Seastallion

Fantastic speech, highlighting a courageous leader who is willing to call a spade a spade and really exposing Barack Obama as a spineless worm who is unwilling to confront radical Islam in any form.

Bibi highlighted the fact that the Iranians have been killing Americans for decades. Obama is clutching at straws. After 6 years of a failed presidency he desperately wants something to show for it, even a bad deal that gives away the store.

The most important takeaway was this: Israel is prepared to go it alone if necessary. Bravo Mr Prime Minister.

One thing is for certain. The deal that Obama is currently working on will ensure a nuclear armed Iran and is a horrendous mistake from which we can never recover.

And how many Palestinians has this nut killed? And you buy his story lock stock and barrel. Don't forget it was Israeli intelligence that told Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. How many times do you need to be suckered?

And it was Netanyahu a few years ago that stood in front of them and stated unequivocally that Iran would have the bomb by 2011.

Sucker is not the right word.

"We are better off without it (the deal)".

Typical weasel words from Netanyahu. He addresses the US Congress, saying "we", sounding inclusive, but he really means "We, Israel".

Ok, YOU think YOUR country is better off, but what's that got to do with the US tax payer?

Nepotism should be curtailed. Let the positions be advertised and the qualifications of the applicants be on record. You can hire your nephew, BUT it has to be shown that he was the most suitable for the job.

This OP, while making a few thoughtful though incorrect musings based on apologists, comes no where close to actually saying anything useful at all. Really. There is simply nothing useful in this post for which a person could chew on it all day, discuss it later with friends, or get a good night's sleep considering some astute point- there are none!

The list is pretty long on where the OP can be indicted in a bill of complaint but lets just look at a few:

The group itself, DAESH/IS has not assumed the mantle of Islam's earliest years. IS looks exactly like Islam has looked at nearly every other single time in history since 632. The insinuation that this is a throwback is a boldfaced lie.

If attempting to recreate the life, conquest, and vision of the prophet, whether successful in part of whole, is called virulent by this OP, this should offend all muslims as emulating the Doctrine of the Perfect Man is the goal of every single muslim. "In reality" is a concession that all of what you will read will be biased and half truth because no where by this portion of the essay has this OP demonstrated by what authority it's command of reality should be taken as real and others relegated to derision and mockery. When one sees such words, know you are being lied to.

"Plucking sections" from the Koran, as expressed in this pejorative, demonstrates how academically retarded the author really is. Any rationale manner in which the Koran can be read would have any person plucking sections. You see, the Koran is not in chronological order it is in the size of the Sura, and the size of the Suras do not necessarily reflect the three prime stages of nascent Islam, Mecca, Medina, Mecca, and the companions and prophet's life. Moreoever, sections which appear earlier in time, though not necessarily sooner in the Koran, may will be abrogated by later passages, which may or may not come sooner, that subsume the earlier passages and its authority. To suggest then that "plucking" from the Koran is vile or mischief work reveals the bankruptcy of the OP. Taking material from any one of centuries of traditions does not an argument make; under islamic jurisprudence once an issue is deliberated and done so rightly it cannot be revisited; the implication that IS cherry picks differing ages for conflicting references to buttress their fallacious claim to authority is a blatant lie!

It is assumed by the first paragraph that the author has evidence previous caliphates were less brutal, not brutal, and by that manner this caliphate is labeled brutal? This is the only reasonable inference, and if not true, the statement should be retracted.

Since the world is full of those like me who await this "vast majority" of moderates, and the OP seems to be citing them, I then respond "Who?" "Where/who are they?" I think only two people are mentioned. When two unwise or even learned men are gathered you have twice as much of whatever they mostly are, but you do not thus have a "vast majority." What vast majority says there is cherry picking? Since the topic at issue is so academic yet infinitely topical and accessible it cannot be too much to ask which suras are cherry picked? Which Ahadith are cherry picked? What do they really mean? Who says they really mean that? What does IS says it means? How has it been referenced and used historically? For each of these questions, should one take only one example each, it would have filled half the space of this silly OP and actually proved something; this OP does not do that nor does it achieve anything but further confirm that apologists are actually not even knowledgeable. "...ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say." What experts? We have been introduced to none. A few persons are mentioned later with regard to something very specific but the vast majority still remains elusive while the OP drivels down the chin.

The OP knows nothing about islam; it is patently obvious if not unintentionally conceded. Islamic youth are not drawn to IS because they look like... they are drawn to IS because IS is executing that which is incumbent upon all of muslims, al-insan al-kamil.

I will stop here. Nearly every line of this OP is garbage. The OP argument is simply not made to support first the lies that are told in intro, and later justified by slipping in a few scholars who then comment on other things, and to later conclude with no real logic that IS does not represent Islam. PS, there is no history of deconceptualized exegesis from koranic and ahadith lore in the previous eons- all who may have tried would have been put to death and the papers burned (so, here again, show me a source). The mere notion deconceptualizing is contemporary; Islam never needed reference or context. It was always patently clear and would forever remain so- the prophet, the 7th century, the desert, the sword, etc., shall always be the context- period! Whoever wrote this OP should return to logic 101, then take an islamic primer, and then English 102.

"The Islamic State is very Islamic..." The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

If you were arguing against Obama's statements, I would have to say, well, maybe you do know better than his advisers. Possible.

But since you are also contradicting "most mainstream clerics", professors and assistant professors of Islamic studies and Islamic law, various sheiks et al, experts all, I would have to now think that everything that you have ever written on the subject must be in doubt.

Whereas you, alone amongst members here, seemed to actually know what you were talking about, albeit from a radical sensationalist POV, now that I see you reject the experts, I can't entertain your view as a valid opinion any more.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Not really. Same -same. alt=whistling.gif>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

The Nash Equilibrium you linked to...EXACTLY why Iran should have nukes.

No one should have nukes. The control of those weapons of mass destruction cannot be in the hands of a few idiots.

I agree.

But while those that have them will never relinquish them, especially rogue states like N.Korea and Israel that don't sign up to treaties, then everybody should have them.

Israel is maybe worse than N. Korea, what with it's Samson principle, thus Iran in particular should be armed.

Not really. Same -same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

The Nash Equilibrium you linked to...EXACTLY why Iran should have nukes.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

So you advocate even harsher collective punishment on the Iranian people so that Israel gets what it wants?

You should stop trying to put words in the mouth of other posters.

It is not sanitary and is, quite frankly, rather stupid.

I spent five years of my life in Iran and had many good Iranian friends.

How about you?

So what does "tighten the screws" mean, and how will tightening the screws affect the populace, including your friends?

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

So you advocate even harsher collective punishment on the Iranian people so that Israel gets what it wants?