Per France-24 Trump has “de-certified” the Iranian Nuclear deal (that as near as I can tell means “did not certify compliance”).
What now?
OT-One-H, it was a lousy deal that guaranteed Iran gets a nuke on the slow and steady path.
OTOH, not having it means they get the nukes faster, or someone flattens them.
Hobson’s Choice, IMHO.
So again I’m back at “What now?”.
Is it a Trump Negotiation Tactic? Against Muslim Camel Traders? I’d bet on the Camel…
Is it a “Break it so you can fix it”?
Is it “Wag The Dog”?
Only time will tell.
What I do know is Trump can smell a Bad Deal a mile away. He knows no-deal is better than a bad-deal. And he holds America first in his priorities. He’s also a very smart cookie who has vastly more intel than I’ve got.
For now, I’m going with ‘benefit of the doubt’ to Trump. Expect the Yellow Stream Media to howl like spider monkeys with their balls in a vice. Expect Europe to turn all pink and purple trying to figure out WTF?
Me? It’s Friday. I think I need some gin….
Musings from the Chiefio 
Hi Chiefio. IMHO, Pointman’s latest post is as good an analysis as I have seen of the situation. In Australia, the MSM and ‘our’ ABC delight in daily sessions of Trump- bashing, especially if they can quote some old Republican ‘swamp-dwellers’.
I think they continue to vastly underestimate Donald!
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/caution-swamp-draining-in-progress/
Latest I have seen is he is de-certifying but staying in the agreement. That sounds like to me that he is laying the ground work for showing just how bad the deal is but by staying in the agreement the technically can still press for compliance or ramp up sanctions for non-compliance. Sounds like a nubby little carrot and a great big stick to me.
I’m under the impression that Iran is working slowly towards getting nuclear weapons while “technically” being in compliance. I thought they denied UN inspectors at one point. How does that work?
“No one who’s paid attention to this from the beginning can be surprised. We told you two years ago that the verification measures in the Iran nuclear deal were a joke, and that it would be easy for Iran to defy inspectors on virtually any pretext, no matter how flimsy. Not only that, but Obama and Kerry fought to structure the deal in that way because Iran wouldn’t sign if they didn’t. That’s how badly they wanted signatures on a piece of paper, even if the deal they were signing was a complete disaster.
Now we’re seeing that’s exactly what it is:”
http://canadafreepress.com/article/iran-we-dont-think-well-let-any-un-inspectors-visit-our-military-sites
Islamic doctrine prohibits “treaties” longer than 10 years – interestingly enough the Iran treaty was set to sunset in 10 years. Their doctrine also endorses breaking treaties at any time, their function is simply to allow them to rearm and refit armies for the resumptions of attack.
As you say they are technically complying but violating the intent big time.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it will be limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz for 10 years.
Note that the limit is on installing centrifuges not manufacturing components or complete centrifuges. I suspect they have been busy building a huge stock pile of pieces awaiting only an excuse to assemble them and bring thousands of upgraded designs on line very very quickly.
By the time you get U235 concentration to 3.67% you have done about half the work necessary to get to weapons grade material, so that limitation is of little value. Note also that the limitations only apply to known facilities – what if the enrichment is taking place in North Korea?
As note there are other technologies that allow concentration besides centrifuge technology such as supersonic nozzle and shock separation.
https://www.google.com/patents/US3626665
They could be doing separation by this technique and technically be in compliance with the agreement, but in gross violation of the intent.
On Islamic law and treaties:
https://www.andrewbostom.org/2015/04/my-discussion-of-iran-nuke-deal-and-islamic-treaties-our-state-department-now-ignores-what-it-knew-well-in-1880/
Larry Ledwick says:
13 October 2017 at 10:21 pm
Latest I have seen is he is de-certifying but staying in the agreement. That sounds like to me that he is laying the ground work for showing just how bad the deal is but by staying in the agreement the technically can still press for compliance or ramp up sanctions for non-compliance. Sounds like a nubby little carrot and a great big stick to me.
Larry
IIRC I read something lately (somewhere!) that the President gets to certify or not. And if not it is back to Congress to decide on what happens
Not certifying starts a 60 day timer for congresional review.
Trump is just following the process in the agreement.
This punts it to congress and kicks their butt. Thus their complaining….
“Global powers stand by pact despite Trump threat”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-41618165
It seems once again Trump is confronting issues kicked down the road by previous Presidents. This analysis is interesting:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/13/trump-decertifies-iran-nuclear-deal-smart-move-motivate-mullahs-james-robbins-column/759689001/
“It costs the president nothing, does not wreck the agreement, does not reimpose sanctions, and can be reversed if Tehran proves it is complying.”
“Islamic doctrine prohibits “treaties” longer than 10 years”
Islamic doctrine prohibits making binding “treaties” with non-Muslims, and categorically states that Muslims cannot be bound by any such, even if they have been signed.
As we can be certain Obama was well aware.
The “treaty” with Iran is not worth the paper it is written on, and Trump knows that, hence is aware that Iran has no intention of honouring it, and has not honoured it since it was signed.
Sounds like the Iranian moderates were fools to think they could reach agreement with the western nations; reneging on this will drive ever more extreme Iranian politics. It has been thus for the past century or so …
What Iranian moderates?
@David A : The ones willing to deal with west.
Any Muslim is willing to deal with the West if the Muslim gets what he wants.
The moderates in Iran were executed or rendered powerless after Carter.
David A : The policies of Carter were no doubt unhelpful; I believe the incoming Reagan admin were concerned that these would push Iran towards USSR. And wasn’t there some weird shenanigans delaying the release of the US embassy hostages until Reagan was installed ? I don’t recall the details. But as for the outrageous extrajudicial actions of US agent Oliver North, enabling supply of illegal weapons to Iran in order to support other terrorists in Central America that hardly sets any good example. And going on then for the USS Vincennes to shoot down a scheduled Iranian airliner killing 200+ civilians ?
All on top of a previous half a century of more of US / UK subversion of Iranian sovereignty and democracy … eg you are familiar with the imprisonment and subsequent death of the democratically elected Mossadegh around 1950, etc etc ?
And there is suggestion here that it is the Iranians that are the duplicitous and unreliable partners ….
y o u m u s t b e j o k i n g !
It was the UK that wanted the oil … and …
“But the newly released documents show that Kashani wasn’t just opposed to Mossadegh — he was also in close communication with the Americans throughout the period leading up to the coup, and he actually appears to have requested financial assistance from the United States, though there is no record of him receiving any money. His request was not previously known.
On the make-or-break day of Aug. 19, “Kashani was critical,” said Milani. “On that day Kashani’s forces were out in full force to defeat Mossadegh.””
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-iran-tehran-oil/
Jim2 : Thank you, yes it was UK who wanted the oil but assisted by USA.
“At an NSC meeting in early 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower said “it was a matter of great distress to him that we seemed unable to get some of these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us.”1 The problem has likewise distressed all administrations since, and is emerging as the core conundrum of American policy in Iraq. In All the Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times suggests that the explanation may lie next door in Iran, where the CIA carried out its first successful regime-change operation over half a century ago. The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. ”
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
So sad that USA still hasn’t learnt from this why countries ‘hate you’ – UK too it seems.
An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
“At an NSC meeting in early 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower said “it was a matter of great distress to him that we seemed unable to get some of these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us.”1 The problem has likewise distressed all administrations since, and is emerging as the core conundrum of American policy in Iraq. In All the Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times suggests that the explanation may lie next door in Iran, where the CIA carried out its first successful regime-change operation over half a century ago. The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA’s covert intervention—codenamed TPAJAX—preserved the Shah’s power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979”
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
… An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
At an NSC meeting in early 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower said “it was a matter of great distress to him that we seemed unable to get some of these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us.”1 The problem has likewise distressed all administrations since, and is emerging as the core conundrum of American policy in Iraq. In All the Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times suggests that the explanation may lie next door in Iran, where the CIA carried out its first successful regime-change operation over half a century ago. The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA’s covert intervention—codenamed TPAJAX—preserved the Shah’s power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
… An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
” … President Dwight Eisenhower said “it was a matter of great distress to him that we seemed unable to get some of these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us.”1 The problem has likewise distressed all administrations since, and is emerging as the core conundrum of American policy in Iraq. In All the Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times suggests that the explanation may lie next door in Iran, where the CIA carried out its first successful regime-change operation over half a century ago. The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA’s covert intervention—codenamed TPAJAX—preserved the Shah’s power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979—and, Kinzer argues in his breezily written, well-researched popular history, perhaps to today.”
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html-
Mossadegh granted the Soviets a place in the Iranian oil field and his socialist tendencies alarmed both free Western countries and the Iranian Clerics. Both feared a Communist incursion in Iran. Personally, I’m not a fan of either an Islamic State or a Communist one, they both have a lot of practicalities in common. Both murder all the people who don’t agree with them. So, there’s more to this than your rather myopic view of it.
Also, the Brits were very angry at seeing their pounds invested in the oilfields of Iran go up in smoke. Just sayin’.
Conflict can be bloody and repugnant. But the alternative is to let the bully of the moment take your freedom. In my view, that’s even more repugnant and can be just as bloody. So, faced with two unsavory choices, I take the one that preserves my freedom. That, in the big picture, is what happened here. The free Western countries were operating to preserve themselves in the long run. In the final analysis, tribalism exists and it is a good thing.
Jim2 : My myopic view is apparently much the same as that posted on the CIA.gov website listed above.
Mossadegh was a member of the former failed Qajar Royalist regime; his father, Mirza Hideyatu’llah Ashtiani, was a finance minister under the Qajar dynasty, and his mother, Princess Malek Taj Najm-es-Saltaneh, was the granddaughter of the reformist Qajar prince Abbas Mirza. He may well have had socialist sympathies; much of the UK Establishment did at that time also.
@Julian Jones:
Since Islam has been terrorizing the west since it was founded, I think you are looking at one tree in a forest.
Per oil compnaies:
So they invest $ Billions of money into developing an oil field then are supposed to just roll over when some populist decides to steal it? That money is what funds things like retirement funds. So just tell UK pensioners to suck it?
It also doesn’t work out well for the nationalizers. See Venezuela as one of many examples.
EM : Thank you. Yes, there is always ‘more of the forest’ to discover.
That “Islam has been terrorizing the west since it was founded” is very substantially removed from the proposition on CIA.gov – that US government actions actually fomented the present “Roots of Middle East Terror”.
And not very helpful in the light of the apparently now rapidly shifting sands of ME alliances, where Turkey, Iran, Syria, Russia and even it seems the Saudis have some new ‘gig’ getting underway – that presumably either will exclude UK / USA or otherwise include us only as junior partners. Not exactly what PNAC or the Wolfowitz Doctrine or Obama had in mind … but perhaps just as it should be; leave it to the regional powers. Not our business anymore.
I think Trump suggested some elements of Isolationism, or at least rolling back US military adventurism as part of his electoral manifesto – perhaps his policies are intended in achieving this. In this context it won’t matter what others think of USA.
The persistent and long standing Iranian grievances that put Mossadegh into power required he act. The Anglo Persian Oil Company (later BP) was itself nationalized through much of its existence. Don’t think any pension funds involved here in early 1950s.
Julian, regarding 1950s Iran your expressed view, IMV, lacks proper context. The U.S. was engaged in many conflicts against communism at that time. ( the doctrine responsible for killing over 100 million of their own citizens. Web search “Democide”)
The UK, having developed Iranian fossil fuel resources, was taking the vast majority of the profit. The “democratically” ( usually a claim more then a reality in Islamic nations) was moving in a direction he’ll bent on taking those assets. Britain was not going to allow this.
The U.S., fearing a destructive armed conflict in Iran, maneuvered a different government. The U.S. also forced the U.K. to give Iran a greatly increased percentage of energy production profits.
The result was the greatest decades of
economic expansion in Iran’s history. They were the envy of the middle east. Their women prospered and attended University in large numbers.
The Islamist were subdued. The US helped contain communist advancement. The progress in Iran was all reversed by Jimmy Carter’s policies.
…and thus led to the slaughter of thousands of Iran’s “moderates”
Obama had greatly aided Carter’s Islamist Iran.
@Julian Jones:
The ones willing to LIE to the west.
philjourdan : Not really sure how that is any sort of helpful inference.
Unless you are maybe supporting a view that UK / US should leave all this to the regional nations to resolve ? Turkey, Syria, Russia and Saudis should be perfectly capable of sorting this out with Iran. They will likely all get on much better without Anglo-Saxon interference.
I think Phil is saying those left in power in Iran are only those of an Islamist bent.
Phil, exactly. Statist US policy by U.S. leftists first removed moderates from Iran, ( Carter) then aided the Islamists,
(Obama)
David A : Thank you – at least in part similar to the well meaning 1950s US interventions in Afghanistan (Helmand Dam Valley Authority etc) that apparently led to the fall of the previously fairly successful monarchy and everything since.
We clearly do not understand these countries – but lets face it US/UK/EU governments don’t even understand our own domestic economic needs !
Time to concentrate on home issues.
Julian I guess you missed this part…
“_;The result was the greatest decades of
economic expansion in Iran’s history. They were the envy of the middle east. Their women prospered and attended University in large numbers.
The Islamist were subdued…”
So Iran in the 50s was not Afghanistan. ( perhaps, I have not studied that issue)
Although yes, time to study on home issues to a degree.
David A, thank you. I try not to comment here unless I have professional or direct experience to inform; one too many ‘armchair experts’ otherwise. I was a member of the Intl Science Ctte on the restoration of Qanats, UNESCO, Yazd, 2013. The work here is to repair some of the effects of the Pahlavi modernizations – the undoing of the slowly evolved land and water management practices that fed and watered the population here. All largely undone – with good intentions no doubt.
Similar I believe in Afghanistan; see Adam Curtis, Bitter Lake, BBC
@Julian Jones
The “helpful” part comes in the maxim of “know your enemy”. The statement is simple fact. What you do with it, is up to you.
The Koran TELLS them to lie to non believers.
philjourdan : I am sorry that you have to see anyone as an enemy.
If that is your reality that you have created it must be awful to live with; so many other more healthy perspectives to enjoy in this all too brief life. Such sentiments can make people, or even those around, them really ill.
It has never been my understanding or experience that Moslems lie any more than materialists, Christians or Jews.
Specifically, a senior Masonic Christian theologian once told me that Moslems were taught to equally respect Christians, Jews and Sabians. . Have you considered Freemasonry ? In this all atheists are disallowed, but all great faiths are respected ? It might be helpful.
Where do you live ?
Muslims are taught to respect all others equally. All others are to be converted, enslaved or killed. Which equal treatment do you prefer.?…pg
Read it from the source Julian – here are the references to Islamic doctrinal texts:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx
It is not that “we see them as the enemy”, it is that we understand that their doctrine compels them to see us as the enemy. By definition of their doctrine, they are always at war with the kafir. They are under a religious obligation to subdue and convert the Kafir by any means necessary when they say religion of peace they mean that the world will be at peace when everyone is a Muslim, and submits to Allah, and obeys the doctrine of Islam.
ISIS behavior is the literal interpretation of Islamic doctrine – Luckily only about 30-60% of Islam believes in that literal interpretation but you must acknowledge that it exists, and that by their own law there is no peace other than submission to them.
There is 1400 years of history backing up that truth – it behooves the west to believe that history.
Grrrr —— behooves the west to believe that history.
Hi Larry : Thanks for this.
To reiterate above : “Moslems were taught to equally respect Christians, Jews and Sabians.” All three faiths are regarded ‘of the book’ ie believers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabians
You seem to be trying to misrepresent Islam ? Which I concede just like christianity, judaism and materialism also includes many unpleasant and idiotic people. Why don’t you just expose such people as the idiots they are ?
I live in the UK, others here have been trying to do the same, fermenting trouble basically.
Where do you live ? Why are you trying to persist and perpetuate awful misunderstandings ?
Are you in the arms trade by any chance?
As for the history even up to the contemporary period; yes absolutely appalling. Very hard to understand as it is ‘recorded by the victors’.
1400 hundred years of history behoves us to stick to our own shores – unless invited. Much more ’21st Century’.
Words can both expose and hide the truth. Actions can’t lie. Thus look at the actions and their consequences to see the truth behind the words. That is what the words mean.
Words are not reality. They are pointers to what is or what the speaker wants you to see. Look for your self at what is so you can know what the speaker is actually saying.
Julian:
You seem to be trying to misrepresent Islam ?
Quotes directly from the Quran, Hadith and the Sira clearly state what their doctrine is, take it at its face value. Those in Islam who believe in a 6th century interpretation of Islam like ISIS do not “respect” Christians they either kill them or convert them or take them as prisoners of war (dhimmi) who are granted limited tolerance as long as they submit to Islam and pay their Jizya tax and follow the oppressive rules imposed on them by the dominant Islamic society. (cannot worship in public, cannot build new churches, must raise children as Muslims etc.) It is (as practiced by their own doctrine) an abusive, militant totalitarian philosophy of conquest that seeks to dominate and subdue all other religions as a matter of divine obligation.
Just how do you propose that these three sources misrepresent Islam?
They are the foundational doctrine of Islam!
You can believe in fairy tale unicorn philosophies that hide the truth if you like, but I do not.
I put more stock in mass graves full of Christians Yazidis and others who refused to bend a knee to a brutal and sadistic political philosophy that seeks to destroy and enslave all competitors, and has been openly doing that for 14 centuries. Islam has enslaved millions for over a thousand years, and butchered entire civilizations with a death toll which dwarfs the mass murders of over 100 million by socializm and communism in the past century.
The difference between perception and reality of Islamic treatment of non-Muslims even in European countries where they are not yet dominant.
https://www.politicalislam.com/truth-christians-among-refugees/
The view of Islam and its inherent totalitarian nature.
https://www.politicalislam.com/political-islam-totalitarian-doctrine/
Julian said:
“I think Trump suggested some elements of Isolationism, or at least rolling back US military adventurism as part of his electoral manifesto – perhaps his policies are intended in achieving this. In this context it won’t matter what others think of USA.”
“what others think of the USA” only ever matters to those others.
A Power, or a person, can not themselves be driven by “what other people think” or they become a slave to other’s oppinions being set “for effect”. In ALL contexts, it does not matter what others think of the USA. It might be useful intel to then be used to change their behavior or for predicting their actions, but little else.
It is imperitive to understand that, in order to understand a Principle Driven Life . One must be directed by principles and ground truth facts, or one becomes a manipulated fool subject to the emotional stew of frothy others.
You see this truth every time a warrior says goodby to family. They want to stay at home. They leave due to higher principles. It matters not what the enemy, their spouse, or neighbors “think about them”. They must go, so they do.
Now Trump knows the Americans have zero desire to be World Cops. (A role thrust on us against our will by 2 stupid World Wars started by petty European Glory Hounds, then cemented by the Cold War where another Stupid European Idea of International Socialism wanted to dominate a world empire). So yeah, isolationism sells well in America. IF we could just let the rest of you get about your business of killing each other off for fun & profit (or Prophet for some…) and not have the crap whack us later, I’d be all for it.
But the world doesn’t work that way.
Those dreaming of World Domination do not give an exemption to The New World.
So y’all can’t keep your crap in your own back yard, that means we have to come stop the crapping. Don’t like it. Don’t want it. But it’s the principle of the thing. “You control your base urges or someone else will”.
Yes, there are many more Machiavellian drivers for some individual players (money barons, politicians) but the general population doesn’t give a damn about what they want. If there is not a threat to us or threat of global collapse, nothing much will happen. (See the near nothing being done by the USA in Africa and Latin America. We complain at governments and somtimes send
bribe moneyforeign aid, but that’s about it.)So what you have seen is simply understood as the desire of the people to be isolationist in conflict with global reality requiring someone to stop the crap before it gets here.
I’d much rather see the EU or even Russua be the world cop. Heck, even China. But none of them has demonstrated the principle driven life behavior of NOT keeping lands taken in battles and NOT taking retribution and NOT letting folks keep their own languages and cultures (modulo stamping out the desire to kill us and dominate… I.e. see Japan post W.W.II)
So until you got a better more moral and principled cop, we know we are it. But we don’t have to like it, or want it. We just have to do it better than the alternatives. And we don’t need to be liked for it. The cop knows the perp thinks ill of him, and knows it doesn’t matter.
Per C.I.A. docs: So politically irritating truths are not in documents left over from the Obama years published by an agency that lies for a living. Not high on my list of life principles…
Per your attempt to reduce a general principle (nationalizing private investment damages general investors) to a convenient specific: Noted and ignored as debate tactic. One can work to learn principles and truthes, or one can debate as a zero sum game, but not both.
@Julian:
I find your asking where someone lives and are they in the arms trade offensive manipulation
Now Larry has slready said in other threads where heclives snd what he does, so it slso says you’ve not been keeping up. Larry lives in USA and is a near retirement guy like many of us here. Now I’m not “in the arms trade” either, but I’ve worked I.T. contracts that were defense related. I’ve also worked medical insurance and food company contracts. You might as well insinuate a Doctor treating veterans wss “in the arms trade”. It is just a stupid ploy on your part for purposes of inciting.
Oh, and do note that the Koran specifically directs muslims living as a minority to be especially nice… until they are a majority and can impose proper islamic law. Want to know real islam? See countries with islamic law states.
Julian – you’re arguing against people who have studied the Koran and religious texts, and you’re avoiding the reality of countries where fundamentalist Islam rules. It’s maybe worth listening to them, instead of trying to apply the British sense of fair play. Islam is not only a religion, it’s a political system and legal system as well, that defines the way they must lead their lives.
A big point is that anyone who believes in a fundamentalist religion (that is, what’s written in The Book is Truth, and cannot be changed) is not going to be pleased with anyone who does not believe the same. Another point is that unless you’ve experienced it personally or have read a lot from people who have done so, it’s unlikely that you will have the understanding of a different culture. For example, in Japan lying for yourself is not socially acceptable, but lying for your boss is expected and honourable. In India, people won’t admit that they can’t do a task since that implies that you are wrong to ask them (and thus impolite). Difficult to deal with if you don’t have enough real knowledge of what they can actually do and when, since you’ll miss the deadlines. Similarly it’s not impolite to be late to a meeting, but it’s impolite to not offer an excuse (even if it’s transparently untrue). Different cultures have different values.
You may remember a “Top Gear” special where they went across the Southern states in the USA, and in the Bible belt they decorated the cars with slogans against Christian principles. They barely escaped with their lives from one service-station. It’s dangerous insulting someone’s religious beliefs. It’s even more dangerous where that Book, instead of a law “Thou shalt not kill”, has a ruling “behead the infidel and take his wives and children as slaves”.
Islam requires that people be good neighbours until they are in the majority, when it is incumbent on them to take over and impose Sharia law upon the rest. Read the books…. So of course you shouldn’t see a problem with your local Muslims. If they’re following the religion exactly then they will be good people, and if they’re only paying lip-service (and don’t believe all the things they are supposed to) then they’ll also be good people in general.
I’ve had to re-think my opinions on this, given that all the Muslims I’ve known have been nice people. I regarded Islam as just another religion. It’s more than that, and has the stated intent to take over the whole world (after which there will be peace, of course). Funnily enough, though, you do find Muslims fighting against Muslims, so even if you let them take over the world that won’t be the end of wars. It would however be the end of Gay Rights, Women’s Lib, Free Speech and of course Freedom of Thought, and probably a lot of other freedoms we enjoy.
Try to take the good intentions out of the equation, and instead do a forward projection of what happens if we do or do not do something. You need to look at what is, not what you’d like it to be.
@Julian – you must be a liberal. Only a liberal would jump from a factual statement to one where all of a sudden I see everyone as enemies.
My statement is factual. Read the Koran. It clearly says that followers are to lie, cheat and steal from non-beleivers whenever possible to further Islam.
You interject yourself into a debate that is not about either of us. You might want to rethink what you think is an attack on you. It was not. It was merely a statement of fact.
“It has never been my understanding or experience that Moslems lie any more than materialists, Christians or Jews.”
I suspect that you have little or no direct contact with Moslems, and any that you have had is with the very integrated, educated Moslems that live in relatively small numbers in the USA.
Your UNDERSTANDING does not tally with my EXPERIENCE of frequent contact with Moslems of all social classes and levels of integration (or rather, the lack of it) in predominantly Northern British cities over a period in excess of half a century.
Perhaps you ought to study the teachings in the Qu’ran and the Hadiths, with special reference to the directives concerning taqiyya and kitman and their relevance to relationships and transactions with non-Moslems.
I further suggest you meditate on the old adage that ‘it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt’.