Thoughts on the Iran deal?

[NeuroTypical]

The sad thing about US foreign policy is that we do not seem to be able to find any consistent course.   As far as Middle East policy the only thing we seem to do consistently is switch to the wrong side in major conflicts.

 

I disagree that the US doesn't have a consistent course in foreign policy.  Ever since WWII, the course has been to not let new superpowers or hegemons emerge when they would get in the way of US interests.

 

Application of that policy seems inconsistent, because one decade we're arming Iraq and the next we're deposing Sadaam, etc, etc.  But it's a very consistent policy.

[cdowis]

What are you talking about?

 

I keep up with the news

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/248856-white-house-acknowledges-side-deals-between-iran-iaea

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/08/19/ap-secret-iran-side-deal-allows-iran-to-inspect-itself-at-key-nuclear-site-n2041113

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-secret-iran-deals-exposed/2015/07/27/26d14dbc-3460-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html

 

Threats by Iran of bodily harm on revealing details of agreement

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/18/iran-threatened-harm-to-top-nuke-inspector-to-prevent-disclosure-secret-deal/

 

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/iran.admits.it.threatened.to.harm.top.un.official.if.he.leaks.secret.nuke.side.deals/62366.htm

 

Just do a google and there are many other sources.

 

I assume that you are informed enough to know that the inspection of the nuclear sites is the key to this whole agreement.  Now, please tell us the terms of the inspection, since you are confident in the treaty.  But be careful because the Iranians may do you "bodily harm".  

 

The existence of Israel, and our entire civilization hangs upon this treaty and on how the terms will be verified.

Edited August 20, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

I keep up with the news

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/248856-white-house-acknowledges-side-deals-between-iran-iaea

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/08/19/ap-secret-iran-side-deal-allows-iran-to-inspect-itself-at-key-nuclear-site-n2041113

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-secret-iran-deals-exposed/2015/07/27/26d14dbc-3460-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html

 

Threats by Iran of bodily harm on revealing details of agreement

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/18/iran-threatened-harm-to-top-nuke-inspector-to-prevent-disclosure-secret-deal/

 

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/iran.admits.it.threatened.to.harm.top.un.official.if.he.leaks.secret.nuke.side.deals/62366.htm

 

Just do a google and there are many other sources.

 

I assume that you are informed enough to know that the inspection of the nuclear sites is the key to this whole agreement.  Now, please tell us the terms of the inspection, since you are confident in the treaty.  But be careful because the Iranians may do you "bodily harm".  

 

The existence of Israel, and our entire civilization hangs upon this treaty and on how the terms will be verified.

 

Like I told you, the only DEAL that I am discussing is the P5+1 deal because that is the International Agreement.

 

Any side deals between Iran and any other nation including the US is not for public consumption for the main purpose that it is part of a country's security protocol.  If the US wants to make a deal with Iran without Britain or China or France, etc., it will be to its best interest not to disclose the terms of the deal until it is final (or maybe not even then) if it is necessary to avoid conflict with other nations.  Hence the extreme importance of the security and confidentiality of a State Secretary's correspondence - like Hillary Clinton's - as well as any member of Congress and the CIA.

 

But whatever side deal the US makes with Iran, it cannot supercede or conflict or undermine the P5+1's JCPoA because the US is one of the P5's.

 

Now, Iran can always make a secret deal with some other nation outside of the P5+1 to undermine the JCPoA.  If our CIA is worth its salt, it will know so that the US can act appropriately.

 

Yes, the inspection of the sites is the key - and that has proven to be ineffective (as I have noted on my first post) - but the inspection is not done by the US.  It is done by IAEA - an international organization.  The US role here is leadership.  Something you have dropped the ball on in recent years.

 

I have a small suggestion:  When it comes to following the news - it is always best to go through both conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning news to get out of the rut of selective "talking points".  When it comes to foreign policy, it is best to also peruse international news.  In addition to that, applying one's own understanding of foreign affairs to analyze all these sources can expose molehills made into mountains as well as mountains portrayed as molehills.

Edited August 20, 2015 by anatess

[Still_Small_Voice]

I see nothing good coming with a deal with Iran.  The leadership of Iran will not abide by any agreements (as they have shown in the past) and they will get a lot of money once the sanctions are over.  I think they will use this money to fuel more chaos throughout the world.

 

I also think the people of Iran hate the tyrants that run their country but they are powerless to do anything about it.

[Traveler]

I disagree that the US doesn't have a consistent course in foreign policy.  Ever since WWII, the course has been to not let new superpowers or hegemons emerge when they would get in the way of US interests.

 

Application of that policy seems inconsistent, because one decade we're arming Iraq and the next we're deposing Sadaam, etc, etc.  But it's a very consistent policy.

 

Okay - then let me put it this way - The US interests in what happesn outside our borders has been very inconsistent.

[FunkyTown]

Wow. Things in Iran are definitely messed up, now.

 

If only the region hadn't been destabilized in 1953 by a... group. That shall remain nameless. That begins with a U, has an S in the middle and ends in an A. If only this nameless group hadn't staged a coup that resulted in a consistent religious hegemony elected democratically by the vast majority of Iranians.

 

And if only this same group hadn't armed terrorists in the 1980s to attack and try to overthrow their government.

 

If this hadn't happened, the region might be very different.

 

All joking aside: The US exports one thing better than anything else - Its culture. The key to changing Iran is to change hearts and minds. The more ammunition given for them to get angry at... Whatever the nameless group that overthrew their government in the 1950s is(I don't want to offend anybody who may be associated with that group and may feel defensive if it is pointed out that Iran's foreign policy is in no small part influenced by the decades of violence and destabilizing influence of said group), the US will know when it is close to winning in Iran when the first McDonalds opens up there. It might take decades for the old guard to die off completely, but if the US concentrated on making the right inroads, things would eventually change.

[Crypto]

Wow. Things in Iran are definitely messed up, now.

(I don't want to offend anybody who may be associated with that group and may feel defensive if it is pointed out that Iran's foreign policy is in no small part influenced by the decades of violence and destabilizing influence of said group)

Sometimes the consequences...the truth...hurts.

[Guest]

Wow. Things in Iran are definitely messed up, now.

 

If only the region hadn't been destabilized in 1953 by a... group. That shall remain nameless. That begins with a U, has an S in the middle and ends in an A. If only this nameless group hadn't staged a coup that resulted in a consistent religious hegemony elected democratically by the vast majority of Iranians.

 

And if only this same group hadn't armed terrorists in the 1980s to attack and try to overthrow their government.

 

If this hadn't happened, the region might be very different.

 

All joking aside: The US exports one thing better than anything else - Its culture. The key to changing Iran is to change hearts and minds. The more ammunition given for them to get angry at... Whatever the nameless group that overthrew their government in the 1950s is(I don't want to offend anybody who may be associated with that group and may feel defensive if it is pointed out that Iran's foreign policy is in no small part influenced by the decades of violence and destabilizing influence of said group), the US will know when it is close to winning in Iran when the first McDonalds opens up there. It might take decades for the old guard to die off completely, but if the US concentrated on making the right inroads, things would eventually change.

 

For shame!  You can't mention the 1953 coup and US of A without mentioning the country that has a proven habit of making a mess of everything it touches that starts with U followed by a K and it's major oil company that was the cause of all the mess that starts with a B followed by a P.

 

But yes, you're right.  Before WWI, the Middle East Muslims were quite a progressive bunch following the lead of the Europeans, especially the UK.  They were a thriving culture changing with the modern trends of democracy and women's rights, etc.  The actions of the UK in the area caused extreme mistrust of anything European and Imperialist leading to the rise of the power of the clerics throwing everything back a century or more.

 

Yes, a change in hearts and minds is needed.  But more importantly, TRUST in the goodness of Western influence is what we need.  That's not gonna happen through political action, deals, or any of those things while the clerics are in power.

[FunkyTown]

For shame!  You can't mention the 1953 coup and US of A without mentioning the country that has a proven habit of making a mess of everything it touches that starts with U followed by a K and it's major oil company that was the cause of all the mess that starts with a B followed by a P.

 

But yes, you're right.  Before WWI, the Middle East Muslims were quite a progressive bunch following the lead of the Europeans, especially the UK.  They were a thriving culture changing with the modern trends of democracy and women's rights, etc.  The actions of the UK in the area caused extreme mistrust of anything European and Imperialist leading to the rise of the power of the clerics throwing everything back a century or more.

 

Yes, a change in hearts and minds is needed.  But more importantly, TRUST in the goodness of Western influence is what we need.  That's not gonna happen through political action, deals, or any of those things while the clerics are in power.

 

Hahah. Very true. British Petroleum may have had something to do with interest in overthrowing the Iranian government. But the nameless group is the one who actually sent in someone who may have been a descendent of a President of some country to do the dirty work.

 

The problem is that the Iran government is democratically elected. The majority of the country lives in rural areas and votes conservative religious with the fewer city-living people voting more progressive and western.

 

On the other hand, if the US can successfully export its culture as it has in places around the world, they might start voting differently. As it is right now, trying to replace the regime is the opposite of wanting Democracy to fluorish and the arguments suggesting it should be done regardless sound like they should have been written by The Grand Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov.

[Guest]

Hahah. Very true. British Petroleum may have had something to do with interest in overthrowing the Iranian government. But the nameless group is the one who actually sent in someone who may have been a descendent of a President of some country to do the dirty work.

 

The problem is that the Iran government is democratically elected. The majority of the country lives in rural areas and votes conservative religious with the fewer city-living people voting more progressive and western.

 

On the other hand, if the US can successfully export its culture as it has in places around the world, they might start voting differently. As it is right now, trying to replace the regime is the opposite of wanting Democracy to fluorish and the arguments suggesting it should be done regardless sound like they should have been written by The Grand Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov.

 

This is just my opinion.  I can't back it with sources.  It's simply observation from my entire life's worth of Middle Eastern goings on:

 

There is no such thing as a "regime" in Iran.  The "regime" is like the Queen of England.  A figurehead.  The president is simply the face of Iran for the benefit of the UN.  The ayatollahs continue to be the real regime.  And therefore, the regime is not truly democratically elected.  They are chosen by the ayatollahs.

 

So, when you say, "they might start voting differently"... that's not gonna matter.  The ayatollahs choose the regime.  They have the power to order the killing of a British citizen (remember that award-winning British novelist back in the early 90's that wrote that fiction book about Muhammed?) thousands of miles away, how much more for their own citizens?  Right now, they chose the regime through church influence and they get their way through majority vote.  If the people ever "wise up" and go against the clerics, they're gonna start issuing threats.

 

It is not the regime that everyone in the region is worried about.  It is the Supreme Leader and his minions.  And those guys cannot be unseated - not even with a progressive citizenry.  They will kill Iranians before they let that happen.

 

The way I see it - the way forward is to suppress the power of the current ayatollahs to stabilize the region and then work on infiltrating the clerical hierarchy with muslims with visions of progressivism.  As the old ayatollahs die off, the slow change in culture will surface and trust in the government of Iran can resume.

 

Or... the progressive Iranians can, themselves, revolutionize and unseat their own Supreme Leaders changing the landscape of Iranian government... again.  But this time, with the Western idiots supporting the right side.

Edited August 21, 2015 by anatess

[cdowis]

Like I told you, the only DEAL that I am discussing is the P5+1 deal because that is the International Agreement.

 

Any side deals between Iran and any other nation including the US is not for public consumption for the main purpose that it is part of a country's security protocol.  

 

 

I assume this is a very subtle attempt at humor.

 

May I suggest that you learn the basics of contract law, and that is what a treaty is -->> a contract.

 

The issue here is the fulfillment of the terms of the contract.  I agree to give you $100, and you agree to sell me your watch.  I now give you the money, you sign a receipt, but it stops there.  You refuse to give me the watch, so the contract is a worthless piece of paper, and I go to court to collect my money or the watch.

 

The United States agrees to lift sanctions, and Iran agrees to .... whatever -- curtail/stop  its production of nuclear grade uranium, etc etc.

 

Now, unlike the example above, there is no physical exchange, so I lift sanctions and then I have to verify whether you are holding to your end of the bargain.

 

BUT the Iranians have a SECRET AGREEMENT with a third party on how this verification will be done.  The head guy is threatened with bodily harm if he reveals the details.

 

Now I am either stupid, naive, or just ignorant if I accept this situation, since THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is dependent on whether this rogue regime will keep its word of this unknown verification process.

 

Your humor is very subtle, but is inappropriate here.  It is not funny at all.

[Guest]

I assume this is a very subtle attempt at humor.

 

May I suggest that you learn the basics of contract law, and that is what a treaty is -->> a contract.

 

The issue here is the fulfillment of the terms of the contract.  I agree to give you $100, and you agree to sell me your watch.  I now give you the money, you sign a receipt, but it stops there.  You refuse to give me the watch, so the contract is a worthless piece of paper, and I go to court to collect my money or the watch.

 

The United States agrees to lift sanctions, and Iran agrees to .... whatever -- curtail/stop  its production of nuclear grade uranium, etc etc.

 

Now, unlike the example above, there is no physical exchange, so I lift sanctions and then I have to verify whether you are holding to your end of the bargain.

 

BUT the Iranians have a SECRET AGREEMENT with a third party on how this verification will be done.  The head guy is threatened with bodily harm if he reveals the details.

 

Now I am either stupid, naive, or just ignorant if I accept this situation, since THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is dependent on whether this rogue regime will keep its word of this unknown verification process.

 

Your humor is very subtle, but is inappropriate here.  It is not funny at all.

 

I'm gonna give you leeway because you are new to lds.net.  I am VERY SERIOUS about foreign policy.  I am not American.  My family hold positions in my country's government, therefore, national and foreign policy is dinner conversation for us.  If war breaks out in the Middle East, my country will be in grave danger due to its proximity to North Korea, China, and Indonesia as well as the hotbed of Islamic Extremists in my own country's southern region.  It is inevitable that we will be in the midst of war and we don't have the military arsenal to defend ourselves.  Therefore, Americans have the luxury of poring over news like an armchair quarterback.  We do not.

 

I have explained it very clearly to you.  The US cannot make a side deal with Iran about inspections.  Inspections are done by the IAEA - that is an international organization.  The US or any of the P5+1 cannot make a side deal with Iran that undermines the terms of the JCPoA simply because of the fact that they are signatorees of the JCPoA.

 

Any treaty done by Iran with another country is for those two countries to talk about.  There is no international requirement to make any of those deals public.  That's what your CIA is for.

 

And I don't know how old you are, but treaties with Iran and nuclear site inspections has been going on for half a century.  This is nothing new.  You don't need to pull up concerns about side deals to worry about the effectiveness of inspections.  Iran has been notorious in playing cat and mouse with inspectors which is why there are sanctions in the first place!

Edited August 21, 2015 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

Okay - then let me put it this way - The US interests in what happesn outside our borders has been very inconsistent.

 

Still disagree.  US has consistently and reliably acted in it's interests globally since WWII.  Don't let hegemonies form.  Keep the Middle East at each other's throats, to keep them from banding together.  Balance Europe against Russia against Asia against the ME.  

 

The consistent application of this policy explains what Funky is complaining about.  It explains the Iraq war.  It explains our decisive actions in some countries and our useless actions in other countries.

 

Folks don't want to understand the game as it's played, usually because it's satan's game, and folks carry the light of Christ within us and naturally recoil from such things.  Satan's game, expressed geopolitically, can be called many things, but 'inconsistent' isn't one of them.

 

Me against my brother.

Me and my brother against our family.

Me and my family against our neighbors.

Me and my neighborhood against our town.

Me and my town against our county.

Me and my county against our state.

Me and my state against our country.

Me and my country against our allies.

Me and my allies against the world.

 

Such is life in a world where the dark one holds sway.  Started right after the boot from the garden.  Will be this way until Big Brother shows up.  Scripture tells us He'll give us the choice to follow him, and He'll kill everyone who doesn't avail themselves of the opportunity.  Then we can have our Millennium and things will finally be different.   

Edited August 21, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[cdowis]

I'm gonna give you leeway because you are new to lds.net.  I am VERY SERIOUS about foreign policy.

 

So is John Kerry.

 

  I am not American.  My family hold positions in my country's government, therefore, national and foreign policy is dinner conversation for us.  If war breaks out in the Middle East, my country will be in grave danger due to its proximity to North Korea, China, and Indonesia as well as the hotbed of Islamic Extremists in my own country's southern region.  It is inevitable that we will be in the midst of war and we don't have the military arsenal to defend ourselves.  Therefore, Americans have the luxury of poring over news like an armchair quarterback.  We do not.

 

I am happy to keep you informed.

 

I have explained it very clearly to you.  The US cannot make a side deal with Iran about inspections.  Inspections are done by the IAEA - that is an international organization.  The US or any of the P5+1 cannot make a side deal with Iran that undermines the terms of the JCPoA simply because of the fact that they are signatorees of the JCPoA.

 

Any treaty done by Iran with another country is for those two countries to talk about.  There is no international requirement to make any of those deals public.  That's what your CIA is for.

 

It is obvious that you have not keep up with American affairs.  Are you familiar with what's going on in Iraq, ISIS (the JV team according to Obama), etc.  If your safety and existence is dependent on American intelligence and leadership, your country is in BIG trouble.

 

And I don't know how old you are, but treaties with Iran and nuclear site inspections has been going on for half a century.  This is nothing new.  You don't need to pull up concerns about side deals to worry about the effectiveness of inspections.  Iran has been notorious in playing cat and mouse with inspectors which is why there are sanctions in the first place!

 

I assume you are aware that Iran with a nuclear weapon means that you and your country is in BIG trouble.

But that's ok.  Just sit back on your couch, hold the treaty close to your breast as a comforter, and depend on Barack Obama and Kerry to keep you safe.  Just comfort yourself that if Iran breaks the treaty, that we can "snap back" the sanctions.  Within microseconds, these sanctions will become enforced and Iran will immediately comply with the treaty.  

You can bet your life on that!

 

OR you can get yourself informed on what is going in  American political leadership and what's happening to the military.

[Guest]

 

I'm gonna give you leeway because you are new to lds.net.  I am VERY SERIOUS about foreign policy.

 

So is John Kerry.

 

  I am not American.  My family hold positions in my country's government, therefore, national and foreign policy is dinner conversation for us.  If war breaks out in the Middle East, my country will be in grave danger due to its proximity to North Korea, China, and Indonesia as well as the hotbed of Islamic Extremists in my own country's southern region.  It is inevitable that we will be in the midst of war and we don't have the military arsenal to defend ourselves.  Therefore, Americans have the luxury of poring over news like an armchair quarterback.  We do not.

 

I am happy to keep you informed.

 

I have explained it very clearly to you.  The US cannot make a side deal with Iran about inspections.  Inspections are done by the IAEA - that is an international organization.  The US or any of the P5+1 cannot make a side deal with Iran that undermines the terms of the JCPoA simply because of the fact that they are signatorees of the JCPoA.

 

Any treaty done by Iran with another country is for those two countries to talk about.  There is no international requirement to make any of those deals public.  That's what your CIA is for.

 

It is obvious that you have not keep up with American affairs.  Are you familiar with what's going on in Iraq, ISIS (the JV team according to Obama), etc.  If your safety and existence is dependent on American intelligence and leadership, your country is in BIG trouble.

 

And I don't know how old you are, but treaties with Iran and nuclear site inspections has been going on for half a century.  This is nothing new.  You don't need to pull up concerns about side deals to worry about the effectiveness of inspections.  Iran has been notorious in playing cat and mouse with inspectors which is why there are sanctions in the first place!

 

I assume you are aware that Iran with a nuclear weapon means that you and your country is in BIG trouble.

But that's ok.  Just sit back on your couch, hold the treaty close to your breast as a comforter, and depend on Barack Obama and Kerry to keep you safe.  Just comfort yourself that if Iran breaks the treaty, that we can "snap back" the sanctions.  Within microseconds, these sanctions will become enforced and Iran will immediately comply with the treaty.  

You can bet your life on that!

 

OR you can get yourself informed on what is going in  American political leadership and what's happening to the military.

 

 

Did you really just compare me to John Kerry?  REALLY?

 

I'm going to bow out of this conversation.  You have no interest in discussing foreign policy.  You only have interest in attacking me personally.

 

I am very informed in American Political Leadership as well as American Law including Constitutional Law. I had to study the darned thing and follow American politics so I can live peacefully in this country where I cannot vote.  But no, I don't get my studies from partisan stupidity.

 

By the way, DID YOU EVEN READ my first post on this thread?  In what part of the entirety of that post did it ever show that I support the Iran Deal?

Edited August 21, 2015 by anatess

[cdowis]

Did you really just compare me to John Kerry?  REALLY?

 

Just making an observation.  When Kerry was asked about his "pals" in Iran calling for the destruction of the United States, he was asked about it.

 

His response, "I really don't know what to think."  

 

 

I'm going to bow out of this conversation.  You have no interest in discussing foreign policy.  You only have interest in attacking me personally.

 

I am very informed in American Political Leadership as well as American Law including Constitutional Law. I had to study the darned thing and follow American politics so I can live peacefully in this country where I cannot vote.  But no, I don't get my studies from partisan stupidity.

 

I am not talking about what you learn out of a textbook.

 

By the way, DID YOU EVEN READ my first post on this thread?  In what part of the entirety of that post did it ever show that I support the Iran Deal?

 

You don't want to talk with me, but then you asked me a question.....

 

Anyway, I focused on the fundamental flaw in the logic of your first post.  I am not attacking your personally, but this is a real matter of life and death, no just a treatise in a classroom.  

 

Already covered that, so I won't repeat myself.  I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I don't think so.

Edited August 21, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

You might find this of interest

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bedd428e26924eed95c5ceaeec72d3a4/text-draft-agreement-between-iaea-iran

[Traveler]

Sunni-Shia conflict is a modern cook-up.  Middle Eastern People born before the 70's have lived a time where nobody cared if your next-door neighbor is a Sunni or a Shiite.  The "deep roots" of Sunni vs Shiite claim as the rightful heirs of Muhammad is like the East versus West Catholics... they don't agree on who has the proper authority but they don't kill themselves over it.  It wasn't until the 70's when the conflict between Arabs and Persians led politicians to use the ancient Sunni-Shia divide as a means to rally their troops to kill fellow Muslims.

 

Muslims killing Christians and Jews on the other hand has been going on since the time of the 12 Apostles and is still going on today.

Actually the Sunni vs. Shiite conflict began with the death of Muhammad when two rivals competed for the succession control of the religious or spiritual nation of Islam. The Shiite holding to a son of Muhammad and the Sunni holding to a cousin of Muhammad as the true successor. The conflict became war when the son of Muhammad was murdered – the Sunni claiming that they did no murder the son of Muhammad and the Shiite believing that the Sunni response is a lie inspired by Ha Satan – the Islam equitant to the Christian Satan. Since this initial conflict it is my understanding that this “war” has continued in each generation and even though individuals on both sides have lived without murderous conflict that the imams of each side have only been able to find common ground when there is a common enemy considered to be a greater threat to both.

As a side note – the number one sign to both Sunni and Shiite of an infidel nation aligned with Ha Satan is a banking system based on interest profits against principal deposits. In other words loans based on interest. To Islam the greatest threat to religious security in the last days will be a very powerful nation that will not do business without charging interest on trade transactions that are not hard upfront cash. This is why Wall Street and the Trade Center was the focus of 9/11. And it was so designed as the one way to bring both Sunni and Shiite together to face a common enemy. This single principal (of Global banking control via interest) is – in my mind – the single most important reason that both Sunni and Shiite can recruit to extreme conflict so easily in western society.

Iran is a completely Shiite dominated religious state. Should they obtain a nuclear weapon and be the first “Islamic” state to use it against a society whose economy is based in debt and interest – it would give them a clear upper hand in dominating all Islamic society. Russia on the other hand has figured out how to do business with base fees against principal in trading with all Islamic dominated societies. Something western banking has not done since the Templar’s established interest based banking during the Crusades. It is also important to note that it is generally understood the Jewish influence is a very prominent part of Western banking.

One other note - Islam did not exist until 600 years after Jesus and his 12 chosen apostles. The conflict between Islam and Christians did not become much of anything until the cresades. Prior to that any conflict between Islam and Christians was strictly regional.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Traveler

[Crypto]

Iran is a completely Shiite dominated religious state. Should they obtain a nuclear weapon and be the first “Islamic” state to use it against a society whose economy is based in debt and interest – it would give them a clear upper hand in dominating all Islamic society. Russia on the other hand has figured out how to do business with base fees against principal in trading with all Islamic dominated societies. Something western banking has not done since the Templar’s established interest based banking during the Crusades. 

 

What is base fees against principal?

[FunkyTown]

What is base fees against principal?

Borrowing £1000000? Base fee of(Say) £100000 to do so. It's not interest and so is not usurious.

 

Not a bad deal, actually.

[NeuroTypical]

To Islam the greatest threat to religious security in the last days will be a very powerful nation that will not do business without charging interest on trade transactions that are not hard upfront cash. This is why Wall Street and the Trade Center was the focus of 9/11. And it was so designed as the one way to bring both Sunni and Shiite together to face a common enemy. 

 

Well, you don't have to have any particular deep religious convictions to make a wise choice in attacking symbols of a country's political base (US capital), economy (twin towers), and military (pentagon). 

 

And I think the 'common enemy' Bin Laden had in mind, were the secular governments ruling Islamic nations.  Islamic complacency allowed for the situation out of fear of the US.  So, Bin Laden theorized:

- You attack the US,

- Provoke a weak and ineffective response,

- The Islamic world sees the US as a paper tiger, and loses their fear of US retaliation,

- And then they rise up and overthrow their secular governments and establish a caliphate.

 

Then you get to be powerful and fight the powerful great satan nations.

Edited August 24, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[cdowis]

PROBLEM ==>>

 

Basically the agreement expires in 15 years, where Iran will have full authority to develop it's nuclear warheads.

 

Mark that down on your calendar.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/middleeast/in-pushing-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-rationale-shows-flaws.html?_r=0

[Crypto]

It might be worth noting that back in 2012 the intelligence community (US in conjunction with Israel) estimated that if Iran's progress was unabated it would take them 2 years to successfully develop a nuke.

Then stuff like stuxnet happened.

http://nowsourcing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/stuxnet-infograpic.png

Might seem a little bit conspiratorial, but it's generally hard to definitively pin point the specific developer of malware. 

[NeuroTypical]

These people are smart.

 

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israel-case-against-attacking-iran?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_campaign=20150825&utm_content=readmoretext&mc_cid=3372f0607c&mc_eid=873f94de65

[Traveler]

What is base fees against principal?

 

This is a fee in order to use the principal.  Interest is time based and continues.  A base fee against principal is a fixed cost and does not change over time.

 

Sometimes it is hard to tell the differences - kind of like paying tithing on increases and figuring out the amount to pay.  The exact definition of what against what can be confusing - but in Islam sometimes the point is nothing more than the term - interest is the term and method of Satan to them.  Call it a fee and suddenly it is okay - even if the fee is more draconian than compound interest - which is the most evil of all and the greatest sign of satanic involvement in Islam.