Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Friday, May 27, 2005

    Iran states (again) it's not seeking nuclear weapons

    Yahoo has this report:

    After the meeting, Straw said Iran had "reaffirmed its commitment not to seek to develop nuclear weapons. The freeze of the enrichment program will continue until an agreement is reached."
    German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the Europeans never had to resort to threats. "I'm happy that it didn't come to that," he said, noting "we are still searching for an agreement to bridge the differences."
    See all recent "A Logical Voice" posts


    At 5/28/2005 07:47:00 pm, Blogger Allan@Aberdeen said...

    And you believe them. NB No question mark.

    At 5/29/2005 02:49:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    NB: so far, Iran has not violated the NPT.

    It's understandable that they might seek a deterrent. Threatened nations generally respond to threats.

    At 5/29/2005 02:09:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Allan, DJEB has made a valid point here, do you know which nations have ever been in breach of the non proliferation treaties? And returning to a point I made earlier, do you believe the US sets the world a good example by basically disengaging from the non proliferation agreements?

    At 5/29/2005 10:07:00 pm, Blogger Allan@Aberdeen said...

    Islam has expanded by use of the sword. However, nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocrazy threatens more than just neighbours. Iran, being the case at hand, will use any means at its disposal to acquire such weapons.
    See what Islam teaches regarding the permissibility to lie:

    “speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible “ (Ref: Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745).”

    Of course no one would lie if he or she can achieve his objective by saying the truth so “lying is unlawful when you can achieve your objective by saying the truth” is redundant and ridiculous. The crux of this message is that lying is permissible.

    As concerns non-proliferation agreements, they can become redundant due to political changes e.g. collapse of USSR. In other instances, the US should adhere to its commitments.

    At 5/30/2005 02:57:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    "Islam has expanded by use of the sword. However, nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocrazy threatens more than just neighbours."

    Change "has" to "had" and you'll be starting to get somewhere. There is an excellent histroy of Islam in Dilip Hiro's War Without End. I will, however, quote from The Rough Ruide History of Islam by Justin Wintle instead:

    [I]t is often said that Islam was 'spread by the sword'.

    This is not the whole story, however. From the time of Muhammad onwards, Muslim agents worked to promote the 'Message of the Prophet'; likewise, recorded instances of conquered peoples being forced to accept Islam are the exception, not the rule...

    While conversion to Islam was not discouraged in the first century of conquest, it wasan't greatly encouraged either - largely because Muslims were exempt from the
    jizya tax. If the newly conquered countries had been converted en masse, the Arab empire would have rapidly drained of revenue. Tolerance was the norm instead, and Christians, Jews and some Zoroastrians became ahl-adh-dhimma - protected peoples.

    One might also wonder what conquest it was that created the world's most populous Muslim nation (or the nations around it). In fact, there was no conquest, no sword that led to its Muslim majority.

    (For your sake, we won't talk of the violence involved in the spread of Christianity.)

    "Iran, being the case at hand, will use any means at its disposal to acquire such weapons."

    And you know this because? Because there is a passage in a book you have that was written by a guy who died 637 years ago that says on page 745 that Muslims can lie to achieve a "praiseworthy aim". Ok. Let's run through this in sock-puppet mode to see if it follows:

    Muslims can lie to achieve a goal that is praisworthy.

    Iran has nuclear reactors that could be used to produce enriched uranium.
    Therefore, "Iran will use any means at its disposal to aquire [nuclear] weapons."

    The rough Latin translation for "Huh?" is non sequitur.

    As for the NPT treaty being redundant, you are flat out wrong. It is needed just as much now if not more. Just wondering, did you know that you came withing a few seconds of dying in a nuclear war in January 1995? You did. We all did. And now with collapse of the Soviet Union and the impoverishment of Russia, all those weapons sitting on hairtrigger alert are controlled by aging, decaying systems. Moreover, the U.S. will not cease its nuclear targetting of Russia, forcing Russia to be constantly moving its nuclear missiles to new locations. Moving these missiles over Russia's vast territory puts the world at risk as a ready-to-fire weapon could be ceased in transport by terrorists, as analysts have warned.


    Post a Comment

    << Home