Do Second Amendment supporters also support Irans right to protect itself with nuclear weapons?

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I am still trying to figure out how to explain a few things, I was trying to explain to my husband and I made him cross eyed so I am trying to figure out how to make things simple.

Outside of that, what you have to realize is that your sanctioning Iran, not because of nuclear anything, but because you do not like their choice of government.

Their was a treaty made under the Shah that the United States would help Iran make nuclear power plants and that by 2010 they would have nuclear power plants in place in Iran, with help from US

What happened then, was Khomeini (q) ended up in power, and the US said no more treaty....

Iran spent 3 full years debating the Islamic legality of nuclear power plants, because of the possibility of a melt down and other bad things happening which could hurt animals and the environment as well as people.

In Shia Islam, we do not even kill a spider.... it is forbidden. So it was 3 years of intense debate whether or not even having a nuclear power plant should be had...

When the scholars said yes, that we could do this if they were super super careful about it... well... then US is like no, we don't like you anymore so no treaty....

Iran said we don't need you, we will have nuclear power anyway.... this is something for the country which is good... but the international community, since they do not like the Shia, said they would put sanctions on Iran for trying to pursue nuclear power for the power plants...

Its more than just ridiculous at this point... the west screaming bomb bomb... lol... when all that is wanted is nuclear power.... JUST LIKE ANY OTHER MODERN COUNTRY!

they don't want a damn bomb!




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


ok so here goes. I am going to say things in small increments and if anything confuses you I will clarify. Once you read this post, you can ask for clarifications, and I will explain, and then I will, with your ok, make another post going further into your misunderstandings ok?

As you know, shia islam has a holistic approach to religion, and it encompasses self, family, community, and state. We are not sunni, we have the Imam of our time, he is not among us physically until the end of days. But he is still with us in a spiritual manner.

That said I will explain the political realm of shia thought.

Group 1) Political
Group 2) Apolitical
Group 3) Neither political nor apolitical... but something inbetween.

Being political in shia islam these days means rather to believe in the authority of the WF (Khomeini, Khamanei) often over not just iranians but over all the shia.

to be apolitical means rather to believe that politics has no place in shia islam until the coming of the imam, and the only one with authority over the shia is the imam and anyone trying to grant themselves authority over the shia who is not the imam has committed a grave and unforgivable sin.

To be neither is to find that happy little balance thats says that the WF is a man and as such can make mistakes, but learned so we should listen to what they are saying, that Iran had the right to set up a religious government (that was hotly debated at one time) but that the WF who is over Iran is not over all the shia, only the Iranian shia.

For Ahmedinejad, it was apparent that he was with the latter group. He was at neither extreme in the religious sense.

Also important to point out, these are the only three groups in 12er Islam. I know people in each of these three groups and while, I never met Ahmedinejad, I can infer which group he was in from his apparent behavior and speeches.

Now, Ahmedinejad was never an apethetic group three personality, he believed in the ability for and responsibility of self determination. Part of this came from the times he was in.

I will wait for your response to this before continuing.
edit on 6-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: spelling



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Xtrozero

buster2010

When was the last time Iran started a war 200 or 300 years? Not to mention they have always said if they are attacked they will fight back. And they would also run the risk of getting every Muslim on the planet mad at them if the Dome of Rock was destroyed or fallout from the bomb were to hit Mecca. Seeing how Iran can put more men in the field than the total population of Israel they don't need nukes to take on Israel.
edit on 5-1-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)


So what do they need a nuke for?

Do you really think its because they want it as protection from America? Seeing how Iran would lose more people than the population of Israel if they wanted to invade I would think a nuke on a country where most of its population would be killed by one would be a rather good start.

You didn't answer my question BTW... Would you say (simple yes or no would also work) that Iran would not try and usher in the 12 Imam with a war against Israel?


edit on 5-1-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


They are not trying to get nukes every secret agency says they are not trying to build one. And I don't know where you got the idea but a war with Israel has nothing to do with the return of the 12 Imam. This is what they say about the 12 Imam and Israel isn't even mentioned.

According to Twelver Shi'ite doctrine, he is an actual historical personality and is the current Imam and the promised Mahdi, a messianic figure who will return with Christ. He will reestablish the rightful governance of Islam and replete the earth with justice and peace.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
First Nations have no power that the individuals have not ceded to them (govern with the consent of the govern). A nation does not have rights they simply represent the rights of their citizens (or rulers in some cases.

Yes I agree that Iran has a "right" to have any weapon that they deem necessary to the defense of their sovereign territory.
Just as I have the right to have any weapon I deem necessary for my personal defense.

All of that being said however, when you carry a gun, not just own one, you do so with an understanding that the rules for you have changed. Actions carry consequences, so when you are armed you cannot allow yourself to be dragged into petty disagreements and silly scrums like a frat boy. The majority of gun owners know this and this is why you do not actually have the wide spread "blood in the streets" the anti gunners are always touting about. The problem however are the people like gang-bangers. Always looking for respect and responding to any affront to their reputation. Guys like that while they may have the right to carry dont have the maturity.
They have the “right” to produce the most devastating weapons they can, however they do not have the maturity. They do not fully appreciate that the rules will change for them when they enter that playing field. Yes they will have the respect that they are looking for but they will also be the threat that those weapons present.
Suppose I am in a self defense situation. I and another man are facing off. I know that he has a stick and that I have a gun. He is a threat to me but for the most part not as much of a danger. That gives me options that he does not have. I can choose to walk away, I choose to stand and defend myself, but I am morally constrained to wait for him to begin an attack on me before I shoot him. Now change the situation and give him a gun as well. Now my options are more limited. I can still choose to walk away but if he is willing to do me harm that is not likely to work. I am going to take him at his word. If he shows any sign of making a move to his gun or issuing a threat I will shoot him. I must do so to protect myself.
This is why the Nuclear countries all walk very carefully around each other and speak very calmly and so politically correct in their dealings.
The western nations know that if Iran openly has these weapons that they have not demonstrated to this point a willingness to observe these unwritten rules. Western nations fear that Iran will force them to unleash a nuclear attack to respond to their provocations. Now Iran knows this so they will not act themselves, they will use proxies to make the attack and the western nations will have no justification for acting against them.

Good question OP and I will give you a little insight into my way of thinking. For all of these international political questions I bring it all down to the individual. I imagine the same situation happening in my neighborhood and how it would play out. I use those exercises to guide me in what my opinion is on the issue.
If I knew a guy down the street who had caused so many problems to me directly and had made threats to me about my life or the life of my family was going to get a gun so that he could attack me, you darn right I would do everything I could do to keep him from getting the gun. If I thought it serious enough I might even provoke him into attacking me with a stick so I could finish it on my terms.
edit on 6-1-2014 by Dragoon01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Freeborn
reply to post by Xtrozero
 




....Would you say (simple yes or no would also work) that Iran would not try and usher in the 12 Imam with a war against Israel?


I'd say it's impossible to answer such a loaded question in such a definitive way.

At present I'd say they wouldn't - who knows what the future would bring?

All Twelvers believe in The Mahdi and that he will return prior to Judgement Day but there are numerous beliefs within the Twelver faith about how and when this will happen.

The majority simply go about their lives in the belief that the day will come when it comes.
Then there are those who believe that by actively manipulating world events they will force the Mahdi into a position where he will reveal himself.

Ahmadinejad and his supporters are understood to believe in forcibly bringing to pass the events that will see the 'end of time', the rising of The Mahdi and The Second Coming of Jesus.
In addition they don't recognise the authority of any of the Mullahs and other religious leaders that have been since the 12th Imam went into occultation.

As such it is believed that the various groups within the Iranian ruling bodies - Iranian politics is really very complicated with various factions, beit that they are all of an Islamic fundamentalist slant - conspired to remove Ahmadinejad and his supporters from any positions of power and influence.

Those currently ruling the roost are actually quite keen to maintain their positions of power and influence, something that could possibly change if sanctions continue.
edit on 5/1/14 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity


So I guess this goes back to my question, what do they need nukes for?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   

buster2010

They are not trying to get nukes every secret agency says they are not trying to build one. And I don't know where you got the idea but a war with Israel has nothing to do with the return of the 12 Imam. This is what they say about the 12 Imam and Israel isn't even mentioned.


I must disagree since they could have gone many different directions if they were after only nuclear power. I would even say that their plutonium enrichment program disagrees with you too.

BTW who are "they"...since there are many different stories as to how to let or force the 12 Imam to happen.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I totally agree that even if Israel has Nuclear weapons, they have shown restraint in using them. Iran on the other hand; keeps mouthing off on how they will wipe Israel off the face of the earth. If you owned a gun store and someone came in to the store wanting to buy a gun so he can kill his neighbor, would you sell him the gun? If that same person told you that he is making a gun so he can kill his neighbor, wouldn’t you try to dissuade him from doing so?





 
19
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join