So it's fine to tape bombs around teenagers and children because they are defending themselves? I agree with Bear on this take, no way I'd do that to one of my kids and claim it was for the defence of my nation.
Iran children - taught to HATE
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
So it's fine to tape bombs around teenagers and children because they are defending themselves? I agree with Bear on this take, no way I'd do that to one of my kids and claim it was for the defence of my nation.
Better sit down..I fully agree with what you wrote. Using children as human bombs is not only beyond the pale, it is morally bankrupt. And further, it is the action of a coward who would send a boy to do a man's job.
Stop it sanctus!!!
Don't make me like you!!!
LOL, just kidding, I don't mind you, just your faith, lol.
And I'd say the same!(heh heh) But I fully expect to hook up with you one day for that promised fishing trip
(I'll leave the cassock at home)
With complete backing of the Catholic Church. To the chagrin of the US and it's allies, the Iranian's rights to nuclear weapons
is paramount if it is to provide an effective deterrent against it's hostile neighbours. The Church recognizes by this rule that the magnitude of evils and disorders that can be applied to Iran is in the form of nuclear weapons, then to counter such effective weapons it would require the same, but not greater. Poland in WW2 is a prime example of not heeding the advice of the Church, which incidently finds reasoning in ancient books of war.
Catechism 2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
As a sidenote on the misuse of children. The wonderful story of the birth of the US in the war of independance has it's own dark side as well. It was a military strategy by both sides to mutilate children in retaliation for families that were decimated. Trying to find sanity in the workings of war is ludicrous.
AndyF
Not all Catholics support Just War-there are millions of Catholic pacisfists. Furthermore, the Pope has preached against war with Iran...as late as a few days ago in one of his addresses.
I think we touched on this issue in another thread. I have no opinion for or against the point on pacifism, but I find it strange and ironic that some can claim full concordance with the views of the Church, while advancing their personal views. To review, every Catholic must agree to the decisions of the Magisterium, therefore the Catholic's opinion always mirrors that of the Church's. There is no other option. FWIW: Among the Catholics, (and I find this very uncharitable), the common term for these borderline people is Cafeteria Catholics.
To offer my view on why this occurs, I think it has to do with the proximity to other religions that do allow every member to advance his own version of doctrine for his church. The Catholic feels incorrectly that he has the same option. That being said, I hold no delusions as to my state. I myself admittedly have my own misgivings about some of the things that it teaches, which some would find makes me a poor example of a devout Catholic. :sad10:
That would be in keeping with his mandate and I concur.
AndyF
Now take you head out of your a** and do some of your own research before you spout your biased agenda again.......
Look again and you will find that the source you used is Israeli-Zionist and that its teachings there are all distortions. If you look at wikipedia you will find that Jihadists are known in their language as Salafists and are Sunni, not Shiia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi
- Some Salafis believe that violent jihad is permissible against foreign, non-Muslim, occupation, but not against governments that claim to be Islamic. Those governments are to be reformed, not violently overthrown. Civil war (fitna) is to be avoided. (Salman al-Auda)
- Other Salafis (sometimes called Jihadist-Salafists) believe that it is permissible, even required, for believers to engage in violent jihad to overthrow oppressive regimes, even if they claim to be Islamic. One of the most famous proponents for violence, (or "physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system") [13] was Sayyed Qutb, an Egyptian member of the Muslim Brotherhood. After (an alleged) plot to assassinate Egyptian president Nasser was uncovered, the Brotherhood was suppressed and Qutb imprisoned. There he wrote a short manifesto on political Islam called Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq or Milestones. This book, along with his Tafsir, were widely read, and had a strong influence on various Islamist or jihadi movements. Hence these Muslims are sometimes called Qutbis. Dr. Abdullah Azzam is also said to be a proponent of violent jihad.
[edit] Saudi Arabia
Some Salafis support the government; others distance themselves from it, or oppose it.
- Prominent pro-government Saudi scholars include Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen (both now deceased), Ibn Humaid, and Rabi' al-Madkhali.
- Some Salafis believe that most majority-Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, have strayed and that the only answer to the plight of Muslims today is Jihad. Osama bin Laden is a prominent example of a Salafi Saudi Muslim who has gone from supporting the Saudi regime to violently opposing it.
[edit] Saudi Arabia
- Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703 C.E. - 1792 C.E.)
- Advocate of a return to a puritanical view of Islamic theology
- Author of Kitab at-Tawheed (Book on Islamic Monotheism) that explains Islamic Monotheism and those things that contradict it
- Abdul 'Azeez ibn Abdullaah ibn Baaz (1909 C.E. - 1999 C.E.)
- Former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia
- Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen (1925 C.E. - 2001 C.E.)
- Scholar of fiqh and authored over fifty books on the subject
- Wrote an explanation of ibn Taymiyyah's al-Aqeedat Al-Hamawiyyah and al-Aqeedat Al-Waasittiyah
- Abdullah Azzam (1941 C.E. - 1989 C.E.)
- Wrote books against Nationalism and Socialism
- Time Magazine wrote about him: "He was responsible for reviving Jihad in the 20th Century"
As you can see these are all Arab Sunni sources. The Iranian Shiia do not use suicide bombings as do the fanatical Wahhabis of the extremist Sunni sect.
Last edited:
What utter insanity -- I haven't even answered your posts, did not reference you at all in any post and did not mention your name at all in any recent post. In fact, I have been ignoring your crazed posts and pointed out your provocations to the mods.
Show me where I specifically refered to you by those names.
Again, you need to grasp reality and to stop pretending that people are against you. It is indicative of paranoia and of a weak mind.
The Islamic Jihad is running a summer school - to teach boys the benefits of becoming suicide bombers.
A new generation of children, Palestinian boys aged between 12 and 15 years old, is growing up amid conflict and violence.
Key: "Palestinian boys", not Iranians.
A new generation of children, Palestinian boys aged between 12 and 15 years old, is growing up amid conflict and violence.
Key: "Palestinian boys", not Iranians.
For those who still insist that it is Iran that is the biggest threat to world peace, your views are totally out of touch with reality and with the following people:
Home >> World
UPDATED: 08:53, November 04, 2006 U.S. a threat to world peace: poll
printResizeButton();
The United States was regarded as a threat to world peace by its neighbors and allies, according to an opinion poll published by the Guardian newspaper on Friday.
The poll was carried out by the Guardian in Britain and other leading newspapers in Israel, Canada and Mexico, using professional local opinion polling in each country.
According to the poll, in Britain, 69 percent of those questioned believed U.S. policy had made the world less safe since 2001. In Canada and Mexico, America's immediate northern and southern neighbors, 62 percent of Canadians and 57 percent of Mexicans said the world had become more dangerous because of U.S. policy.
As for Israel, the U.S. strong ally in the Middle East, support for the United States has fallen. Only one in four Israelis polled said U.S. President George W. Bush had made the world safer, while 36 percent thought he had added to the risk of international conflict.
The poll showed that those in Britain, Canada and Mexico surveyed overwhelmingly rejected the decision to invade Iraq. Only in Israel, 59 percent of the surveyed supported the war and 34 percent were against.
Some 71 percent of Britons said the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89 percent of Mexicans and 73 percent of Canadians.
In Britain, 1,010 adults were interviewed by telephone on Oct. 27-30. A total of 1,078 people were asked in Israel, 1,007 in Canada and 1,010 in Mexico.
Source: Xinhua
Note that the MAJORITY of Canadians agree with this consensus.:read2:
Home >> World
UPDATED: 08:53, November 04, 2006 U.S. a threat to world peace: poll
The United States was regarded as a threat to world peace by its neighbors and allies, according to an opinion poll published by the Guardian newspaper on Friday.
The poll was carried out by the Guardian in Britain and other leading newspapers in Israel, Canada and Mexico, using professional local opinion polling in each country.
According to the poll, in Britain, 69 percent of those questioned believed U.S. policy had made the world less safe since 2001. In Canada and Mexico, America's immediate northern and southern neighbors, 62 percent of Canadians and 57 percent of Mexicans said the world had become more dangerous because of U.S. policy.
As for Israel, the U.S. strong ally in the Middle East, support for the United States has fallen. Only one in four Israelis polled said U.S. President George W. Bush had made the world safer, while 36 percent thought he had added to the risk of international conflict.
The poll showed that those in Britain, Canada and Mexico surveyed overwhelmingly rejected the decision to invade Iraq. Only in Israel, 59 percent of the surveyed supported the war and 34 percent were against.
Some 71 percent of Britons said the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89 percent of Mexicans and 73 percent of Canadians.
In Britain, 1,010 adults were interviewed by telephone on Oct. 27-30. A total of 1,078 people were asked in Israel, 1,007 in Canada and 1,010 in Mexico.
Source: Xinhua
Note that the MAJORITY of Canadians agree with this consensus.:read2:
Gopher, polls are interesting, but given I've never been interviewed for one, and having known several people over the years who 'worked' for polling agencies, i've never really given them much attention. But I read a helluva lot. There are lots of fingers pointing in the press. Iran is definitely the country to watch at the moment. If debacle comes to the Mid-East it will have an Iranian address.
``If debacle comes to the Mid-East it will have an Iranian address.``
I won't twist your arm. But it seems to me that the debacle has arrived and that it began thanks to Bush, not because of Shiia Iran.
I won't twist your arm. But it seems to me that the debacle has arrived and that it began thanks to Bush, not because of Shiia Iran.
When I tried to log on to Establish Ershad I got this:
"Firefox can't find the server at www.esteshhad.com."
This is likely because the web site that lists it is "regimechangeiniran" which is a MEK web site.
MEK is a TERRORIST group that opposes the Shiia government in Iran.
Here's some news about the leftist (yes, LEFTIST) MEK:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm
quote:
MEK was founded in the 1960s by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists opposed to the country’s pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Although the group took part in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the shah with a Shiite Islamist regime, MEK’s ideology, a blend of Marxism and Islamism, put it at odds with the postrevolutionary government. In 1981, the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border and resettled in Paris, where it began supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini’s Iran. In 1986, MEK moved its headquarters to Iraq where it received its primary support to attack the regime in Iran. During the 2003 Iraq war, U.S. forces cracked down on MEK’s bases in Iraq, and in June 2003 French authorities raided an MEK compound outside Paris and arrested 160 people, including Maryam Rajavi.
Activities
The group has targeted Iranian government officials and government facilities in Iran and abroad; during the 1970s, it attacked Americans in Iran. While the group says it does not intentionally target civilians, it has often risked civilian casualties. It routinely aims its attacks at government buildings in crowded cities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you paying attention Colpy? When your Islamophobic pals use Zionist and terrorist sources to define certain groups, you get a distorted picture. :evil3:
"Firefox can't find the server at www.esteshhad.com."
This is likely because the web site that lists it is "regimechangeiniran" which is a MEK web site.
MEK is a TERRORIST group that opposes the Shiia government in Iran.
Here's some news about the leftist (yes, LEFTIST) MEK:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm
quote:
MEK was founded in the 1960s by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists opposed to the country’s pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Although the group took part in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the shah with a Shiite Islamist regime, MEK’s ideology, a blend of Marxism and Islamism, put it at odds with the postrevolutionary government. In 1981, the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border and resettled in Paris, where it began supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini’s Iran. In 1986, MEK moved its headquarters to Iraq where it received its primary support to attack the regime in Iran. During the 2003 Iraq war, U.S. forces cracked down on MEK’s bases in Iraq, and in June 2003 French authorities raided an MEK compound outside Paris and arrested 160 people, including Maryam Rajavi.
Activities
The group has targeted Iranian government officials and government facilities in Iran and abroad; during the 1970s, it attacked Americans in Iran. While the group says it does not intentionally target civilians, it has often risked civilian casualties. It routinely aims its attacks at government buildings in crowded cities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you paying attention Colpy? When your Islamophobic pals use Zionist and terrorist sources to define certain groups, you get a distorted picture. :evil3:
Here you are calling a fellow member stupid..
Here you are saying us members have limited ingenuity...
Give the self righteous BS a rest, you know you have on many ocassions. Your selective memory is as flawed as your grasp of reality, your hypocracy is only matched by your childish behavour. I just showed you twice attacking someone else in this thread. It isn't that much of a stretch to gather that I wouldn't be immune to your childishness. But hey, don't let reality stand in your way or anything.
I only quoted this part, to let you know, no one here has claimed this. This thread is about Iran teaching their children to be jihadists, which I have already proven. Trying to hijack the thread, to devert attention away from that fact won't work.
I have proven that Iran is teaching its kids to be jihadists, so just give up gopher. You're backing the wrong team.
Last edited:
No Gopher.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad was inspired by, and continues to be financed by the Iranians.
They are, like hezbollah, an arm of Iranian and Syrian foreign policy.
the Iranians are not innocent here.
But wasn't it just a few years back that this charge was laid against Iraq? I think I recall such accounts in the news anyway.So after Iran, who be be the new victim? India?
A book called History of Iran and the World says: “England chose various means, beginning with deceit and ending in murder and massacre, until they eventually took control over India.”
But more to the point of the thread. England's whole industrial base beginning in the late 1800's was built on the backs of children working the mills,mines and the most hazardous jobs under appaling health conditions.
No sympathy found for them in parliament then and this went on for decades, even when one thinks at the least the first year should have allowed enough time for a collective conscience to take hold. The hypocracy runs rampant.
Andyf
Colpy said:
PLJ is Sunni and Iranians would hardly be involved in arming their own enemies. Yes, Zionist and anti-Iranian dissenters have posted articles on the internet which pretend that the ayatollahs have suddenly made Sunnis into their allies but nobody in Iran acknowledges that. You have allowed yourself to be persuaded by the same people who said that Saddam was an agent of al-Qaeda which as you know was thoroughly discredited. But if you continue to insist on believing those lies, so be it. There's no further use in discussing it.