Obama: 'Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei Has Issued Fatwa Against Development of Nuc

[FGB]

Yeah Buddy!

The world is safe now.



CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama said this week that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, has isued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.

"Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon," Obama said.

more... http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...r-ayatollah-khamenei-has-issued-fatwa-against

 

[PoppingTom]

Yeah Buddy!

The world is safe now.

But Netanyahu!

 

[Boxlicker101]

This reminds me of a political cartoon I saw, set in 1937 after Munich. The title was "Britain's New Defense Policy" or something like that. It showed a wall that had a big gap in it. Placed in this gap was a piece of paper with the words "I will be good. Signed: A, Hitler."

Just as Hitler could not be believed, neither can the mullah. The Koran actually obligates Muslims to lie to "infidels" under certain circumstances and this would certainly be one of them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I love all the bluster and bullshit...yet no one is willing to step up and go "YOu know what? Fuck these guys, Iran, Syria and Iraq are all about to become New Texas.

Dear GOP get real or STFU....

 

[1sickbastard]

Apparently, that raving lunatic if the commie atheist left, Pat Buchanan, has pointed out there is no need for the Iranians to build nukes in an op-ed piece published in that great librul media shill outlet, the American Conservative.

So, is he right or just another RINO?

 

[Busybody]

Apparently, that raving lunatic if the commie atheist left, Pat Buchanan, has pointed out there is no need for the Iranians to build nukes in an op-ed piece published in that great librul media shill outlet, the American Conservative.

So, is he right or just another RINO?

then it is Buchanan that is leading Iran and its policies?

 

[Busybody]

KHAMENEI CALLS 'DEATH TO AMERICA'

KERRY HAILS NUKE DEAL PROGESS

Insane

 

[miles]

I want someone to tell me why negotiating with Iran is a good thing. I'll wait.

 

[Busybody]

Apparently, that raving lunatic if the commie atheist left, Pat Buchanan, has pointed out there is no need for the Iranians to build nukes in an op-ed piece published in that great librul media shill outlet, the American Conservative.

So, is he right or just another RINO?

damn good thing you piece of shit have me on "IGGY", this way you can pretend you don't see the questions I ask and don't have to answer

 

[1sickbastard]

I want someone to tell me why negotiating with Iran is a good thing. I'll wait.

Getting the regional players to fuck with each other so we don't have to. Iran v Israel v Turkey v Saudi Arabia is a good thing.
If they're fighting over there then they're not fighting over here, right?

 

[miles]

Getting the regional players to fuck with each other so we don't have to. Iran v Israel v Turkey v Saudi Arabia is a good thing.
If they're fighting over there then they're not fighting over here, right?

Having the only democracy in the ME wiped off the map is a good thing?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Having the only democracy in the ME wiped off the map is a good thing?

If they allow themselves to be wiped off the map at america's beck and call then they don't deserve to exist in the first fuckin' place.

If Israel has a hair on their ass they will finish it before D.C. even knows wtf happened.

It's going to happen too....just a matter of time.

Either way no real hair off our ass's....I mean other than you whackadoodle Zionist on the right who freak the fuck out any time anyone isn't insta sucking Israel off in every way possible. But you can't fix stupid so you're just going to have to deal.

 

[1sickbastard]

Having the only democracy in the ME wiped off the map is a good thing?

Hey, Iran is a democracy. They have opposition parties and everything. They are, in fact, far more a democracy than erstwhile US allies KSA, Baharain, Qatar, Kuwait & Jordan (all of which are monarchies).

Israel is NOT going to be wiped off the map, at least within any reasonable time frame, so you can quit waving your hands and playing chicken little.

The US doesn't need Israel and Israel not the best friend of the US. They are a regional power in a strategic region, but they have their own strategic interests and imperatives that may or may not be the same as the US.

Israel was an important regional ally for the US during the Cold War. In case you missed it, the Cold War ended over twenty years ago. Israel needs the US far, far more than the US needs Israel.

Deal with it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Having the only democracy in the ME wiped off the map is a good thing?

Israel is a democracy for Jews only

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's why their Arab citizens have the right to vote there.

Israel goes out of their way to make voting for Israeli Arab as difficult as possible. The Tea Party here would be envious.

 

[Busybody]

Israel goes out of their way to make voting for Israeli Arab as difficult as possible. The Tea Party here would be envious.

how?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Koran actually obligates Muslims to lie to "infidels" under certain circumstances . . .

That is not true.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's why their Arab citizens have the right to vote there.

It is why the vast majority of Palestinians are not citizens. The Jews don't dare let them vote.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's like saying the vast majority of Mexicans aren't allowed to vote in the United States, no shit they aren't citizens.

The difference is that the vast majority of Mexicans do not live under the rule of the USG. But the vast majority of Palestinians do live under the rule of the Israeli government, in which they have no voice.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Look up “Al-taqiyya.”

I did, years ago.

Taqiyya, or "dissimulation", is a controversial concept within the Islamic faith that some argue allows for a Muslim to conceal their faith if they are living in a culture where openly practicing would threaten their or their family's life. This practice is more common to Shia Islam than Sunni Islam largely due to the historical and recent persecution of the Shi'ites...at the hands of the Sunnis.

Muhammad

Muhammad authorized lying to improve the chances of successful assassinations, for example in the case of Shaaban Ibn Khalid al-Hazly and Bin Kaab. In the following Hadith, Muhammad said that it's permissible to lie to an enemy without specifying any conditions. Note that the concept of lying to conceal one's faith if the person's life is in danger as mentioned above also exists.

"Muhammad said: "Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people (Ahmad, 6.459. H)"

—Muhammad

Requirement

This concept has been seized upon by bigots to suggest that all Muslims are constantly focused on deceiving their neighbors to appear more likable, and then once they've lured you into a false sense of security - *bam* - the old fork in the eye.

The truth of the matter is that the standard for employing Taqiyya is particularly high. For example, during the Spanish Inquisition when Muslims (along with Jews) were tortured by the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada, it would have been permissible for a Muslim to claim to convert to Christianity to avoid torture and death for himself and his family, while continuing to practice his faith in secret. Torquemada rarely fell for such deception, however, and despite the pleas of the accused, the torture would continue. Face it, you can't Torquemada anything.

Note that some Muslim apologists, including some Imams, do use factually incorrect statements (*not* Taqiyya) to advance or defend their faith in a manner similar to Lying for Jesus.

Controversy

The concept is controversial within Islam mainly because it suggests that Muslims should fear the wrath of man more than the wrath of God, whereas the Qur'an teaches that death in the service of one's faith (as in the case of refusing to renounce one's faith even when faced with death) is a highly honorable act, and practically guarantees one's entry into Paradise. Muslim theology generally makes strong distinctions between acts that are forbidden, acceptable, and praiseworthy, so while dying in the service of Islam may be seen as praiseworthy, invoking taqiyya to avoid death could be seen as falling under the "acceptable" category.

Outside of the Muslim community, taqiyya is frequently cited by Islamophobes as evidence that Muslims who aren't extremists are merely lying about their theology. This is an example of Morton's fork - if they display extremist beliefs, then they're obviously extremists, where if they reject extremist beliefs, they're just lying to get you to trust them. As such, any statement - or even actions - by Muslims that is not in line with the idea that all Muslims are murderous fanatics can be safely discarded.