Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes

[Totenkopf]

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

 

More like a sober assessment of the possibilities than anything. To not even consider them is essentially to be in denial about the type of world we live in today.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I'm sure you're aware that much of it are fallacies, not much beside a classical instrument of control.

[Liverandbacon]

I'm sure you're aware that much of it are fallacies, not much beside a classical instrument of control.

 

Care to explain exactly what these fallacies are, and what makes the scenario I described impossible?

 

Personally, I believe that there are a number of things more likely to happen than nuclear terrorism, but it really wouldn't be especially difficult to pull off, let alone impossible. I believe in preparation for such eventualities, which the US does have, albeit to a limited extent, as far as preserving COC both civilian and military goes.

[Darth Avlectus]

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

 

Actually my sentiments are based upon studies how space satellites for intercepting nukes could be made ineffective by strategic undermining just for the sake of supporting their arguments. But hey, if you're making a case for why we should build more satellites for SDI, please be my guest.

[Totenkopf]

I'm sure you're aware that much of it are fallacies, not much beside a classical instrument of control.

Care to explain exactly what these fallacies are, and what makes the scenario I described impossible?

 

I'd tend to agree. What fallacies are you talking about? Besides, you seem to fall into the trap of "past performance guarantess future results". We've only cited different possible scenarios for a potential attack, not stated unequivocally that one is going to take place. But it would be equally foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand or even to project one's values upon an adversary.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Actually my sentiments are based upon studies how space satellites for intercepting nukes could be made ineffective by strategic undermining just for the sake of supporting their arguments. But hey, if you're making a case for why we should build more satellites for SDI, please be my guest.

My point is that a satellite defense system won't even be necessary on the likely event of no world nuclear war.

 

Care to explain exactly what these fallacies are, and what makes the scenario I described impossible?

 

Personally, I believe that there are a number of things more likely to happen than nuclear terrorism, but it really wouldn't be especially difficult to pull off, let alone impossible. I believe in preparation for such eventualities, which the US does have, albeit to a limited extent, as far as preserving COC both civilian and military goes.

 

I'd tend to agree. What fallacies are you talking about? Besides, you seem to fall into the trap of "past performance guarantess future results". We've only cited different possible scenarios for a potential attack, not stated unequivocally that one is going to take place. But it would be equally foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand or even to project one's values upon an adversary.

The fallacies on this case equal to instruments of control of an Empire.

 

Social sciences have taught that a powerful state will eventually cross it's own borders and interfere with other independent and unrelated states. thus is an Empire born. And in that condition, it will want to expand in size, economy and influence. In a nutshell, the most primary tools of an Empire in order to sustain it's conditions are military might and economic coercion. This was named Hard Power by International Relations scholar Joseph Nye. With time, the Empire expects an opportunity to leave Hard Power aside and transcend into new forms of domination, those being attraction and emulation. Nye called this Soft Power.

 

For as long as the Hard Power is the governing policy of the Empire, then, unlike what you would be led to think, auxiliary forms of dominance to assist the main doctrine are required (this does not disappear at all when it transcends to Soft Power) to back it up. The media's generalization that propagates ideologies favorable to the Empire - including that regarding immenent external threats that endagers all that the Empire stands for and is conveniently represented as a bastion of good - is one such form.

 

I am, of course, explaining the situation with lens of my own, based on what I consider to be the most appropriate approach on this matter, if not the only one that I may be able to understand.

[Totenkopf]

Well outside of the "palpable fear" that may have been present for much of the Cold War, I don't think that most Americans think to deeply about the topic. All the more likely so b/c of the boogeyman of "anthropogenic global warming". However, what you're really addressing are what you consider the probabilities of such an event(s) taking place, while we were looking at the different possibilities. Besides, not really a stretch to think that a culture that breeds suicide bombers wouldn't balk at the chance to do something like this. Real questions then becoming what types of access they'd have to pull it off down the road. But even if you brush off considering the how's as unduly pessimistic, remember the saying "..even paranoids have enemies".

[Darth Avlectus]

My point is that a satellite defense system won't even be necessary on the likely event of no world nuclear war.

Ok. Didn't think so. And my points are:

1) that of keeping vigilant watch as every nation ought to...not this vast imperial fear mongering you seem to think I'm peddling. I'm just simply saying keep on your guard.

 

2) poorer nations lacking funds to effectively "catapult" their weapon simply have other more feasible means to do so. This is not an unreasonable whacky-far-out possibility.

 

That was all I was saying.

 

The fallacies on this case equal to instruments of control of an Empire.

*looks around*

Uhh "empire". Okay.

 

*brevity*

For as long as the Hard Power is the governing policy of the Empire, then, unlike what you would be led to think, auxiliary forms of dominance to assist the main doctrine are required (this does not disappear at all when it transcends to Soft Power) to back it up. The media's generalization that propagates ideologies favorable to the Empire - including that regarding immenent external threats that endagers all that the Empire stands for and is conveniently represented as a bastion of good - is one such form.

 

So essentially what you're saying is that vigilance is imperialist and all its unwitting supporters blind; that nobody actually needs to defend themselves because everyone means well, and the idea of independence is merely a farce doctrine of this soft power empire.

 

Sounds naive like "if we got rid of all the nukes then nobody will have them". If we got rid of all the nukes, someone else would rediscover how to make them again. Furthermore getting rid of all weapons is about as likely as a massive natural disaster (short of the sun going supernova) wiping out all life forms on earth--some will always slip through the cracks. Someone will always get hold of some of the weapons--that's not a pipe dream, and barely fact.

 

I am, of course, explaining the situation with lens of my own, based on what I consider to be the most appropriate approach on this matter, if not the only one that I may be able to understand.

 

Likewise and thank you for your time.

 

While I see what you're saying w.r.t. "soft power remaining in power", this view makes assumptions about individuals' vigilance necessarily being blind to the machinations of the "powers that be" and inadvertently supporting them. We do not. If anything, the "powers that be" seem to want people to all disarm and just go along with it.

 

While it may or may not be likely there is no nuclear war ahead, and there is much misinformation out there, it's foolish to think everyone necessarily means well. I'm simply used to trusting that people won't "do the right thing".

 

Let's see...the majority of media has been more about disarming on all levels for reasons of safety and security of late, so you are incorrect about that "propaganda defending the empire" in this respect. In fact it seems more of a circus aimed at smearing and stigmatizing each other and opponents of differing political views. *shrugs*

 

Also a culture of a spirit of independence is originally what made America what it is. We may have fallen far form that, but the ideal still remains that if you're driven enough on your own, you can achieve great things. Self interest is not necessarily selfish or people would get all paranoid about being on the receiving end of charity and demonize generosity.

[Liverandbacon]

For as long as the Hard Power is the governing policy of the Empire, then, unlike what you would be led to think, auxiliary forms of dominance to assist the main doctrine are required (this does not disappear at all when it transcends to Soft Power) to back it up. The media's generalization that propagates ideologies favorable to the Empire - including that regarding immenent external threats that endagers all that the Empire stands for and is conveniently represented as a bastion of good - is one such form.

 

Well, I can assure you that the media isn't representing our country as a bastion of good here in the US, nor is it even mentioning the possibility of such an attack.

 

My point was not one fed to me by some imperial propagandist, but from my own knowledge of the capabilities of nuclear weapons of various sizes, and the security of our borders, mots of which knowledge has come directly from people whose jobs revolve around one of those subjects.

 

On another note, with all due respect to Mr. Nye, I feel he is making a false dichotomy between the use of "Hard" and "Soft" power. While the ratio of which is being used more may change, I believe that a certain amount of both is needed to survive in a world where other countries use both.

[True_Avery]

They are now arresting tan skinned women:

 

http://military.rightpundits.com/2010/04/28/sun-tanned-woman-arrested-for-looking-like-walking-mannequins-iran-islamic-law-crackdown/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/28/2010-04-28_tehran_police_chief_iran_to_crack_down_on_suntanned_women.html

 

This is no longer just a single cleric talking; its the government arresting misbehaving women. Apparently these people do, actually, have power in Iran.

 

I doubt the people as a whole agree with this, but the government is just showing day by day how backwards it is. Hopefully if they keep pushing Iran will have an actual revolution. There is only so much the younger generations are going to take laying down.

[Darth InSidious]

And there is no such thing as Camp Delta. And it has never imprisoned people on grounds of being suspicious-looking and Muslim. Ever.

[True_Avery]

And there is no such thing as Camp Delta. And it has never imprisoned people on grounds of being suspicious-looking and Muslim. Ever.

And George Bush can go to hell for the patriot act and all the backwards BS he put us through for the past 8 years like Camp Delta.

 

I didn't support the camping of suspicious Muslims, the camping of the Japanese in WW2, and I don't support Iran's backwards attitude towards women. That doesn't sully my point that Iran's government is taking what these clerics say seriously and are imprisoning women for being tan. America doing the same BS as Iran hardly puts me in the position of being unable to criticize them when I've been criticizing my own government's backwards attitudes for years.

 

If you'd like me to punch myself as I punch them, sure:

 

Arizona just recently passed a set of laws that allows the police to pull over and arrest anybody not carrying a full set of proof they are United States citizens, meaning they can just about pull anyone to the side and arrest them with little suspicion. Considering most people don't carry a passport and all their ID, that means the police can pretty much arrest anyone and do a background check. It is suspected this will increase profiling of those that look Latino. Arizona, and namely the United States for allowing laws like this to pass, is showing how backwards it is by pulling out and brushing off laws that were deemed unconstitutional in the days of African American oppression.

 

And, on that note, that Iranian government, and namely the police force, is showing how backwards it is by arresting tanned women. I'm not going to be shamed into not taking a potshot at a country's government that would publicly arrest me, flog me, and most likely execute me. I spit on my state/country for less severe, but similar reasons.

 

If, however, I am missing something then I am open for being corrected. I'm guessing Sabre or D3 have something interesting to say, but at the moment it appears, at least to me, that perhaps the religious leaders like the cleric this thread started on have a fair amount of power in the government. Maybe not over the people, but the government.

[Totenkopf]

Can you show the part of the state law that allows cops to do that? Given how high profile an act this is, I'd rather doubt it. You might claim that it might end up like that in practice.....but isn't that the kind of thing we're always told we have the courts for? Afterall, as it is, a policeman can pull you over for anything anywhere in the US and it comes down to your word vs the officer's in the courtroom. Now, perhaps if the feds would get off their high horse and actually enforce immigration law itself, rather than publically moan about the states, the states wouldn't have to do something themselves (beyond perhaps assist the feds).

[True_Avery]

Can you show the part of the state law that allows cops to do that? Given how high profile an act this is, I'd rather doubt it. You might claim that it might end up like that in practice.....but isn't that the kind of thing we're always told we have the courts for? Afterall, as it is, a policeman can pull you over for anything anywhere in the US and it comes down to your word vs the officer's in the courtroom. Now, perhaps if the feds would get off their high horse and actually enforce immigration law itself, rather than publically moan about the states, the states wouldn't have to do something themselves (beyond perhaps assist the feds).

If you'd like to discuss further, make a thread on it so we don't pull the thread too off topic. It only extends so far in this thread for me to make a short point, not debate.

[Totenkopf]

Your pre-amended post argued otherwise. However, given how off-track this thread has become, doubt anyone would have cared (esp me, the OP).

[True_Avery]

Your pre-amended post argued otherwise. However, given how off-track this thread has become, doubt anyone would have cared (esp me, the OP).

I'm more interested in the original topic and would prefer to talk about it. I amended my post for that reason.

[Totenkopf]

I'm more interested in the original topic and would prefer to talk about it. I amended my post for that reason.

 

I think that train derailed w/in about 6-7 posts and was why Jae moved it here.

[Dr. Makaveli]

To be honest, I find radical Islamic clerics to be funnier than a lot of comedians.

Birthday cakes are un-islamic, and wearing baggy jeans will send you to hell.

 

My first reaction to this when it came out was to laugh. It's hard to take them seriously. In the words of Saturday Night Live-- Really??

[Darth Avlectus]

Hey, long as promiscuous women don't cause the wrong kind of earthquakes, I don't think anybody else but them have any problems with it.

[urluckyday]

Hey, long as promiscuous women don't cause the wrong kind of earthquakes, I don't think anybody else but them have any problems with it.

 

lol, I'll second that.

[True_Avery]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37612692/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?GT1=43001

 

Another related topic

[mimartin]

If the man got

four months in prison and 90 lashes [/Quote], the women will most likely get death.

[ForeverNight]

Saudi religious police

 

Anybody else wondering why the hell they need Religious police? I wish that that region wasn't so screwed up so I wouldn't end up feeling as anti-Islam as that region makes me feel.

 

Damn the Middle East for being a bunch of wacko nutjobs. Well, mostly at any rate.

[Web Rider]

And people wonder why it's so easy to be bigoted towards Islam and Muslims. If this was the exception, yeah, great, whatever, but nobody can argue that this kind of situation is pretty much the rule in many Islam-dominated countries.

[Darth Avlectus]

...And I hear they want to have a Sharia law court in this country...