But your two paragraphs contradict each other. The first paragraph says that there isn’t necessarily a correlation between the religious leaders and the Iranian government, the second says there is but we don’t know the nature of it. Unless in the first paragraph you were just talking about Bush and Pat Robertson.
SK: The mere existence of correlation between the government and religious leaders means that if the religious leaders come out in support of nuclear weapons, the government also supports them. You say the fact that it was only one group of clerics isn’t a big deal, but it is a big deal if its one group of clerics in a theocratic authoritarian government. Think of the nature of the society we’re talking about here - do you really think a lone cleric would issue a radical fatwa without the support of the government and all other clerics? Fatwas are a big deal.
They don’t contradict each other, they address separate points you made. My first response talked about how we don’t truly know what he said. The second is about how correlation doesn’t prove causation.
I think that if the regime supports nukes, its nothing new. Its all a media game to play with the masses. The only thing we don’t truly know is whether or not they’ve begun making nukes. Its a WMD smoking gun we most likely will never get our hands on until its too late.
What were the separate points?
I agree its nothing new. I’m just trying to convince SK of something that’s nothing new.
My first response talked about how we don’t truly know what the significance is of what he said The second is about how correlation doesn’t prove causation.
Okay. I think in this case the mere existence of a positive correlation(what the government supports, the religious clerics also do, and vice versa)means the government supports nukes.
I think it means conservative Islamists can support nuclear weapons and that can have severe implications.
No. First of all, the premise is false, because “the religious leaders” have <i>not</i> come out in support of the statement; the article quotes one guy whose importance is unclear, and this is <i>not sufficient</i> to prove your assertion. Secondly, the conclusion is also false, because there is no such unified entity as “the government” or “the religious leaders.” Both consist of different factions that compete with each other, and each faction in turn consists of individuals who compete with each other within the faction. So it is, in fact, patently ridiculous to say that, because some guy who probably isn’t very important said something, it must necessarily follow that “all the other clerics,” along with everybody in the government, must think the same thing.
This is more of the neoconservative worldview again, according to which absolutely everybody who is “evil” or non-democratic or whatever must necessarily be part of a club whose members agree with each other on absolutely every single issue.
Okay, but as the article says, its likely that the cleric who supports nuclear weapons is part of the same faction as the president of Iran. You know, the guy who makes the final decisions.
Yeah, the article says that he’s a “disciple” of some guy who is “widely regarded” (by whom?) to be close to the president of Iran. This description, again, is so vague as to be meaningless. The article makes the implication that this “lecturer” reflects the opinions of the president of Iran, but this implication is based more on vague pronouncements than on arguments or evidence. Also, even the president’s own faction is probably full of internecine rivalries, and the president probably doesn’t have absolute authority over the final decisions, he’s also dependent on other people in the government. Every bureaucratic political system works this way.
Fuck you Einstein
Look at the monster you’ve unleashed
I agree 100%. Seriously, whether you’re being serious or not yourself.
Its ironic considering Einstein himself was such a peaceful man and hated the military.
On a related note, even the French believe Iran is trying to get a nuke:
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy on Feb. 16 said, “No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program. The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren’t listening to us. Now it’s up to the [U.N.] Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran.”
Yeah I remember reading that. I think that this is a very significant shift in the politics of the situation and potentially this can mean the Iraq war approach’s fiasco won’t be repeated. This is especially true considering who the new Chancellor of Germany is and how the middle east is becoming more and more villified in Europe.