9.18.2005
Iran Prepared to Share Nuclear Ability
Iran recently re-opened its nuclear research program (see my earlier article here). Now, they have declared that they are ready to share this nuclear ability with other impoverished nations!
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated promises that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."
Due to their need? The only need that these nations have is to jihad against Americans. I wouldn't trust Iran or any other Middle Eastern country (barring Israel, of course) with nukes or any other nuclear ability for a single minute, let alone decades!
To read the full article from CBS, click here.
In Him,
D3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Take it easy, MVB. Although what you pointed out was all technically true, it came across as somewhat haughty. Do be careful; we are to "speak the truth in love." The enemy is fundamental Islam, not Song. Don't say things like this:
You obviously weren't affected very much. You would still give the terrorists the access to these weapons, with the idea that they might not want to destroy us Christians! Did the terrorists on the trains have mercy? . . . And you would be willing to give them the chance to do it again!!!!
there are people like you in the world who would give the terrorists nuclear weapons.
That is insensitive and downright rude, I'm sorry to say.
Basically, this is the crux of the matter:
The majority of the Muslims in the Middle East are conservatives. They pray 5X a day, make their little pilgrimage, etc., and hope they can get into heaven. They openly rejoice whenever a terrorist bombing occurs. Many give financial support to terrorist entities.
Muslims are not guaranteed their salvation. One of Muhammud's closest friends said that "Even if I had one foot in Paradise, I would not trust to the cunning of Allah." Muhammud himself did not know for sure whether he would "make it".
The only way for a Muslim to be sure he will get to Paradise is to die while killing the infidel. If they succeed in this, all past history of failures and mistakes is glossed over, and they are ushered into heaven where their 70+ virgin wives await them ASAP. Such are the so-called "fundamentalist" Muslims, who make up a larger percentage than you might think.
Many Muslims do not follow the Koran to the letter out of convenience' sake. They figure that they have more than a 50% chance without going on a terrorist mission, so they shoot for the easy way. However, if there is any open demonstration against the "infidel", these conservatives will quickly become radicals.
Obviously, a nuclear holocaust is the very first thing that radical Muslims want!
The more conservative Muslims who hold high office in Iran pay lip service out of one end of their forked tongues to us, and meanwhile hand weapons and funding to terrorist groups who are willing to do the "dirty work".
Song said that "Iran says it's only planning to use the nuclear technology for the purpose of energy." Sure. Then why, when offered an annual supply of pre-manufactured nuclear fuel, did Iran refuse? The US and Great Britain offered to supply lower-grade nuclear fuel free of charge. But Iran had to have the higher-grade stuff . . . capable of making bombs.
But the Middle Eastern countries aren't making the same sort of a fuss about that as the US is over them getting the ability to use nuclear energy...
Of course they aren't! If you are a member of a gang set on overthrowing the U.S. government, you aren't upset when one of your members gets a shipment of Uzis!
I think that there is something to be said for giving people the benefit of doubt and second chances...
Our military had Bin Laden, a known terrorist, in the sights of a cruise missile. Clinton decided to give him "one more chance". Look what happened. You simply cannot trust anyone with ties to extremist Muslims!
Frankly, they've got enough problems with their neighbours.
They've got enough problems with one neighbor: Israel. Sure, Saddam launched attacks on the Kurds because he was an extreme egotist. Besides, he may have given Islam lip service, but he claimed to be on a level with King Nebechadnezzar of antiquity, and approved a temple to him to be constructed.
And it's because they have a problem with Israel (it goes all the way back to Genesis, folks) that they have a very real problem with us.
As for 'swearing to destroy them' -the action of supporting a country hostile to them (Israel) could be interpreted as hostile.
Israel is not hostile to the Muslims. They offend the Muslims simply by existing! Islam teaches that the Jews were turned into pigs and monkeys because they were so vile. Muslims will not stop attacking Israel until it is pushed into the sea.
The US then should be willing to disarm completly rather than complain about other countries feeling threatened and therefore wanting the weapons.
Maybe if I set an example by destroying my handgun (hypothetical), the criminals will follow the example and do the same, but I don't think so.
If Iran has nuclear weapons, the knowledge that using them would cause a nuclear holocaust might keep the conservatives from using them in an all-out attempt to destroy the U.S. and Israel. However, if the fundamentalist faction got their hands on some nukes, they wouldn't hesistate to start making plans for a full-scale attack.
Therefore, anyone can see that it is in our best interest to keep nukes out of Islamic hands and in our own.
To quote Teddy, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
If we carry the stick and make sure no one who hates us has one, maybe we won't need to use it.
You are tarring every single Muslim with the same brush -
Actually, no. Muslims in the U.S. and Europe are such only by culture, ancestry, and perhaps some limited faith.
For Muslims in Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, Islam is the only way of life.
Secular Islam (U.S. and Great Britian) laments or is indifferent when a terrorist suicide bombing takes place.
Conservative Islam (The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. and a good percentage of the populace) rejoices at suicide bombings, and passes money/more weapons under the table to:
Legalistic Islam (a sizeable percentage of the populace), which gleefully rejoices and plans a follow-up attack.
You say this and yet the attitude that you present implies a hatred of them -
I don't hate Muslims. I want each and every one to come to the saving knowledge of Christ.
However, I am afraid of Islam! There is a lie that is being perpetrated: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
The truth is that the thing we have to fear is not being afraid! I personally would not enjoy radiation sickness and a nuclear holocaust, so I will do anything I can to prevent it!
God says to love your ennemies even when they hate you.
True, we must love our enemies. That doesn't mean that we should glibly stand by while they prepare to blow us up!
At the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples that before that time, they had been free to preach the gospel without protection. But now, He said, they needed to buy swords to protect themselves.
Put it this way. I love my enemies, so I want them to live long enough to accept Christ. If I allow them to trigger a nuclear holocaust, they will not live very long. Therefore, I want to keep nukes out of their hands so that everyone will stay alive.
War only ever produces more war, never peace. You can't fight someone who doesn't fight back.
Saying that radical Islam "doesn't fight back" would be highly offensive to my former next-door neighbor. He was on special assignment in Iraq when members of the Republican Guard gunned him down. Not content with wounding him, they stuck the barrels of their AKs under his bulletproof vest and filled his chest with lead until his troops were able to rescue him. Thankfully, he survived. But don't say that Muslims "don't fight back".
Saddam had WMDs, but it is pretty easy to hide them when worldwide TV is focused on the weapons inspectors and their every move. After Saddam's past actions, it would have been foolish in the first degree to give him "a second chance".
I would want the whole world to disarm - the nuclear weapon is one of the most stupid things humanity has produced. The nearest to good it's ever done is shorten the war in Japan.
Shorten? Do you know how many lives were saved by dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If we had been forced to work our way across the Pacific, island by island, Iwo Jima style, the loss of life on both sides would be deafening.
The information on nuclear ability should be deleted from the world
How are ya gonna do that? The system of uranium enrichment has been released to the general public. All I need to build a few nukes is a few thousand acres of land and a couple million bucks.
- but someone has to take the step.
If the U.S. disarmed, it would not magically make everyone else do the same. Rather, it would send a message to the terrorists that now that can attack us with immunity because we cannot return fire!
Pride! One of the biggest failings of mankind! Also Iran would then be dependant on others for that - on countries that don't get allow with them that well. (cf Trojan Horse!)
We also begged them to do a "soft-water" project which would yield a comparable amount of energy but could not be used to make a nuke. Did they? No. They had to have that high-power fuel . . . it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out why.
any faith has the ability to cement a group of people together.
Yup. The 9-11 hijackers were cemented together by their faith in Allah. Unity and sincerity do not necessarily a good thing make.
the basics principles of Islam do not condone terrorism.
I would disagree. I don't have time to type out the verses in the Koran that clearly encourage terrorism, but I'll give you a basic overview:
When Muhummad tried to share Islam as a spin-off of Christianity to the Jews and Christians in his area, he couched it in friendly terms. Thus the occasional "peace and love" verses in the beginning of the Koran.
However, he was met with sharp criticism and his many inconsistencies were pointed out. After that, he abandoned peace and love and moved into jihad mode.
A former professor at Al-Azar University in Cairo, Dr. Mark Gabriel (real name not given to protect him since his head is being hunted by the Muslims he forsook for Christianity) said in one of his books that Muslims interpret the Koran based on which revelation comes latest. Therefore, the Koran must be accepted based on the later, jihad verses rather than the "peace and love" verses.
Tell me how you can tell what the Muslim in the streets of Iran and Saudi really thinks?
Because Dr. Mark Gabriel who I spoke of before was arrested by the Egyptian police and tortured when he casually asked whether the Koran was really the word of God. Read the testimonies of hundreds of Christians at VOM about how the populace stormed their homes with automatic weapons because they held a church service.
- but I don't think that bombing their countries is a very good way to reach out to them.
I don't want to bomb their countries. I want to keep them from bombing us!
"True, we must love our enemies. That doesn't mean that we should glibly stand by while they prepare to blow us up!"
Jesus did.
I agree. Jesus was led "as a lamb to the slaughter, He opened not his mouth." But Jesus was called to die for the salvation of the whole world!
We aren't. Rather, we as Christians are called to preach the gospel: "Go into all the world and teach the good news, baptizing them . . . etc." We can't do that very well during a nuclear holocaust, which is why we have to keep nukes out of the hands of those who would use them to everyone's detriment!
". . . Jesus told his disciples that before that time, they had been free to preach the gospel without protection. But now, He said, they needed to buy swords. . . ."
Where?
Luke 22:36-38.
In Matthew 26 51-54, one of the disciples try to fight and Jesus tells him off - "For all who draw the sword will die [by] the sword." (v52)
Therefore I'd rather not draw 'the sword' - the teaching doesn't just apply to that disciple.
Read verse 54: "But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
Jesus came to die. We have come to live for Christ and die for Christ if necessary, not to die for the sins of the world. If we are going to share the gospel, we might need to stay alive.
In respect to Japan - either way many would have died and killing is always wrong, even if it means killing less people.
So I guess we should have just surrendered to Japan?
- but you can still wish it was possible.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride . . . sorry, that's an old quote from my mom.
Considering the knowledge is so easily available, you can't complain if someone you don't like finds it.
It's not that I don't like them. They just don't like me!
If a man swears that he will pick up a gun lying on the ground and shoot me, I will do my best to:
A. Get the gun first.
B. Point my gun at him and tell him I'll shoot if he picks the one on the ground up.
Either way, I won't drop my little Glock into a manhole and tell him to blast away.
The US doesn't need the nukes to respond to terrorism -
I agree. We need them to respond to the threat of nuclear warfare. I don't need a Glock to respond to my little brother throwing rocks at me, I just need my fists. I do need a Glock when gangsters with AKs are closing in on me.
If we don't have nukes, hostile countries will know that they can nuke us without threat of a nuclear retaliation. People hesitate to attack if they know it will trigger a nuclear holocaust.
We personally are called to turn the other cheek.
But the government is not.
Romans 13:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. If you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
We as Christians are each personally called upon to die, if the need arises, for the sake of Christ. But the government is called upon to prevent and punish evil. In America, we have a very real role in the execution of our government through the polls and our elected representatives.
If we personally are asked to deny Christ or be killed, we must turn the other cheek.
If a foreign government threatens war on our government, our government (and us as the people from whom the right to govern is derived) must do our best to stop them.
This is World War Three, not Columbine.
Would you lament the unfaithfulness of a Christian who tackled a gunman at a school shooting to stop him from killing the classmates?
Post a Comment