Monday 13 February 2012
Hypo Venture Capital Headlines: Religious world leaders don’t always welcome Armageddon
Hypo Venture Capital Headlines: Religious world leaders don’t always welcome Armageddon
History tells us that nine countries developed nuclear weapons after the United States. Three were hostile dictatorships. But none ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy or gave them to terrorists.
Hawks warn that we should not be reassured by history. Iran is different, they say. Iran’s leaders aren’t merely hostile and ruthless. They are religious fanatics. “These are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in January.
Harper is alone among world leaders in talking publicly like that. But his view is widespread.
“The mullah’s goals are metaphysical,” wrote Ed Morrissey, an influential American blogger and broadcaster. “They want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule. According to their view of Islam, that will come at the end of a great conflagration, and there isn’t a much better way to start one of those than by lobbing nukes at Israel, the U.S., or both.”
In the past, nuclear powers could be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by the threat of counterattack. But that won’t work with Iran, hawks say. If the creation of God’s final paradise requires that the world end in fiery tribulation, then nuclear annihilation would not be a catastrophe. It would be martyrdom.
Martyrdom is not to be feared. It is to be greeted joyously. It is to be desired, planned for, and worked toward.
The internal logic here looks sound. Frighteningly so.
But only when viewed at a distance. Up close, it falls apart.
“Given the novelty of the martyr state argument, and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence,” wrote national security analyst Andrew Grotto in a 2009 essay. “Yet that is not the case.”
Of course it is true that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often mentions the return of the Hidden Imam – the messiah of Shiite Islam – in his speeches. But Ahmadinejad has actually been rebuked by leading Iranian clerics for doing so. One said Ahmadinejad “would be better off concentrating on Iran’s social problems … than indulging in such mystical rhetoric.”
History tells us that nine countries developed nuclear weapons after the United States. Three were hostile dictatorships. But none ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy or gave them to terrorists.
Hawks warn that we should not be reassured by history. Iran is different, they say. Iran’s leaders aren’t merely hostile and ruthless. They are religious fanatics. “These are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in January.
Harper is alone among world leaders in talking publicly like that. But his view is widespread.
“The mullah’s goals are metaphysical,” wrote Ed Morrissey, an influential American blogger and broadcaster. “They want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule. According to their view of Islam, that will come at the end of a great conflagration, and there isn’t a much better way to start one of those than by lobbing nukes at Israel, the U.S., or both.”
In the past, nuclear powers could be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by the threat of counterattack. But that won’t work with Iran, hawks say. If the creation of God’s final paradise requires that the world end in fiery tribulation, then nuclear annihilation would not be a catastrophe. It would be martyrdom.
Martyrdom is not to be feared. It is to be greeted joyously. It is to be desired, planned for, and worked toward.
The internal logic here looks sound. Frighteningly so.
But only when viewed at a distance. Up close, it falls apart.
“Given the novelty of the martyr state argument, and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence,” wrote national security analyst Andrew Grotto in a 2009 essay. “Yet that is not the case.”
Of course it is true that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often mentions the return of the Hidden Imam – the messiah of Shiite Islam – in his speeches. But Ahmadinejad has actually been rebuked by leading Iranian clerics for doing so. One said Ahmadinejad “would be better off concentrating on Iran’s social problems … than indulging in such mystical rhetoric.”
Hypo Venture Capital Headlines: Religious world leaders don’t always welcome Armageddon - Voteforduane.org
Hypo Venture Capital Headlines: Religious world leaders don’t always welcome Armageddon - Voteforduane.org
History tells us that nine countries developed nuclear weapons after the United States. Three were hostile dictatorships. But none ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy or gave them to terrorists.
Hawks warn that we should not be reassured by history. Iran is different, they say. Iran’s leaders aren’t merely hostile and ruthless. They are religious fanatics. “These are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in January.
Harper is alone among world leaders in talking publicly like that. But his view is widespread.
“The mullah’s goals are metaphysical,” wrote Ed Morrissey, an influential American blogger and broadcaster. “They want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule. According to their view of Islam, that will come at the end of a great conflagration, and there isn’t a much better way to start one of those than by lobbing nukes at Israel, the U.S., or both.”
In the past, nuclear powers could be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by the threat of counterattack. But that won’t work with Iran, hawks say. If the creation of God’s final paradise requires that the world end in fiery tribulation, then nuclear annihilation would not be a catastrophe. It would be martyrdom.
Martyrdom is not to be feared. It is to be greeted joyously. It is to be desired, planned for, and worked toward.
The internal logic here looks sound. Frighteningly so.
But only when viewed at a distance. Up close, it falls apart.
“Given the novelty of the martyr state argument, and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence,” wrote national security analyst Andrew Grotto in a 2009 essay. “Yet that is not the case.”
Of course it is true that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often mentions the return of the Hidden Imam – the messiah of Shiite Islam – in his speeches. But Ahmadinejad has actually been rebuked by leading Iranian clerics for doing so. One said Ahmadinejad “would be better off concentrating on Iran’s social problems … than indulging in such mystical rhetoric.”
History tells us that nine countries developed nuclear weapons after the United States. Three were hostile dictatorships. But none ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy or gave them to terrorists.
Hawks warn that we should not be reassured by history. Iran is different, they say. Iran’s leaders aren’t merely hostile and ruthless. They are religious fanatics. “These are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in January.
Harper is alone among world leaders in talking publicly like that. But his view is widespread.
“The mullah’s goals are metaphysical,” wrote Ed Morrissey, an influential American blogger and broadcaster. “They want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule. According to their view of Islam, that will come at the end of a great conflagration, and there isn’t a much better way to start one of those than by lobbing nukes at Israel, the U.S., or both.”
In the past, nuclear powers could be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by the threat of counterattack. But that won’t work with Iran, hawks say. If the creation of God’s final paradise requires that the world end in fiery tribulation, then nuclear annihilation would not be a catastrophe. It would be martyrdom.
Martyrdom is not to be feared. It is to be greeted joyously. It is to be desired, planned for, and worked toward.
The internal logic here looks sound. Frighteningly so.
But only when viewed at a distance. Up close, it falls apart.
“Given the novelty of the martyr state argument, and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence,” wrote national security analyst Andrew Grotto in a 2009 essay. “Yet that is not the case.”
Of course it is true that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often mentions the return of the Hidden Imam – the messiah of Shiite Islam – in his speeches. But Ahmadinejad has actually been rebuked by leading Iranian clerics for doing so. One said Ahmadinejad “would be better off concentrating on Iran’s social problems … than indulging in such mystical rhetoric.”
Hypo Venture Capital Headlines: Religious world leaders don’t always welcome Armageddon - The-looser-it-s-me
Hypo Venture Capital Headlines: Religious world leaders don’t always welcome Armageddon - The-looser-it-s-me
History tells us that nine countries developed nuclear weapons after the United States. Three were hostile dictatorships. But none ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy or gave them to terrorists.
Hawks warn that we should not be reassured by history. Iran is different, they say. Iran’s leaders aren’t merely hostile and ruthless. They are religious fanatics. “These are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in January.
Harper is alone among world leaders in talking publicly like that. But his view is widespread.
“The mullah’s goals are metaphysical,” wrote Ed Morrissey, an influential American blogger and broadcaster. “They want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule. According to their view of Islam, that will come at the end of a great conflagration, and there isn’t a much better way to start one of those than by lobbing nukes at Israel, the U.S., or both.”
In the past, nuclear powers could be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by the threat of counterattack. But that won’t work with Iran, hawks say. If the creation of God’s final paradise requires that the world end in fiery tribulation, then nuclear annihilation would not be a catastrophe. It would be martyrdom.
Martyrdom is not to be feared. It is to be greeted joyously. It is to be desired, planned for, and worked toward.
The internal logic here looks sound. Frighteningly so.
But only when viewed at a distance. Up close, it falls apart.
“Given the novelty of the martyr state argument, and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence,” wrote national security analyst Andrew Grotto in a 2009 essay. “Yet that is not the case.”
Of course it is true that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often mentions the return of the Hidden Imam – the messiah of Shiite Islam – in his speeches. But Ahmadinejad has actually been rebuked by leading Iranian clerics for doing so. One said Ahmadinejad “would be better off concentrating on Iran’s social problems … than indulging in such mystical rhetoric.”
History tells us that nine countries developed nuclear weapons after the United States. Three were hostile dictatorships. But none ever used nuclear weapons against an enemy or gave them to terrorists.
Hawks warn that we should not be reassured by history. Iran is different, they say. Iran’s leaders aren’t merely hostile and ruthless. They are religious fanatics. “These are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in January.
Harper is alone among world leaders in talking publicly like that. But his view is widespread.
“The mullah’s goals are metaphysical,” wrote Ed Morrissey, an influential American blogger and broadcaster. “They want their Messiah to arrive and establish a global Islamic rule. According to their view of Islam, that will come at the end of a great conflagration, and there isn’t a much better way to start one of those than by lobbing nukes at Israel, the U.S., or both.”
In the past, nuclear powers could be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons by the threat of counterattack. But that won’t work with Iran, hawks say. If the creation of God’s final paradise requires that the world end in fiery tribulation, then nuclear annihilation would not be a catastrophe. It would be martyrdom.
Martyrdom is not to be feared. It is to be greeted joyously. It is to be desired, planned for, and worked toward.
The internal logic here looks sound. Frighteningly so.
But only when viewed at a distance. Up close, it falls apart.
“Given the novelty of the martyr state argument, and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence,” wrote national security analyst Andrew Grotto in a 2009 essay. “Yet that is not the case.”
Of course it is true that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often mentions the return of the Hidden Imam – the messiah of Shiite Islam – in his speeches. But Ahmadinejad has actually been rebuked by leading Iranian clerics for doing so. One said Ahmadinejad “would be better off concentrating on Iran’s social problems … than indulging in such mystical rhetoric.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)