Posted on 04/11/2010 9:33:03 AM PDT by Velveeta
Obama amputates our nuclear arms
By: Charles Krauthammer
...snippet...
Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” explained Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”
Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)
However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.
This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets hanged or 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.
Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the United States without fear of nuclear retaliation?
The naivete is stunning.
Image by Cool Text
In case you have not seen or have missed this excellent analysis!
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2011/08/islam-and-golden-rule.html
Excellent! .................. FRegards
Some gave up “the superficial for the essential”.
Others gave up “the essential for the superficial”.
I suspect the 2nd is more true for most supposedly ‘ethical’ people, nowadays.
As for Obi, he doesn’t count at all; though one could ask his ego.
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the heads up!
Dual article look at infiltration from FBI and Islamic lobbying links from Frank Gaffney. Very informative.
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2011/08/white-house-infiltrated-by-moslem.html
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks. Interesting comments indeed.
I agree w/ posters “Viiit” & “Mme. Haram” on that site. Particularly regarding “Mob/grp mentality vs. Individual moslems” & why moslems, largely, aren’t able to establish what we know as freedoms & democracy, in majority moslem countries. Unless it is forced & is continuously kept in check (e.g. secular Turkey where Ataturk wanted to cement the concept & practice of secularism & democracy). Even then, they tend to resist it & actively try to find ways around it.
Also, the comparison w/ the Russians (by poster “Viiit”) is spot on. For the Russians it is primarily a cultural matter. For Moslems it is cultural, but also, strongly, a theological matter.
Individualism is not only shunned in Islam, but also punished; so is “critical thinking” outside the original & core Islamic doctrine. IOW, thinking & doing outside those well established, defined & *Mandated* Islamic boundaries are forbidden. Islam is an extremely *prescriptive* ideology (religion) or whatever you may call it. Equally, the primary emphasis in Islam is not on ethics; it is on morals.
Btw, ethics & critical thinking didn’t come about in Judeo-Christian belief system. Nor w/ Greek philosophers such as “Aristotelian logic” (or other, more modern by comparison, cause & effect theories). They came about a long time before their time in history. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2717607/posts?page=44#44
One more thing: Islam has its ‘spiritual’ dimension. But, Islam is politics. There has been very little distinction by moslems, even Mohammad, himself, between the political dimension vs other aspects of Islam. They’ve always been intertwined. Mohammad, himself, for a large part of his life, was a soldier & a political leader/ruler.
It is mostly us, in the West, who insist on differentiating between political & spiritual Islam. They, in the ME, largely, don’t.
A very clear & detailed analysis of the concept of ‘dualism’ & ‘ethics’ in the Zoroastrian faith.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/dualism.htm
Thanks for the pings. The information flow is helpful. Learning much more than can digest, so taking all the information provided and rereading nearly everyday has become a necessity. Not saying can keep up though.
Hope Irene didn’t affect you guys too much in NJ.
“Spiritual Islam” is not Islam per se (i.e. by itself). “Spiritual Islam” has borrowed (plagiarized) much from preceding religions in a “spiritual” sense. Islam, after all, is, relatively in history, a new Abrahamic religion. Though, non-Abrahamic ones, older religions, also, influenced its development. Religions or belief systems evolve. More so for those who were desert, tent dwelling, bedouin Arab tribes (Mohammad being one such person & ruler). Not much of their own in theology; but much of their own culture, to bring to the ‘new (Islam) religion’.
Suggest reading previous links in tandem:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2717607/posts?page=44#44
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/dualism.htm
#2561 OUTSTANDING, FARS. Thank you.
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.
Fislam
It is mostly us, in the West, who insist on differentiating between political & spiritual Islam. They, in the ME, largely, don’t.
And be pardoned as we are asked to do with islam? To override, disregard our beliefs and acceptable norms to suit them? To accomodate them and their barbaric, dark age positions? Like forcing implementation or permitting the harsh Old Testament customs and mores in this modern day and age!
The closest similarity in Western religion might be the brutal “auto de fe” Jesuits of the 15th century (or was it earlier?)! I am not a historical theologian but well read enough though my memory does fail me from time to time.
No matter, we have lots of experts on FR, including Michael the Archangel who was responsible for an article on the “Origin of Allah” which we translated into Farsi.
http://farsiposts.blogspot.com/2007/07/blog-post.html (Farsi link)
http://alanpetersnewsbriefs.blogspot.com/2007/04/allah-origins.html (English link).
Would you agree to now introduce the old Jesuit narrow minded torture, horrible executions - quite similar to Islam’s, and terrible behavior against humanity, into the Western world as part of Catholicism? And allow a cult that practised them as their religion and a place in our society?
No, Odds, I know YOU would not but that is the closest comparison I can find to Islam’s insistence and your comment, which tangentally leads to this as a possible conclusion. So I am airing it for discussion.
But, good FRiend: does this not then invalidate Islam as a RELIGION by standards of virtually all other major religions as practised today - except Islam - which insists the TEMPORAL political, legal and social sides of their lethal beliefs are as important - if not more so than Allah? And Allah or his Archangel is simply the enabler of a brutal thought process and mind set made up in Allah’s name by a savage nomadic “robber baron”??
Found this afterthought posted by Alan
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2007/07/origins-of-allah-in-farsi-on.html
If you do a search of “origin of Allah” on AntiMullah.com there seems to be huge depth of articles over the years that seem more related to islam and terror than the word Allah.
Check it out if you are interested and have the time to enjoy. None as erudite as the one provided by the ArchAngel (smile).
Regarding the Inquisition. I read a book about it last year (couldn’t find it just now) but I think that the Inquisition went on for more than 4 Centuries. It runs from the Albigensian Heracy in the 1200s and continued into the 1700s, although it was weakening by then. In the 1300s and 1400s when Spain was trying to get rid of the Jews and Moors, it was particularly strong. Denunciations were often made in an effort to steal property of the victims. In the 1500s it was strongly used against Conversos (Jews who had converted to Catholicism) especially those who were envied for property or position.
Question: You talk about female infanticide in India. Wouldn’t that involve a lot of Hindus, not just Muslims? After all, Suttee, the practice of burning wives with their husband’s corpses was a Hindu practice. Also many female fetuses are currently being aborted in India.
The really bad thing for the Muslim religion is that it has been hijacked by two very conservative and punitive mullahs. One I think in the 1200s whose name escapes me and the one in the 17th century called Wahabism which the Saudis are now financing and spreading all over the Arab world. This form is macho desert tribalism at its worst. Islam is 4 centuries behind Christianity in having a Reformation, which it badly needs if Islamic countries are to survive this century.
it does and doesn't -- sufi'ism is milder than Wahabiism, but both are cancers.
infanticide in India is not cultural or religious but social -- a removal of this (as is happening now) does not affect Hinduism or any of the various Indic cultures
Islam is not a culture per se but rather an all-encompassing doctrine -- it governs every thing you do and say and read and even see. To compare this to Russian culture as the link does is just silly. to compare it to Indian cultures is also incorrect.
As odds correctly states "individualism is not only shunned in Islam but also punished" --> to follow Islamic banking is to shut down anything beyond trading and subsistence farming (which is what Mohammed knew about)
All great reading (this discussion). Thanks for the ping. Have nothing to add at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.