Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes

[Totenkopf]

After a nuclear strike has been committed by a power? It will amount to a third world war, although a much shorter one. I don't think anybody is going to just stand by if Iran, or anyone for that matter, used a nuclear weapon.

 

Depends on the target/s. If they did launch at Israel, for instance, I doubt the PRC et al are going to unload nukes on them.

 

 

Yes, unlike the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, China or... wait, none of those nations have every launched a nuke "in anger".

 

No one has "launched" a nuke in anger. But, again, the charge laid w/o context.

 

Yeah, I don't know that movie now, but securing a nuke is a way of international chest-beating and national power. If you can guarantee your nation to have a nuclear weapon, people are going to have much more trust in your power. Launch that nuke though, and you're going to lose all the power you have meticulous earned.

 

Easy way around that is for a nuke to "go missing" (allegedly how Israel acquired it's early stockpile) and then be reported as having been stolen/etc. by the "victim" country. A bomb then goes off in a foreign city and a group (NOT nation) takes credit. Now......who gets nuked in response? Both the beauty and terror of asymetrical warfare.

 

Ah yes, they are completely independent of the very nature of pissing offness, I see my mistake now.

 

Not quite sure what you mean here. I'm saying that Iran's stated position vs Israel is "existential threat" territory....not merely being honked off at the zionists. Afterall, what's Israel actually done to Iran that would legitimately piss it off?

 

 

 

BTW, here's a fun strip of SMBC I knew would be useful in countless debates:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

 

Cute. But I'm sure there's a certain amount of validity in that. Afterall, it's probably the threat of annihilation that prevented a 3rd WW in the 20th century.

[Sabretooth]

Depends on the target/s. If they did launch at Israel, for instance, I doubt the PRC et al are going to unload nukes on them.

Why not? Any nation that has first-used a nuclear weapon is a threat to every other nation. Using a nuke makes a whole lot more enemies than it destroys.

 

Easy way around that is for a nuke to "go missing" (allegedly how Israel acquired it's early stockpile) and then be reported as having been stolen/etc. by the "victim" country. A bomb then goes off in a foreign city and a group (NOT nation) takes credit. Now......who gets nuked in response? Both the beauty and terror of asymetrical warfare.

As quaint as such a plan would be, even assuming that it isn't stopped by the Mossad and CIA, two of the world's most pernicious intelligence agencies, the IAEA exists to keep a watch on this, and Iran has is a co-operative member of it. Iran is also a signatory of the NPT, but that probably has little meaning in this case.

 

Afterall, what's Israel actually done to Iran that would legitimately piss it off?

So you need a valid reason to be pissed off now? I wasn't aware how much pissing off has changed over the years.

[Totenkopf]

Why not? Any nation that has first-used a nuclear weapon is a threat to every other nation. Using a nuke makes a whole lot more enemies than it destroys.

 

You seem to assume a sort of solidarity that doesn't exist in the real world. The PRC isn't going to waste nukes on Iran just b/c it launched at Israel. Now, if Iran were to miscalculate in the future and attack PRC interests....

 

As quaint as such a plan would be, even assuming that it isn't stopped by the Mossad and CIA, two of the world's most pernicious intelligence agencies, the IAEA exists to keep a watch on this, and Iran has is a co-operative member of it. Iran is also a signatory of the NPT, but that probably has little meaning in this case.

 

The same IAEA that was flacking for Iran and miscalculated (intentionally, most likely) Iran's progress? That IAEA? Besides, you give Mossad and the CIA too much credit. The CIA has a history of underestimating the timeline of nuke capability of foreign nations. I agree, however, that Iran's having signed the NPT has absolutley little/no meaning.

 

So you need a valid reason to be pissed off now? I wasn't aware how much pissing off has changed over the years.

 

Guess I misunderstood you and figured you were implying that even if Iran had a "rational" reason to be pissed off at Israel, it wouldn't risk attacking them b/c they'd feel they had too much to lose in doing so.

[Pavlos]

Cute. But I'm sure there's a certain amount of validity in that. Afterall, it's probably the threat of annihilation that prevented a 3rd WW in the 20th century.

As usual, Yes (Prime) Minister has the answer:

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

[Totenkopf]

There were some funny bits in those pieces. "B/c we've only just met!".... "The Russians know it's not."

[mimartin]

…but why the US is so concerned about Iran's administration is beyond me.

Suggest you look at what happened on November the fourth nineteen hundred and seventy nine for some perspective. I have tried to somewhat understand the other side. American foreign policy helped fuel this hatred by installing and backing the Shah over the democratically elected government. And then to add insult to injury the U.S. allowed the then deposed Shah into the U.S. I understand Iran have no reason to trust the U.S. or our motivations. Still they attacked American soil and held our citizens hostage, which is not something many in this country will easily get over. Add to that Iran’s obsession with destroying Israel with American’s feeling of needing to protect Israel and you can begin to see why America feels it has a concern.

[Sabretooth]

Suggest you look at what happened on November the fourth nineteen hundred and seventy nine for some perspective. I have tried to somewhat understand the other side. American foreign policy helped fuel this hatred by installing and backing the Shah over the democratically elected government. And then to add insult to injury the U.S. allowed the then deposed Shah into the U.S. I understand Iran have no reason to trust the U.S. or our motivations. Still they attacked American soil and held our citizens hostage, which is not something many in this country will easily get over. Add to that Iran’s obsession with destroying Israel with American’s feeling of needing to protect Israel and you can begin to see why America feels it has a concern.

 

While a valid reason, it still eludes me why America wants to protect Israel and meddle in Iranian politics. It was the Cold War and all, but it wasn't exactly a commie revolution in Iran.

[Totenkopf]

While a valid reason, it still eludes me why America wants to protect Israel and meddle in Iranian politics. It was the Cold War and all, but it wasn't exactly a commie revolution in Iran.

 

Why does Iran feel the need to involve itself in Israeli politics by supporting terror groups that attack the Israelis? Not like Israel wants to invade Iran afterall. I mean, it's not as if the Palestinians are remotely relevant to Iran's security or prosperity....

[Darth Avlectus]

Aaaaanyway, back to what this thread was originally about: Promiscuous women causing earthquakes. In any serious way (should such way exist), hardly at all directly. Unless we're not talking about very large earthquakes on the Richter scale. I'll leave the bedroom jokes for ahto. So no, easy gals do not cause metropolitan-devastating-earth-crust-breaking-tectonic-plate-shifting earthquakes.

[mimartin]

While a valid reason, it still eludes me why America wants to protect Israel and meddle in Iranian politics. It was the Cold War and all, but it wasn't exactly a commie revolution in Iran.

 

Americans feel they must protect Israel because if they don't they will go to hell. At least I was told that over and over in church.

 

As for meddling in Iranian politics, I don't have a clue, but it seems we have been doing it since the end of WWII. I’d also point out that Iran has meddle in U.S. politics too, they are the main reason we had a actor become President .

[Totenkopf]

I’d also point out that Iran has meddle in U.S. politics too, they are the main reason we had a actor become President .

 

No, Jimmy's incompetence, both in foreign and economic policy, sealed his fate. Still, I think I'd prefer the actor to the street-organizer-in-chief we have today.

[Revan 411]

I don't hate the people who live in Iran, their simply ordinary folks just like you and me, who simply want to live a better life, and I would welcome these folks in Canada with open hands. But what I do hate, is the current Government that's presently ruling Iran. They lack democracy, equal rights, gender equality, expanded health-care service, and Workers rights. Most of these issues are to blame on the current dictator; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

If you ask me, I think he's an idiot. It's true that the U.S hasn't been going so well in recent times, and it's true that the Iraq Invasion is somewhat unjustifiable, but the way this guys acts is seriously inhuman. His disgusting insults to the Jewish holocaust, the genocidal murder of innocent protesters, and the lack of democratic care to the Iranian innocents gives me more, and more reasons to not only hate him, but to also think that religion (I'm an agnostic) is one of the main benefactors to what drove him to a powerful dictatorship. I also blame the U.S Government for even establishing him as President in the first place. (Remember that innocent with Shah?)

 

Israel and Palestine is something that I consider to be a thing of the past. Not all Israelis are bad people, and the same goes for Palestine's. It's the presentment, and provocative attitude of Hamas Government that resulted in the Gaza War, and I blame both sides; Israel for the mass-murder of civilians who are Palestine, and Hamas for launching a Qasam rocket at Israel. (Which started the conflict if I heard correctly.)

 

As for Iran having nukes, I think that's really an excuse the U.S Government is using to invade Iran. And as long as Iran doesn't use those nukes as bombs or anything, then I'm fine, but the U.S Government might not agree so much. You see, I have a feeling, which is support by real-life facts, that the U.S is provoking Iran into using those nukes as weapons, to attack a western country, so that the U.S Government will have an excuse to invade the country, and steal any natural resources that Iran might have. (The permanent military bases established in Iraq will be a launching point for the invasion.)

 

Case and Point 1, Case and Point 2,

and finally; Case and Point 4.

 

Remember, it all boils down to three major factors: Human Nature, Religion Fanaticism, and Government Corruption.

[Blix]

This looked good for a laugh.....

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F698N00&show_article=1

 

This is true, also stepping on cracks WILL in fact break your mother's back so watch where you step from now on people.

[Totenkopf]

Only if it's a crack in your mom's spine.

 

Also:http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainmen...KytMaS8KtgLY1J

[Jae Onasi]

And as long as Iran doesn't use those nukes as bombs or anything, then I'm fine,

(emphasis mine)

As someone who lives near a major metropolitan area that is on the terrorist hit list, and certainly within the region where my family and I would be severely affected if not obliterated by a nuclear bomb, can you guarantee me 100% that someone in Iran isn't going to use nukes?

 

Well, it's promiscuous Monday to prove that cleavage doesn't cause earthquakes. I think I'll sit around in my underwear today and see if it causes an earthquake.

[Q]

^Agreed. I'd be worried about someone in Iran using nuclear weapons if they suddenly had access to them; not necessarily the Iranian government.

[jrrtoken]

(emphasis mine)

As someone who lives near a major metropolitan area that is on the terrorist hit list, and certainly within the region where my family and I would be severely affected if not obliterated by a nuclear bomb, can you guarantee me 100% that someone in Iran isn't going to use nukes?

I don't think that Iran has a large enough nuclear catapult to reach North America, so any fear of the US mainland being targeted by Iran is irrational, to say the least.

[Web Rider]

By comparison, the United States' previous war record is more than enough reason to not only strip the US of nukes, but curb their military like they did to Japan.

 

Number of wars vs purported purpose of wars is an important discerning factor. If I go around saying "we should kill all the jews", then even if I have never been in or started a war, I will(and rightly so) be perceived as a greater threat than someone who goes around saying "if you try something stupid we'll beat you up."

 

Most 3rd world type nations are not being ruled by men like this cleric in the article, and I'm sure that even the cleric wouldn't be so foolhardy as to consider nuclear weapons expendable. That Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is no stronger a case for argument than that America shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And this is overlooking the fact the US happens to be the only nation in the world to have actually used two nuclear devices against civilian populations.

 

Oh boy, the, "they used them, they're bad!" argument. Really haven't we gotten over this one yet? Everyone who's ever built a nuclear weapon has "used" it. To demonstrate their power, to terrorize their enemy, to spread fear and ensure their power, even if they didn't use it directly upon people. Far worse things have been done with far smaller bombs, and even without bombs at all. Should we say that Germany shouldn't be allowed to have cars because they gassed Jews with them? Should we say that the Japanese shouldn't be able to have children because they taught them to sacrifice their lives for their country?

 

Of course not, you would find these quite silly arguments. Nuclear bombs are weapons, and they are the best weapons when used as a threat, not actually dropped. If we use the threat of nuclear warfare as our defining factor in who has "used" a nuclear weapon, then we should be looking as Israel, Iran, China, Russia, France, the UK, the US, and others.

 

The argument against the US having nukes is that they used them when people didn't know better. They used them when they were desperate to end an unforseeably long war faster.

 

The argument against Iran having them is their apparent propensity to use them against civilian targets when we DO know better.

 

Learning that something is wrong after doing it is great, even though you still did wrong. Doing something you know is wrong anyway, with no regard for it being wrong, is the sign of a psychopath.

 

Would you like me to think that the idiots depicted below represent "you people" and "your area in general" (US and its Citizens)?

*image of KKK crossburning*

 

Two things, obviously, should come to mind when making bad comparasons. 1: date. This cleric's announcement was new, in present day. Regardless of how far Islamic society has progressed or regressed since the 1600s, the kind of ignorance and social propaganda required to claim that promiscuious women cause earthquakes(both social and earthly), is just stupid. That image was taken sometime back in the 1960's. In 40 years we have curbed what was often rampant racism, to only minor aspects, while in Islam, rampant radicalism has only grown.

 

second is of course, scale. The KKK are not, and never(save maybe very early in their founding) have been an organization or group of persons held in high esteem. While clerics belong to a select group of trusted religious leaders. Few people look to the KKK for their moral compass. Lots of people look to what clerics say for their moral compass.

 

That said there is of course, plenty of stupidity to go around, many middle eastern nations simply seem to have excess amounts at present.

 

if barry white said this you people wouldn't have a problem with it yall just hate muslims

LMAO. Damnit jmac, that was awesome

Now that I can't even tirade against you, there's nothing to do in this thread

*shuffles sand around aimlessly*

 

Thank you both for perpetuating the same bigotry and racism that you are arguing against.

 

AGH! there is so much bad logic to reply too.

[Revan 411]

Two things, obviously, should come to mind... blah blah blah

I think Astrotoy7's original point was that not all Islamic followers are extremists, and don't think the same way as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the dictator driven Iranian Government do. Most followers of Islam are true to their religious ideals, and would like nothing more then to find peace with other members of different religions. I'm sure the Jews, and the Christians think the same way.

 

I think everyone needs to remember that in every religion, there will always be individual extremists who will always get the wrong idea. A perfect example of this, is the Christian Crusaders, and the Muslim Jihad.

[Q]

I don't think that Iran has a large enough nuclear catapult to reach North America, so any fear of the US mainland being targeted by Iran is irrational, to say the least.

They do if the catapult happens to be a guy carrying a briefcase with a nuke in it.

[Totenkopf]

They do if the catapult happens to be a guy carrying a briefcase with a nuke in it.

 

Don't forget the possibility of a well disguised nuke in a cargo container. You don't need ICBM's to attack another nation w/nukes. Besides, they don't need to fry the citizens of the US. Simply frying the electronic networks w/EMP would do extensive damage to America (and likely Canada too).

[Liverandbacon]

They do if the catapult happens to be a guy carrying a briefcase with a nuke in it.

 

Exactly. For instance, a U-Haul truck with even a fairly small nuke in it, set off in DC at the right time and place, could do a ton of damage to both the civilian and military chain of command. Our borders are not nearly secure enough to make this sort of situation impossible. The government of Iran would most likely not attempt that sort of strike, but there are radical groups with members in a very wide variety of jobs in Iran. Frankly, I don't trust the ability or in some cases willingness of Iran's internal security forces to prevent the theft of lower-yield nuclear weapons.

[Darth Avlectus]

Let's not forget our porous borders that are hardly enforced--you could be shipping what appears to be one thing in drums but in one of those drums is a tactical nuke--customs don't inspect *every* stinking container in non essentials. (Essentials being food, etc. --and even that hasn't been stellar lately )

 

Let's see how else...through trash and junk, through e-waste, through insides of machinery imported that was manufactured overseas, in concrete, in construction supplies... I'm sure the list could go on and on.

 

Who needs a better catapulting than covert smuggling and a loyal foot-soldier? It's also cost effective as well.

[urluckyday]

I just gotta say...I wish Promiscuous Monday's would come around more often

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Don't forget the possibility of a well disguised nuke in a cargo container. You don't need ICBM's to attack another nation w/nukes. Besides, they don't need to fry the citizens of the US. Simply frying the electronic networks w/EMP would do extensive damage to America (and likely Canada too).

 

Exactly. For instance, a U-Haul truck with even a fairly small nuke in it, set off in DC at the right time and place, could do a ton of damage to both the civilian and military chain of command. Our borders are not nearly secure enough to make this sort of situation impossible. The government of Iran would most likely not attempt that sort of strike, but there are radical groups with members in a very wide variety of jobs in Iran. Frankly, I don't trust the ability or in some cases willingness of Iran's internal security forces to prevent the theft of lower-yield nuclear weapons.

 

Let's not forget our porous borders that are hardly enforced--you could be shipping what appears to be one thing in drums but in one of those drums is a tactical nuke--customs don't inspect *every* stinking container in non essentials. (Essentials being food, etc. --and even that hasn't been stellar lately )

Is that how deep fear has instilled on North America today?