that view. First, the invasion has not perpetuated cheap oil, for oil continues to sell at over twice the pre-invasion cost per barrel. Second, if the U.S. wanted to go to war with its suppliers in order to force a cheap price, it could just as easily invade Mexico, Venezuela, etc., more easily, it would seem, than a desert nation on the other side of the world.
Posted by CalmHorizons at February 21, 2007 02:38 PM
It’s not just the Europeans who buy Mideast oil; the Indians and the Chinese also buy massive amounts of mideast oil, and their energy demands are steadily rising; both nations are also rich enough and powerful enough to resist Washington’s center of gravity, and their economies continue to boom. I perceive U.S control of the MIddle East, which is the world’s heartland for energy reserves, as a means of dominating not the middle east in particular, but of dominating energy supplies flowing to the two nations that are most likely to become dominant regional, or even global, players in the coming decades. If you control the flow of energy, you control the economic growth of both of Asia’s giants… or at least, that was the theory. The reality is that we (the Americans) don’t control much of anything, oil prices have continued to rise, and Iraq’s productivity is still below pre-invasion levels.
Posted by chatman at February 21, 2007 03:47 PM
A number of good points - I appreciate this.
The most salient point made so far is that no one country is a Global Cop and there is no single super power.
The American Empire is over and now it’s going to be a game of musical chairs on the Titanic.
Over consumption has greatly ticked off Mother Nature and we are all in the same boat. It’s too bad that boat is powered by oil and not wind.
Wars as we knew them are over - the disapearing coastlines and shrinking natural reserves are going to unite us.
Ask the people of New Orleans or Florida if they dis-believe the science that tells us things are a changing.
Canada looks to be the best place on earth to be. Canada has huge oil deposits and as soon as Mexico invades the USA, as it is doing by proxy, the power shift will be interesting, to say the least.
Posted by Akward2 at February 21, 2007 07:19 PM
Iranians are emotional :)
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 22, 2007 03:00 AM
OT: Man this is horrible and backwards and depressing as hell:
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 08:07 AM
OT:Man this is horrible:
So it is true what people have been saying? That American soldiers give out chocolate and candy to kids so they can target girls for rape and murder later?
Now I am depressed.
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 10:32 AM
Ugh… these people are the worst of common criminals. I read this stuff, and even though I oppose the death penalty in general, I have to wonder what we are doing putting such monsters in prison.
In my view, rape of this sort is a crime that, from a mental state standpoint, is more condemnable than murder. Of course, these soldiers (and supposedly, the extremist that killed Usman) have a history of both capital crimes, and they committed them in the worst of premeditated means. These guys need to hang… goodness knows how many others have been driven to (or drove themselves to) commit similarly deranged attacks.
Posted by chatman at February 22, 2007 10:50 AM
Ugh. That’s horrific Rampart. Truly sickening.
If there is anything that even resembles a silver lining (for lack of a better phrase) relative to those disgusting “soldiers” it is that those “men” are going to spend the rest of their lives rotting in jail (i.e. Barker pleaded guilty in November and was sentenced to 90 years in a military prison).
I hope their nights are filled with all sorts of unspeakable violations at the hands of giant, angry men with names like “Bubba”.
Both stories raise another point – isn’t it comforting on some level, my Western friends, to know that rape can be tried, in a court of law, and there are real ramifications?
I am so thankful our women are not forced to be second-class citizens under Sharia “law”.
I’ve just read that something like 80% of 1,800 women in jail in Pakistan are there for “huddud” offences – you know, crimes like being raped, for example.
What is particularly outrageous in Sharia law is that a woman who reports she has been raped will be charged for slanderous accusation and flogged 80 lashes if she is unable to prove the rape. Proving the rape, of course, requires 4 men to testify that they witness the crime…which would make them accomplices in most cases. Needless to say, rape convictions aren’t that easy to come by.
Disgusting. Disturbing. Unenlightened to be sure.
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 11:10 AM
In the West, we used to have tonnes of horrible things like that going on - husbands could rape their wives without it being considered rape; Suffragettes were being harassed and abused for wanting to vote; there was no such term as “date rape”; and a myriad of other inequalities.
At least the murder of this Pakistani minister is being condemned, even if not by TQ/Ramp -
RE: Iraqi rape - It’s also a shame that occupying forces are still committing atrocities to innocents. That poor Iraqi girl’s last moments on this earth were spent in horror. She died for nothing.
Canadians were embroiled in a similar controversy a few years back with the rape of a girl in Somalia. The result was that our infantry was revamped and cut back massively. I doubt this will happen in the US.
As for the Pakistani minister’s death, maybe it will generate some awareness on the part of the hardliner Pakistanis.
How does this compare with the assassination of Ghandi in 1948? Ghandi was killed by a Hindu radical who didn’t like what Ghandi was trying to accomplish - this female Pakistani minister was killed for similar reasons.
I believe it was ultimately up to the women in the West to assert their position, and for the men to recognize both their own hypocrisy, and to accept the role of women as humans and not as chattel. Mind you, there are still weak men and women even here who are setting the gender equality movement backwards, but they aren’t loud these days.
Once again, it is actually a battle between extremists/fundamentalists, and moderates/progressives. It’s not East vs West as some people on this list would have you believe.
A question: What advice can we in the West offer to these countries to ease their so-called “birth pangs?” Right now, Pakistan isn’t so much undemocratic as it is fractured.
Would a US withdrawal from Iraq help? Or boost the morale of the muslim hardliners?
How does Pakistan feel about Barak Obama?
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at February 22, 2007 11:37 AM
Tovy:
Out of a nation of 160 million people, we should have quite a few nutters running about. That is pure statistics and is normal for a population of our size…. in fact it is below average.
This isn’t a battle between fundamentalists or moderates… this is far simpler… just a misogynistic serial killer… a Pakistani, “Jack the Ripper” who killed this poor lady (and those hookers) because maybe he was dropped on his head by his mommy when he was a baby.
Now it turns out, he also tried to kill Benazir Bhutto once. Here is a link without the Bino-like anti-islamic subtext:
http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=’I+tried+to+kill+Benazir’+%0D&id=101257
Who is Barak Obama???
Bino:
Your info needs to be seriously updated. And no, I’m not going to help you do that. LOL
So… my little troll…. anything else up your sleeve?
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 12:00 PM
Heya Questioner.
Barak Obama is the other front-runner competing against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic primaries. He’s got ties to the muslim world, and seems to be the best chance the world has right now at peace (in my opinion… of course, I could be wrong, who knows what Whitey will do if he gets elected)
You should check him out. He just may give Musharaff the credit he deserves for all that he has done in the last few years.
As for Bino, he did nothing wrong dude. Lay off - he’s being diplomatic.
So, this new Jack-the-Ripper dude, did they catch him as soon as he shot her in the head? What a jerkwad.
That by the way is what the US is sort of going through with IT’S image problem - it’s like viewing the world through the eyes of a KKK member.
Of course, Pakistani parliament isn’t bogged down with Republicans…. so I dunno.
Anyway, what’s the fallout like in your local papers? Can you paste us some links? I’d especially like to see where he tried to kill Benzair Bhutto (I’m as familiar with Bhutto as you are with Obama)
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at February 22, 2007 12:55 PM
Rampart:
Barack Hussein Obama might well me Musharraf’s next master. He could become the first black prez of the US. Or it could be Shrillary Clinton. Speaking of the top-two contenders for the Democrats, here is a cartoon from Egypt that might hit close to home:
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/682.htm
What do you mean about my info needing to be updated, Rampart? Are there now more women in jail for being raped?
I’m not anti-Islam any more than I am anti-Christian or anti-Jew. I, personally, wish everyone would get past mythology, but that’s just my take. If people want to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that’s OK with me. Just don’t ask me to adhere to the FSM’s belief system. I will call a spade a spade, however. Surely you can appreciate that. There is tremendous variance in the interpretation and implementation of Islamic law in Muslim societies today. Sadly, however, so much of it is outdated and backwards. A few examples:
1. The woman cannot marry without the consent of her guardian. If she marries, her husband becomes her new guardian.
I’m glad I live with a woman bright and self-sufficient enough to smack me in the head if I ever told her I was her guardian.
2. Woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband.
Yikes!
3. In accordance with the Qur’an and several hadith, theft can be punishable by amputation of hands or feet.
A bit much, IMO.
4. In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery.
I’ve read a lot about women being stoned to death but never about a male adulterer. I’m sure it happens. Still, is it 2007 or 1007?
5. Gays are stoned to death; the lucky ones get 100 lashes.
Oh, it must be 1007.
Remember those two gay teenagers were publicly executed (following lashings in prison) in Iran back in 2005 for being gay? In Iran, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be hanged. In Saudi Arabia gays have been executed – mostly by beheading. The Taliban crushed gays with large boulders.
6. Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of Muhammad. Such criticism is considered blasphemy against Muhammad.
IMO nothing is beyond reproach. Nothing.
7. I needn’t remind you how dhimmis, non-Muslims, are treated under Sharia.
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 12:56 PM
Tovy:
About Bino… don’t worry.. I’m not taking this fool’s bait. I want to see where he is going with all this. As it is, he is flogging a dead horse with his fake points about islamic law (no.3 is right however… LOL).
I can’t figure these guys out. Hegadem and Bino have been named and shamed by Margolis this week. Yet they persist in de-railing the topic.
Chatman was right.. I shouldn’t have gotten between these two when they were at each other’s throats last week. YEESH..!!!
Now then:
——I’d especially like to see where he tried to kill Benzair Bhutto——-
Didn’t you read the link I provided up there? He sez he tried to kill Bhutto as well.
If you are interested in reading our papers, there are plenty of english language Pakistani papers on Google, but here is the one I read every morning (and the one Eric writes for):
About Obama… I looked him up… his name is Barak Hussian Obama?
Anyway, since he is a Democrat, most of the Pakistani community won’t vote for him. Over 90% of Pak-Americans (including all of my American family) always vote Republican.
If I had been American, I would vote Republican too. I read Eric Margolis’s stuff because he is a Republican.
And over here, the Pakistani Parliament is bogged down with our own version of Republicans.
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 01:28 PM
Hmmm. I’m surprised you’d call me on those, Rampart. I pulled those examples from Wiki, and they are pretty common knowledge.
In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. Of course you know this. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_to_Death_in_Islam
You can even watch videos of ppl being stoned to death at the wiki link, if that’s your bag.
Homosexuality = death. Here is a Wiki overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam
And here are literally hundreds of examples of the religious state-sponsored murder of gays:
Iran: http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/iran/iran.htm
Saudi Arabia: http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/saudi_arabia/saudi_arabia.htm
Egypt: http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/egypt/egypt.htm
Pakistan: http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/pakistan/pakistan.htm
Sudan : http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/sudan/sudan.htm
UAE : http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/uae/united_arab_emirates.htm
Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of Muhammad. Such criticism is considered blasphemy against Muhammad.
Are you questioning this one too, Rampart? Don’t you remember the Danish cartoons?
Treatment of dhimmis under Sharia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
FWIW, not going anywhere with this. Just killing time, chewing the fat, chatting with my main man in Pakistan, who, BTW, has a lot of nerve to mention me being “shamed” after he was banned for about two glorious months.
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 02:18 PM
As Bino won’t understand, I will write this here for everyone else who is interested:
Wiki… as people well know… presents all aspects of a topic. Historical… what some people believe.. what other sects don’t believe… what has been done in Islam’s name in the past …whether right or wrong, true or false… etc.
There are 45,000 hadith. Even the most fundamentalist of scholars admit that only 5,000 of them can be genuine. So those are out of the argument.
If it is important, it is mentioned in the Koran (like amputation). Otherwise it is derived from the opinions of scholars and opinions change over time. Meaning… it isn’t holy scripture, no matter what Bino’s zionist kin say at places like Dhimmiwatch and Jihadwatch.
For example about stoning to death: “The Qur’an does not mention the act” (from Wiki)
This fact, that it isn’t mentioned in the Koran, invalidates this punishment in the opinion of most modern Islamic scholars (thank God).
And I don’t have to remind muslims reading this, that in Mohamed’s lifetime, he had to got through plenty of personal abuse (like getting garbage tossed at him). He never lifted a finger to hurt them.
So, Danish cartoons or not, that is the real historical precedent.
And Bino:
Trust me (I can’t speak for others) but your info on Pakistan seriously needs updating. LOL
To Eric Margolis:
I apologize for contributing to the off topic clutter this shameless person has caused.
If you start deleting Bino’s posts, please feel free to delete this post as well. And the other off-topic ones.
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 03:01 PM
Help me out here, Rampart:
The word Shariah means “the path to a watering hole.” It denotes an Islamic way of life – not just a system of criminal justice.
Correct?
It is a code of living that most Muslims adopt as part of their faith. Some countries formally institute it as the law of the land, enforced by the courts.
Correct?
However, the way Shariah law is applied from country to country can vary widely.
Correct?
According to Muslim scholars, the Prophet Muhammad laid down the laws. Some of the laws are said to be direct commands stated in the Qur’an. Other laws were based on rulings Muhammad is said to have given to cases that occurred during his lifetime. These secondary laws are based on what’s called the Sunnah – the Prophet’s words, example and way of life.
Correct?
One of the major concerns of people critical of Shariah law is that it is subject to interpretation and evolution. There is virtually no formal certification process to designate someone as being qualified to interpret Islamic law.
Correct?
As it stands today, almost anyone can make rulings as long as they have the appearance of piety and a group of followers.
Correct?
Now, assuming the above is correct, and assuming that Shariah law demands the murder of homosexuals in the countries I painstakingly linked above (as it clearly does), then I wonder WTF your point above was?
If it was to avoid everything I outlined relative to the backwards barbarity of Sharia law, then…bravo chap - well played!
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 03:19 PM
Bino sez: — Help me out here, Rampart —-
Nope. You’re on your own.
And “Rampart”? Rampart who???
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 03:28 PM
Questionmark:
After digesting these links, I understand your avoidance. I don’t respect it, but I understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Pakistan
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=pakist
Ta!
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 03:42 PM
HRCP? I could tell you an Asma Jehangir joke… but I’m not that kind of guy.
Anyway… just for the record:
To Eric Margolis:
February 22, 2007 08:07 AM
February 22, 2007 11:10 AM
February 22, 2007 12:56 PM
February 22, 2007 02:18 PM
February 22, 2007 03:19 PM
February 22, 2007 03:42 PM
All off topic. All clutter created on purpose. By Bino. Just for the record.
Please delete this post whenever.
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 03:58 PM
To Mr. Margolis:
Posted by The Questionmark at February 22, 2007 10:32 AM
Posted by The Questionmark at February 22, 2007 12:00 PM
Posted by The Questionmark at February 22, 2007 01:28 PM
Posted by The Questionmark at February 22, 2007 03:01 PM
Posted by The Questionmark at February 22, 2007 03:28 PM
Posted by The Questionmark at February 22, 2007 03:58 PM
All off topic. All clutter created on purpose. By Questionmark. Just for the record.
Please delete this post whenever.
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 04:07 PM
I wonder what Dear Leader would do?
(on topic at last!)
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 04:14 PM
Thank you, Questionmark, for bringing us back to the topic at hand.
I’d wager Dear Leader would be content to let his people starve in the field, dying with grass in their mouths, as he enjoys the latest Bond flick and some high-end booze.
Posted by Bino at February 22, 2007 04:20 PM
You just can’t see the good in anyone, can you?
Put yourself in Kim’s place for a few minutes… high-end booze and kebab finished… only moonshine and chewing gum left. Still he keeps going like Energizer Bunny. That speaks something of his character.
He is not all-dirt as you would like us to think.
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 04:36 PM
Now look who is hijacking the board, the same accusation that you throw at others.
“I’m not anti-Islam any more than I am anti-Christian or anti-Jew. I, personally, wish everyone would get past mythology, but that’s just my take.”
Yeah Right! We are all supposed to believe that. I have yet to see from you how many anti-Christian or anti- Jewish stories you have linked at this board.
BTW what does a lunatic and his actions have to do with Islam or is this your way of taking a swipe.
This trick was all to common in the old orientalist’s handbook and today the hacks of zionism use it to deflect attention from their own misdeeds.
By the way what do all matters “Islamic”, have to do with this week’s topic, which happens to be:
THE BELOVED LEADER PLAYS PYONGYANG BLUFF POKER
Unless the Dear Beloved reader is thinking about instituting Sharia law in N Korea, I am thinking that he may be thinking about converting to Islam as his expensive spirits collection may be dwindling down, oops I forgot the sanctions really weren’t working.
Bino you are so typically transparent, your deep seated hatred towards for all things Islamic is all too apparent for everyone to see.
Posted by oldfan at February 22, 2007 04:37 PM
Plus his concern for fagots is also transparent.
(Fagot:A bundle of sticks and branches bound together. WordWeb Dictionary)
Posted by The Questioner at February 22, 2007 04:46 PM
Mr. Margolis is having more problems with consistency. In this week’s column, Margolis implies that the sinister “neocons” are pushing to attack North Korea, in order to set an example for Iran:
“… why not [have] direct talks with Iran over its so far peaceful nuclear program? The neocons want war with Iran, not talks, so the example of North Korea is undermining their carefully developed strategy.”
But back in 1999, Margolis sounded pretty neocon-ish himself in his desire to end North Korea’s nuke program:
“North Korea pocketed Clinton’s massive bribe, and continued building weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. … North Korea’s nuclear capability must be destroyed. … Ignoring this very real problem … is both absurd and perilous.”
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/1999/02/north_korea_is.php
Back in 1999, North Korea was testing missiles and developing a nuclear program.
Today, Iran is testing missiles and developing a nuclear program. Yet, unlike his dire warnings of North Korea in 1999, Margolis assures us that today “Iran is not a threat,” even though Iran sits in the middle of the world’s biggest powder keg:
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2006/05/iran_is_not_thr.php
Strangely, in the same column where Margolis attributes shady motives to the neocons, he acknowledges in passing that they, in one case at least, actually did the right thing for the right reasons:
“The Clinton deal was scuppered by neocons in the Bush Administration who accused North Korea of secretly developing a Pakistani-supplied uranium enrichment program.”
———
Also in this week’s column, Margolis states:
“The latest agreement, trumpeted by the Bush Administration as a great diplomatic victory, was really due to China’s intervention.”
Really? Back in 2004, Margolis was lamenting that the U.S. would find it difficult to recruit diplomatic allies in Korea:
“Exposure of Seoul’s nuclear ambitions undermines Washington’s efforts to mobilize Japan, South Korea, China and Russia to compel North Korea to end its nuclear development.”
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2004/09/mushroom_cloud.php
But now that the diplomacy has apparently worked, Margolis does a 180 with a double-back-flip and dismisses the coalition that Bush succeeding in building after all!
———-
It is almost as if there is a different person writing these columns each week.
———-
I understand Mr. Margolis’ frustration that few unhinged posters can ruin a blog’s comments section. I had to shut down the comments on my blog after several hit-and-run pranksters filled it up with pointless and vulgar posts. (That’s why I seek out alternate views on other people’s blogs.) It would be a shame if that happened here too.
Posted by jkwilson at February 22, 2007 09:25 PM
Jkwilson:
Margolis is only commenting on the changing ground realities concerning Korea.
As for Iran being a threat…. I said here and Raven said here, more or less what is said here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1c686410-c2a8-11db-9e1c-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=6700d4e4-6714-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html
——————————
However, Iran protests its purposes are purely peaceful, and many observers add that the country relies on inferior blackmarket technology, notorious for breaking down.
——————————
Now that the “nuclear supermarket” has shut down, I would speculate they are in some trouble (if indeed they really wanted a weapons program).
Because of things like these, I find it harder and harder to believe they are a threat.
See this here as well:
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Chirac’s%20Gaffe.txt
Posted by The Questioner at February 23, 2007 02:25 AM
ok here we go again…
The penalty for armed robbery in the US is 30 years in prison. The penalty of theft in islam is off with the hand. Personally, I’d let people take my hand. Secondly, the penalty of the hand cutting thing is dependent upon the seriousness of the crime as with any sane justice system. Its the extreme punishment.
The penalty for adultery in Islam is stoning (According to ahadith)… But you need to be married, have 4 kids (to show that you were being sexually satisfied by the spouse :) ) and the deed needs to be witnessed by atleast 4 people. all four of whom need to be upstanding people. You need to be a porn king for that to happen. Which makes you think why four upstanding people were watching the deed in the first place.
Seriously, the judgements are there to ensure that the society does not go down the drain(morality wise)…
Muslims are supposed to cover up or ignore any thing which is immoral or wrong. getting someone convicted is much much harder in islamic jurispudence than in the western system.
and all these punishments can only be applied in a society which offers social justice and equality for everyone.
THEY CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED IN A SOCIETY LIKE AFGHANISTAN OR PAKISTAN
the way they’re being used in certain places is wrong.
Someone should ask the holier than thou murderer in Pakistan what Islam says about murdering another human being or vigilante justice.
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 23, 2007 02:36 AM
Infact these punishments cannot be applied in any muslim country at this point in time. Thats a fact
The person who did the deed is a murderer and will die a murderers death.
Bino, you do not need the husband’s permission for divorce.
The penalty for homosexuality is death. But again, conditions apply.
“Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of Muhammad.”
Did you catch up on the latest episode of Top Gear on the BBC?
They drove around the southern states in the US in three cars. One had “Manlove is great”, the second had “Hillary for President” and the third had “Western and Country Music Sucks” spray painted on the sides. Good episode
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 23, 2007 02:47 AM
And as far as the cannotation that arabs or muslims are racist(the cartoon)… I’m named after a black slave…
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 23, 2007 02:50 AM
Reality bites: Armed robbery and theft are two completely different things. It’s like the difference between beating a man and taking his wallet vs. stealing a CD from the store.
Never seen Top Gear, but that episode sounds pretty interesting. LOL at “Manlove is Great”
“RealityBites” doesn’t sound like a slave name, but it certainly would have been an apt one.
Posted by Bino at February 23, 2007 09:03 AM
To jkwilson:
Your quotations from Margolis do not back up your accusations.
You say that Margolis “implies” that the neocons want to attack North Korea, but what you quote from him clearly shows that he believes the neocons want war with Iran, not North Korea. He is arguing that they don’t like the talks with North Korea because that puts pressure on them to talk to Iran, versus attacking Iran. Contrary to your assertion, I would say, based on my past reading of Margolis, that he doesn’t think the neocons want to attack North Korea because North Korea has nukes.
By contrast, you imply that a “coalition that Bush succeeding in building” [sic] made a diplomatic success with North Korea. Margolis’s very point was that China acted on its own initiative because it is North Korea’s patron and was embarrassed by Kim’s behavior. His point is that China, not the United States, took the lead. The United States didn’t “recruit” China and force it to intervene.
Posted by CalmHorizons at February 23, 2007 02:16 PM
RE: China, not the United States, took the lead. The United States didn’t “recruit” China and force it to intervene.
Or as my dad says: “Let China deal with their neck of the woods.”
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at February 23, 2007 04:10 PM
Almost all of Bino’s copy and paste jobs from anti-islamic hate sites are false…
Few myths and facts I’d like to mention for everybody’s even for hate-filled zionist hindus like Bino’s benefit:
Woman can take a divorce, they don’t need consent from their husband…
Female circumcision is a pre-islamic african tribal practice/custom which has survived to this day in some parts of Africa, it has nothing to do with Islam…
Women in western society were given the right to vote only in the early part of the twentieth century and the right to own property in the nineteenth century.
Islam gave women the right to vote and own property over fourteen hundred years ago at the time of its inception.
Female circumcision is a pre-islamic african tribal practice/custom which has survived to this day in some parts of Africa, it has nothing to do with Islam…
Women in western society were given the right to vote only in the early part of the twentieth century and the right to own property in the nineteenth century.
Posted by williamwallace at February 23, 2007 04:46 PM
Try a bit of credit card fraud; you’d ask them to take the hand.
Islam was a pretty radical ideology when it emerged in alot of ways. it gave rights to women and slaves. previously women were treated as property and not individuals (Same situation in the entire world at the time). women and slaves could take the master/husband to court and get emancipated quite easily.
Wiki isnt exactly the best source of information and this is starting to become preachy so…
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 23, 2007 08:17 PM
CalmHorizons,
In the same paragraph, you claim that Margolis wants neither to talk to N. Korea nor to attack it. What’s left then? Clearly Margolis wants to do something, since he stated plainly that “North Korea’s nuclear capability must be destroyed.” Unless there’s a third way to do this, you and he are both being inconsistent.
Regarding China: Whether or not China did what it did on it’s own initiative, there was still, according to Margolis, a secret meeting between the U.S. and N. Korea that helped seal the deal. And as much as Margolis was happy to forecast failure when Bush was trying to get diplomacy to work earlier, Margolis is now equally happy to dismiss Bush’s efforts now that success has been achieved. It’s a double standard, plain and simple.
Posted by jkwilson at February 24, 2007 12:49 AM
While the Qur’an makes no mention of FGM, some argue that one Hadeeth accepts it: “Circumcision is a commendable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah).”
….
Female Circumcision Prevalent Among Iraqi Kurds
By Thomas von der Osten-Sacken and Thomas Uwer
www.baltimoresun.com
Among social activists and feminists, combating female genital mutilation, or FGM, is an important policy goal. Sometimes called female circumcision or female genital cutting, FGM is the cutting of the clitoris of girls in order to curb their sexual desire and preserve their sexual “honor” before marriage. The practice, prevalent in some majority Muslim countries, has a tremendous cost: Many girls bleed to death or die of infection. Most are traumatized. Those who survive can suffer adverse health effects during marriage and pregnancy.
Academics widely regard FGM as an African disease. But information from Iraqi Kurdistan raises the possibility that the problem is more prevalent in the Middle East than previously believed, and that FGM is far more tied into religion than many Western academics and activists admit. In early 2003, WADI, a German nongovernmental organization (NGO) focusing on women’s issues, found that close to 60 percent of Kurdish women questioned had undergone genital circumcision. Nearly every woman in the survey declared FGM to be a “normal” practice.
Most women referred to the practice as a traditional and a religious obligation. Because the clitoris is considered to be “dirty,” women fear that they won’t find husbands for their daughters if the girls have not been mutilated, and many believe men prefer sex with a mutilated wife. Others stress the religious necessity of FGM.
Islamic scholars disagree on FGM. But the conclusion that FGM is not a problem of Islamic practice is simply wrong as long as a large number of clerics accept or demand it. There is a certain tendency to confuse a liberal interpretation of Islam with the reality women face in many predominantly Islamic regions. To counter FGM as a practice, it is necessary to accept that Islam is more than just a written text. It is not the book that cuts the clitoris, but its interpretations aid and abet the mutilation.
Although firsthand medical records are not available for other countries in the region, this does not mean that these areas are free of FGM, only that the societies are not free enough to permit formal study of societal problems.
In Iraqi Kurdistan, the reaction of locals to the findings has been instructive. When confronted with the study results, only a few women’s activists in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya expressed surprise, although most said they did not realize just how high a proportion of women were affected. Although many Kurdish authorities were at first reluctant to address the issue for fear that the Kurdish region might appear backward, they have begun to acknowledge the problem and are working to confront it with an awareness campaign and legislation. Perhaps the most important factor enabling an NGO to uncover the problem of FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan was the existence of civil society structures and popular demand for individual rights.
Many academics and NGO workers in the region find it objectionable to criticize the predominant Muslim or Arab cultures. But there are indications that FGM might be widespread in the Arab Middle East; the rate is known to be 90 percent or more in Egypt.
Arab governments refuse to address the problem, preferring to believe that the lack of statistics will enable international organizations to conclude that the problem does not exist in their jurisdictions.
Western countries and human rights organizations need to break the silence. Female genital mutilation is not a cultural issue; it is a crime against the rights of women and girls. Campaigns against this humiliating practice can succeed only if they treat FGM in terms of individual rights and freedoms.
Another:
http://www.yobserver.com/cgi-bin/2007/exec/view.cgi/23/11589
Posted by Bino at February 24, 2007 09:44 AM
By the way, I’d strongly recommend “The Missionary Position” by Christopher Hitchens. A fantastic, funny, scathing critique of Mother Teresa and the hypocrisy of the church. He was going to call it “Sacred Cow”.
He has a new book coming out next month called “God is not Great – the case against religion” which should also be excellent.
Also, have any of you read Tom Friedman’s “Beirut to Jerusalem”? I just re-read it while on vacation and wonder, if any of you read it, what you thought.
Tell me again, what is the punishment for wanting out of the Muslim faith?
Posted by Bino at February 24, 2007 10:24 AM
http://www.minaret.org/fgm.htm
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 24, 2007 10:27 AM
Bino, every man starts life as a singular microscopic cell. people(Agnostics/Atheists) say that they want to see a miracle in order to believe in a diety.
well every one personally experiences that miracle. each man is dependent upon his environment for every breath of air we take. If you just look around you, its astounding how people just dont see whats staring you right in the face.
there are millions of sperm cells. one of those millions result in a person. thats just a sliver of God’s favor upon every person.
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 24, 2007 10:39 AM
Is Dear Leader circumcised?
(back on topic!.. despite Bino’s attempts at creating clutter)
Margolis:
That is 3 more useless posts from this guy. I hope you are counting as well.
Posted by The Questioner at February 24, 2007 11:59 AM
ERIC:
PLEASE save the quality of this blog from the anti-Islamic pro-Israeli Bino. He adds zero insight and only inflames the discourse. Note we went from a reasoned and informative dialogue on North Korea to his unrelated-to-anything slap at a crazy fundamentalist in Pakistan.
No mention by him of course about the crazy fundamentalists running Israel or pulling the strings in the US though. Par for the course.
PLEASE block this guy — his aim is to sabotage the site. OTHERS, ignore Bino as he lives off your reactions like a parasite.
Posted by shazam at February 25, 2007 05:50 PM
Shazam:
So now it’s time to beg Eric to block the people we don’t like? Geez.. Get over it will you? But if you insist on this quality of posting, try to get Hedagem banned too..
Bino:
It would be nice if you could stay on topic… I really don’t see what any discussion of barbaric tribal practices has on a discussion of North Korean policy, which was, after all, the subject of this week’s article. I would also encourage you to read up on Sharia (as it is intended to be practiced) and English Common Law (and how it is intended to be practiced). I think you’ll find that law and religion are both uniquely subject to interpretation.
Law is merely a reflection of how a society perceives it should operate. Societies attenuate, modify, and change the law to suit the needs of their cultures. If some societies perceive heresy as a capital crime, who are we to tell them otherwise? That said, how many Islamic states enforce this and other proscriptions, and attenuate them within Sharia’s strict evidentiary requirements? To read Sharia off Wikipedia and assume that you know it is like reading English Common Law (if it were contained in a single article) off Wikipedia and taking the bar to practice law. It just doesn’t work, because there is no uniformity in the application of either system, and the Wiki article takes the individual proscriptions of Sharia outside of their historical and cultural context; were you apply an equivalent reading to the English Common Law, you might come away believing that an action in debt under English Common Law could be tried by making the accused debtor swim across a river in winter to prove his innocence.
The more barbaric traditions you raise and subsequently attribute to Islam are in fact tribal customs. They have nothing to do with Religion, and most Muslim scholars would reject them; it’s the Imams in the hills that have to worry about their own skins that allow or promote such practices to persist. The solution is not to replace Sharia with secular law, but to moderate the more barbaric of tribal practices (female circumcision, gang rape as punishment, or suttee (Indian tribal rites)) with the stricter evidentiary and jurisprudential requirements of Sharia (Meaning educated judges and appropriate due process).
If you transplant secular Common law upon the people in the badlands, nothing will change. If you make them richer, offer them the opportunity to educate themselves and secure their own futures, and ensure uniformity in due process rights, the most barbarous practices will disappear on their own, because they don’t themselves arise from religious laws.
Finally, I find this statement to be interesting to say the least…
“… that those “men” are going to spend the rest of their lives rotting in jail (i.e. Barker pleaded guilty in November and was sentenced to 90 years in a military prison).”
Under Sharia law, they would have been executed for the murders alone; the rape might be found under the circumstances, since the victim was slain in the assault. Under U.S Federal law, and the law of 37 of the 13 states, they would be put on death row. (Green, I believe, is being tried in federal court.) Under U.S military law (the “investigations” that you spoke of in an earlier post), the most they’ll get is life in prison in a military brig; for a crime that heinous, the JAG prosecutor couldn’t even get the death penalty.
Not that I generally support the death penalty, but it’s instructive to note how deferential military justice is to soldiers in the field, and failing to impose the most severe of criminal sanctions on what truly is a most severe series of crimes.
Posted by chatman at February 25, 2007 06:31 PM
Chatman:
Bino is going the way he is going, to make Eric end the comments section. He would be pretty happy with that as he has demonstrated personal hatred towards Margolis in the past.
Despite your attempt at talking some sense into our habitual de-railer, I doubt you will make him mend his ways. His agenda is different than yours.
As for his using things Islamic (or what he thinks is “Islamic”) to derail topics and create clutter… well, we’ve seen his kind before. These one-trick-ponies are nothing new to us. If he wants to cut and paste all of Wiki here, it hardly effects my health. Even people like him printing and selling fake Koran’s (available on Amazon) in Kuwait is like pissing against the wind.
So if he wants to bang his head against a brick wall, that is his choice. As it is, since Eric named and shamed him for all the world to see, I fail to see how anyone can take him seriously. As it is, he is a dreadful bore.
And I do agree with you. If it is at all possible to kick someone out of here, by all means.. take that idiot Iranian out too.
And if Margolis doesn’t clean up every week, this place has no future. Asking people to behave themselves is taken as a sign of weakness by some (as we have seen) and will only encourage further obnoxious behavior (as we have seen).
To Eric Margolis:
If you can’t delete obnoxious behavior every week, than you can do the following:
1. Shut this place down.
2. Or at least put a disclaimer on your webpage… something like, “Eric Margolis accepts no liability for the views and comments expressed here and is not responsible for their content.”
As Chatman sez, we are Eric’s guests here. OK…. I came around to that point of view. But a good host also has a responsibility.
Posted by The Questioner at February 26, 2007 01:43 AM
Is Iraq a ‘war for oil’? It matters little that Iraqi oil goes to Europe, not America. Bush/Cheney/Condi are all employees of the OILigarchy that support their election campaigns. The Bush family has personal business connections with the House of Saud. The war is to preserve the OILigarchy that keeps Arab despots in power who refuse to charge multinational corps the REAL price that the world’s most strategic resource should command. Sure, oil is relatively expensive right now – but the OILigarchy is experiencing record profits. If these oil producing nations were ruled in a democratic fashion their people might elect Western-hating Islamic governments that might not horde the oil wealth for themselves. The House of Saud depends on the West for arms and security apparatus to protect itself from its own people (i.e. al qaeda). In addition to keeping oil prices relatively cheap, it hordes the oil wealth and pumps some of it back in expensive arms sales keeping the American Military industrial corporate interests happy.
Imperialism doesn’t require that the US to steal the oil and send it to America. The Bush’s are part of the OILigarchy that makes billions from the distribution of the oil. Condi worked for Chevron - had a tanker named after her. Keeping the oil out of the hands of the emerging industries of India and China is the strategic goal of the OILigarchy. The interests of the United States are not necessarily the interests of the OILigarchy. If Chevron/BP/Gulf/Mobil/Exxon makes millions selling oil to the Chinese then so be it. Under Saddam the Iraqi oil was not going to be sold by American or British oil interests.
A second major consideration what that Saddam was no longer accepting payment for oil in US dollars- which is what Chavez is now doing and has now become the bete noire of the OILigarchy. Whenever a major oil seller goes off the American dollar standard they run afoul of America.
Posted by philmar at February 26, 2007 10:28 AM
Shazam, I’m happy to add Islam to the list of religions I have major issues with.
There [honor killings](http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829440.html)
Is [lifeless, beheaded bodies on display](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_public_execution)
No [death threats for leaving Islam](http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070223-014518-1922r/)
Trouble [brutal Muslim separatist insurgency in southern Thailand] (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/25/news/thailand.php)
With [Imposing Islamic law](http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm)
Islam? [4 years in jail for not blogging per Allah’s wishes](http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2007-02-23T132927Z_01_L22432925_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-EGYPT-BLOGGER.XML&archived=False)
Posted by Bino at February 26, 2007 11:06 AM
Hey Rampart, my dear idiot PAK…I have a kvesdion for you: what do you call a plastic bag full of clothes?….A PAKISTANI SUITCASE!!! Ho-Ho-Ho.
Posted by hedagem at February 26, 2007 01:00 PM
sarcasm to follow
Awesome dudes, you’ve just proven that humans cannot communicate in any other way than emotionally.
Rampart, Hedagem, Bino, Chatman… very well done guys. You’d make Mossad and the Islamic Fundies proud by completely subverting this board to make both sides look like retards.
I hope you all learn from this example, and see that perhaps the global situation is set up to make you all angry so that you pick one side versus the other, thus completely removing the ability for any of you to see the actual truth.
Good job!
By the way, the truth is still that Extremism PERIOD is the problem on the world stage.
It’s like, do you support the WWF? Or do you just support one wrestler above all other wrestlers? Don’t you realize that WRESTLING is VIOLENCE and FIGHTING no matter how effectively you manage to convince yourself otherwise?
Hitler could make his people do as they pleased by telling them that the jews were responsible for all of the badness going on in germany.
GWB can insinuate that arabs are the cause of much of the American problem - Arabs and mexicans, of course… DAMN BROWNS! rofl.
Anyway, you’re all just looking for something to get mad about, something to define yourselves after, some way to feel alive.
Most of you are completely lying to yourselves. Most of you are complete nut jobs with no ability to discern actual reality past what your reflexes want you to automatically feel.
Way to go, robots - you are destroying Earth.
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at February 26, 2007 01:09 PM
Tovy:
Your diagnosis of the word’s problems isn’t particularly helpful or instructive. It’s something akin to saying that the problem a person with chickenpox is that he has pustular welts and a high fever. Those welts, like extremism. don’t thrive without some underlying cause (the virus itself). Bino would like to believe that religion is the source of extremism, but I don’t agree with that characterization.
If you want to pretend you’re above the fray and patronize the rest of us, be my guest. But as validation that you really are better than the rest of us, you could at least share something pithy that we didn’t already know. As it stands, you’ve got plenty of vim, but not a lot to say about the issues.
Posted by chatman at February 26, 2007 01:59 PM
Tovy:
I’m looking for some good info/reading/links relative to heinous acts done in the name of religion (outside of Islam). Not talking Salem Trials crap here – something more recent. Give or take the last decade or so, maybe?
Obviously the Zionist incursions in to Palestine fit the bill – I mean, anyone who thinks land is “theirs” because their book states that God proclaimed it to be meets the nutjob criteria in my book. Also, I know there are some really sick practices like “metzitzah b’peh” (http://www.slate.com/id/2125225/), which are clearly heinous. Anything else?
What about Christianity? I know Ratzinger put his foot in his mouth (http://www.slate.com/id/2149863) but I can’t really find much outside of the usual hypocrisy of the Church.
Are there any barbarous things afoot in Buddhism or among the Hindu or anything?
Thoughts?
Also, if I’m looking for a book that is a scathing indictment of the Zionist movement, is there anything specifically that you could recommend?
Posted by Bino at February 26, 2007 02:07 PM
Hi Bino - I find this to be particularly more constructive than Binobashing or Questioner Questioning.
I have no books in particular that come to mind - but I did have a thought to help with your list of condemnable acts by religions.
An interesting Buddhist one is, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, an army of buddhists killed 2 million people.
As for you, Chatman - I guess it’s okay for you to express your viewpoint, but not me for mine. You know, there’s more than enough room up there on that pedestal of yours for other people!
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at February 26, 2007 02:50 PM
Sorry for the follow up to a follow up - I just wanted to say something else to Chatman:
“As it stands, you’ve got plenty of vim, but not a lot to say about the issues.”
Thanks - I DO have a lot of energy when it comes to pointing out BS.
Perhaps it seems that I don’t have a lot to say about the issues. I can understand why you would see it that way - you want me to pick a side, and instead of doing that, I’m pointing to the whole Gestalt thing and saying, “Look at what it IS. Not what it SHOULD BE.”
you all want one side or another to be correct, but the fact is, we’re sort of all in this together. If you wanted to disagree, I wouldn’t mind a little backing up of that fact. If you don’t think we’re in this together, then I can understand why you’re picking sides, irrationally, emotionally, blindly…
I, like you, can only call ‘em as I see ‘em. If I see a big huge pile of Sacred Cow BS, I’m going to point it out when you’re about to step in it.
I like you, Chatman, because you generally tend to have your own ideas. That hasn’t necessarily prevented you from jumping on a band wagon now and then.
That being said, I’m not too lonely being the only member of the objective camp.
Posted by Tovy at February 26, 2007 02:55 PM