The War in Israel may be at it's end.

[mikbone]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Unfortunately, Russia has nukes – lots and lots of them.  Enough that it does not really matter if they never even hit any intended targets.

 

The Traveler

yup, the comment was an attempt at humor.  

Israel set up Trump for an easy win.

Russia-Ukraine is a freakin quagmire.  

DNTWATFP

Do Not Touch With A Ten Foot Pole

And I doubt that this Ceasefire will keep.  Israel and Iran will likely keep fighting.  

Edited Tuesday at 05:25 AM by mikbone

[Carborendum]

Reports now (take them for what they are worth) say:

• Iran's stockpile of uranium was enriched to 60%.  Not enough to do a full-blown bomb.  But obviously beyond "energy-producing" levels.
• Iran was apparently moving the uranium via trucks, prior to the bombing.
• The centrifuges were destroyed or made unuseable.  While some may be reparable, it is still a significant cost to Iran. However, we are aware that they had others at other facilities.  We don't know where.
• Saudi Arabia is clear that they consider Iran a bad actor.  Apparently, there is no love lost between them.

[mirkwood]

• Iran is the biggest State supporter of terrorism
• Iran is theologically opposed to the existence of Israel (the Little Satan)
• Iran views the USA as the Great Satan
• The religious leaders of Iran will never not be at war with the two Satans

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Iran's stockpile of uranium was enriched to 60%.  Not enough to do a full-blown bomb.  But obviously beyond "energy-producing" levels.

As of May 17, 2025, Iran had a stockpile of 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This was an increase of 133.8 kg from the previous IAEA report in February 2025, when the stockpile was approximately 274.8 kg.

Regarding whether Iran “trucked it out,” there is evidence suggesting Iran moved its 60% enriched uranium stockpile to a secret location before U.S. and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025. Satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed 16 cargo trucks near the Fordow facility’s entrance two days before the U.S. strikes on June 13, 2025, indicating a possible “frantic effort” to relocate materials, potentially including the enriched uranium. The IAEA’s Rafael Grossi noted that the stockpile was last verified by UN inspectors about a week before Israel’s attacks began, and its current whereabouts are unverified due to restricted access. Iran claimed it smuggled most of its highly enriched uranium to a secret location before the strikes.

However, some analysts, like Ronen Solomon, suggest that even if moved, the uranium’s utility is limited without functional centrifuges, which were heavily damaged in the strikes. The exact location of the stockpile remains uncertain, and the IAEA has called for inspections to account for it.

 

With functional centrifuges (e.g., 1,000 IR-6 centrifuges), Iran could enrich its 408.6 kg of 60% uranium to 90% in 1-2 months to produce enough for one or two weapons (25-50 kg total). Without sufficient centrifuges, the process could take much longer or be infeasible until infrastructure is restored.

 

There was a good reason that Israel and Trump acted.

Edited Tuesday at 01:14 PM by mikbone

[mikbone]

They probably got some of these on those trucks.  But no way they got 1,000.

Probably a good thing there wasn’t a few organized Elder’s quorums in the area…

[mikbone]

My 401K is looking good ATM.  And a barrel of crude is down to $65.  Just in time for Summer vacation!

The market is a good indicator of world stability.

Edited Tuesday at 01:30 PM by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

Did I mention that most Israelis love Trump? Like LOVE love him. Like want to have his babies. No wonder undisguised antiSemitism is on the rise among Democrats.

In breaking news, the guy we were calling hitler is now making us mad for being too close with Israel.

[LDSGator]

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, mirkwood said:

• Iran is the biggest State supporter of terrorism
• Iran is theologically opposed to the existence of Israel (the Little Satan)
• Iran views the USA as the Great Satan
• The religious leaders of Iran will never not be at war with the two Satans

I am of the opinion that we ought to understand all we can about those that see us as their enemy.  There are strong elements of both literal and symbolic representations of Satan in Islam that relate to finances.   According to Islam the #1 sign of Satanic control is finances (banking) with compound interest.  The USA is considered the “biggest” force in the world behind banking and finances based in compound interest.  Israel (Jews) are considered to be greatly involved in global banking.

I do agree with Islam that compound interest is the greatest force of greed in modern societies.  What I do not agree with in the efforts of the leader of Iran is their efforts and focus on citizens of society that are not wealthy because of compound interest but rather are somewhat in financial bondage (for example mortgages) because of compound interest.  We should oppose those whose politics and whose life’s work is based in greed and not, in any way, take out our frustrations towards greed on those caught in the oppression of compound interest.

Without this understanding – I do not believe we will make any progress in settling the problems of the Middle East.  But then, I do not believe things will get better as a trend until Christ comes in power and glory.  The best we can do is seek to build Zion.  But being a “Zionists” makes you a target – not just in the Middle East but by those of Babylon throughout the world.  I would suggest anyone involved with Zion, do so fully without any reservations.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am of the opinion that we ought to understand all we can about those that see us as their enemy.

Ok.   So they think we're satan because of compound interest. 

Other things to understand about them: 
- In a world where you only need 20% enriched uranium to run a nuclear energy industry, they have stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium.  
- Enriching to 20% is relatively easy, enriching to 60% is relatively hard, and then getting from 60 to 90 is pretty quick and easy.  90% is weapons grade. 
- Iran has a space program full of dual-use technology easily used for ICBMs.
- The govt of Iran has overflowed with rhetoric for a long time about destroying Israel and the US with nuclear fire.
- The govt of Iran has a long history of killing Americans and Israelis.  And supporting terrorist proxies that try to kill Americans and Israelis.

Anything else we need to understand about the danger from our understood enemy that we're understanding?

I'm reminded of the parts of the Book of Mormon that had the good guy Nephites use spycraft and deception in order to destroy their enemy in combat.  I mean, I yearn for the day when Christ will return and become the government, and we won't have to worry about neighbors that want to kill all of us and are actively engaging in doing so, as well as building better ways to do so.   But until then, I gotta live in the world I live in.

Edited Tuesday at 05:09 PM by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok.   So they think we're satan because of compound interest. 

Other things to understand about them: 
- In a world where you only need 20% enriched uranium to run a nuclear energy industry, they have stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium.  
- Enriching to 20% is relatively easy, enriching to 60% is relatively hard, and then getting from 60 to 90 is pretty quick and easy.  90% is weapons grade. 
- Iran has a space program full of dual-use technology easily used for ICBMs.
- The govt of Iran has overflowed with rhetoric for a long time about destroying Israel and the US with nuclear fire.
- The govt of Iran has a long history of killing Americans and Israelis.  And supporting terrorist proxies that try to kill Americans and Israelis.

Anything else we need to understand about the danger from our understood enemy that we're understanding?

Yes, we need to understand that even if everyone in the world eliminated compound interest overnight, they'd still try to kill us because:

• We're not Muslim - even if we stop being "the great Satan", we're still infidels
• They need someone to hate - it's core to their (interpretation of their) theology

I believe that even if the entire world became Muslim, a subset of Muslims would be waging "holy war" against some other subset of Muslims for one reason or another.  (This is not unique to Muslims (though the subset sure seem to relish it). It's pervasive in our species - in part because of the Real Satan®.)

Edited Tuesday at 06:03 PM by zil2

[Phoenix_person]

58 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Anything else we need to understand about the danger from our understood enemy that we're understanding?

How about the fact that none of the things you listed happened in a vacuum? There are many valid reasons why much of the Muslim world hates us (and a lot of it boils down to our support for Israel). None of those reasons justify acts of terrorism, but reductive thinking about the Middle East is the best way to ensure that it remains a powder keg until our grandchildren are wiped out by nuclear holocaust or your savior comes back. And the fact there are policy-makers in our government that are actively counting on the latter eventuality is what really keeps me up at night.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

- In a world where you only need 20% enriched uranium to run a nuclear energy industry, they have stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium.  

Actually, you only need between 3% - 5% for energy production.  This range where most modern power plants are.  20% is at the level that people wonder "why on earth are you spending the money to?... OOooohhhh..."

While it can be used for a bomb, it is low-yield and will most likely be used as a dirty bomb.

Technically, they could make a high-yield bomb.  But the critical mass requirement goes way up.  @ 20%, they would have enough with the mass they already have at 400kg to make a single bomb.

For 60% (which they currently have) they could make 10+ bombs.

If they enrich it to 90%, they would lose 30% of the mass, resulting in about 300kg.  At that range, they could make ... about 10 bombs.

Do you see a problem with the last two lines?  Technically, they have the same firepower with the uranium they already have.  Each would be about a 20 kTon yield.  The lost centrifuges don't matter.

Edited Tuesday at 07:02 PM by Carborendum

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok.   So they think we're satan because of compound interest. 

Other things to understand about them: 
- In a world where you only need 20% enriched uranium to run a nuclear energy industry, they have stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium.  
- Enriching to 20% is relatively easy, enriching to 60% is relatively hard, and then getting from 60 to 90 is pretty quick and easy.  90% is weapons grade. 
- Iran has a space program full of dual-use technology easily used for ICBMs.
- The govt of Iran has overflowed with rhetoric for a long time about destroying Israel and the US with nuclear fire.
- The govt of Iran has a long history of killing Americans and Israelis.  And supporting terrorist proxies that try to kill Americans and Israelis.

Anything else we need to understand about the danger from our understood enemy that we're understanding?

I'm reminded of the parts of the Book of Mormon that had the good guy Nephites use spycraft and deception in order to destroy their enemy in combat.  I mean, I yearn for the day when Christ will return and become the government, and we won't have to worry about neighbors that want to kill all of us and are actively engaging in doing so, as well as building better ways to do so.   But until then, I gotta live in the world I live in.

Not every Muslem hates us.  Not everybody in Iran is following the hard lines of Ayatollah.  Having spent time with those of Islamic belief, I realize that, especially we LDS, have much in which we can find common ground, but we need to know how to address it.  The Book of Mormon encourages us that teaching the principles of the gospel are more powerful than the sword.   I submit that seeking for worldly wealth is counter to the gospel of Christ.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

21 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

22 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am of the opinion that we ought to understand all we can about those that see us as their enemy.

Ok.   So they think we're satan because of compound interest.

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

Not every Muslem hates us.

Agreed.   We're talking about those that see us as their enemy.   In other words, the bloody theocratic dictatorship ruling Iran.

 

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

 I submit that seeking for worldly wealth is counter to the gospel of Christ.

I agree.  But noticing that Jews exist and someone on earth lives under free market capitalism doesn't justify seeking nuclear weapons and ICBMs in the latest attempt to destroy those people.  I mean, does it?  I mean, it does in their eyes, right?  This is the understanding I currently am having.  You got anything else you want me to understand about those that see us as their enemy?

@Phoenix_person points out the history of American meddlings in their affairs.  I haven't heard the current dictatorship voice the notion that our tinkering is part of their justification.  I've heard it more expressed in terms of how the Shah's authoritarian rule, political repression, and Westernization policies justified the 1979 revolution and setting up the Islamic Republic's authoritarian rule, political repression, and the complete opposite of westernization wherever feasible.  But I'm not an expert so maybe I'm missing something.

 

Edited 20 hours ago by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

20 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

reductive thinking about the Middle East is the best way to ensure that it remains a powder keg until our grandchildren are wiped out by nuclear holocaust or your savior comes back. And the fact there are policy-makers in our government that are actively counting on the latter eventuality is what really keeps me up at night.

Everything I've heard from policy-makers like Trump, Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth, all seem to be saying "we just tried to stop Iran's ability do do nuclear stuff and now is the perfect time for peace".   Trump's latest f-bomb directed at both Israel and Iran seemed to be generated by their hesitation to see the big gleaming pearl of peace sitting right in front of them ready to be jointly seized.  

But yeah, I've heard the criticism from a lot of atheists over the years.  Humans are all about long term planning, and we're down with the notion of enduring hard things now for a brighter tomorrow.   But folks who believe in eternal life have a different definition of "tomorrow" than you do, and therefore sometimes a different definition of what "enduring hard things now" looks like.  For example, we might be more willing to die and kill for principles than our atheist buddies.   I get it.   But again, the notion that T & crowd wouldn't be happy for a long and enduring peace in the middle east is a pretty nonserious take.   If you're seeing that take from some folks in washington, then I'm happy to join you in griping about it.

[Phoenix_person]

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

@Phoenix_person points out the history of American meddlings in their affairs.  I haven't heard the current dictatorship voice the notion that our tinkering is part of their justification.  I've heard it more expressed in terms of how the Shah's authoritarian rule, political repression, and Westernization policies justified the 1979 revolution and setting up the Islamic Republic's authoritarian rule, political repression, and the complete opposite of westernization wherever feasible.  But I'm not an expert so maybe I'm missing something.

This may blow your mind, but not every culture wants to be "westernized". Also, read up on the reasons why the West put the Shah in power in the first place. Spoiler alert: it was oil. The US (and its Western allies) has a long and bloody legacy of intervening in the affairs of nations with valuable resources and uncooperative governments. It's little wonder why so much of the world hates us (just like everyone hated the British before us). It's easy to dismiss those attitudes from a place where gas is (relatively) cheap and there's no shortage of non-native foods like coffee and bananas. No one ever wants to see how the sausage gets made, especially if knowing will stain the image of Uncle Sam. 

It's not exactly a secret that many Iranians aren't crazy about their theocratic government, but that doesn't mean that our solution to their problem is the solution they want. As much as I despise Trump's brand of conservatism, I certainly wouldn't want a foreign power swooping in like a wrecking ball to "liberate" us. Would you want that if the US ever became the commie heckscape you fear the Left will turn it into? (It's a trick question; most of our allies are already WAY more socialist than we are.) 

I spent much of my time in Iraq contemplating questions like these. I saw first-hand the destruction we caused in places like Najaf and Fallujah and I didn't blame the residents (including children) in those places for throwing rocks at us. They'd probably prefer to have Saddam back in power and a roof over their head than an American sock puppet and no roof. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

This may blow your mind, but not every culture wants to be "westernized".

I get that too.  My mind got blown on all this stuff a long time ago.   Slice of life: I like the "radio garden" app.  You pull it up and it gives you a globe like google earth, with a million dots all over it.  Each dot is a radio station, broadcasting out of the city and country indicated on the map.   I like scrolling around to random places and listening to what other nations play on the radio.   It's surprisingly difficult to go anywhere on earth, to any of those dots, and find a station playing something that ISN'T American songs from a decade or three ago.  

Exporting notions of government by consent, inalienable human rights, free market capitalism, technological advancement: Good things.   Hooray.

Exporting Hollywood skin flicks and Madonna's Like a Virgin: Not-quite-so-good things.  Sort of embarrassed.

 

14 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Also, read up on the reasons why the West put the Shah in power in the first place. Spoiler alert: it was oil.

Perhaps you could use a bit of mind blowing, but every single nation on earth since the dawn of recorded human history operates the same way.  Nations all have a military class, a political class, and an economic class. If you're missing one of those, you're not a nation, you're part of someone else's nation.  The elites in each class vie with the other classes for power in the nation.   The three of 'em stand united as the nation vies against other nations.  Allies and enemies, treaties and warfare, leverage and power, culture and trade, all are levers pulled by each nation in order to make gains.  It's a human thing, not a US thing. 

Everywhere.  All the time.   Without exception.  Us religious folks call it "our fallen mortal probation", a consequence of getting kicked out of the garden of Eden.   Folks on the left of the spectrum tend to think of it as "something we can win over if only we had just a little more government".    Just look at the thing: 

 

Yeah.  The US is enjoying it's time as the world power.  Using our influence/power to do stuff for our benefit.

One good thing we have with US empire, that we really didn't have with any of those other big pretty colors, was our empire wasn't really an empire.  More like a Hegemony - rule through influence and leverage and treaties.  We didn't move in and conquer.  Our military bases all over the world don't control the political class or economic class.  And where they don't run the military class, those are other people's nations. 

Yeah.   I get being ashamed that the US did a thing to get more oil out of Iran.  I get thinking thoughts while stationed in Iraq and experiencing the hatred from some people there, and having a deep understanding and appreciation of it.  I even get rejecting the notion that "if it wasn't us, it would be someone else", which is what my point here boils down to.  But rejecting the notion is rejecting reality.   The US isn't perfect, and we've projected power in ways that other people don't like.  But I daresay we've raised the quality of life for more humans in earth, than any other nation on that chart, as measured in GDP, longevity, and freedom.

[Phoenix_person]

39 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

If you're seeing that take from some folks in washington, then I'm happy to join you in griping about it.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trumps-nominee-for-pentagon-chief-suggested-new-temple-could-be-built-on-temple-mount/

https://firstthings.com/mike-huckabees-biblical-vision-for-israel/

The second link is from a pro-Israel source and offers insight into the religious views that inform the decisions of both Trump's current and former ambassadors to Israel. The current ambassador is Mike Huckabee, an evangelical pastor turned politician/diplomat. People like him typically won't "say the quiet part out loud", but his views on the region are well-documented. He doesn't believe in a two-state solution and he believes that all Palestinian settlements should be annexed by Israel and that a Palestinian state should be carved out of neighboring countries. He's said as much out loud.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/12/politics/mike-huckabee-palestinian-comments-trump-israel-ambassador

Yes, it's CNN, but his own words are presented in context (he even states, correctly, that he shouldn't be saying it). The only countries he is interested in taking land from is Israel's Muslim neighbors. I'm not saying that shouldn't be on the table, but expelling more Muslims from their homes would create more problems than it would solve. And maybe he's counting on that.

Prophesies aside, it would be nice to have people in these diplomatic discussions who respect the right of Palestinians to exist freely in one of their holy lands even half as much as they respect that of the Israeli people. I have no faith that a Southern Evangelical pastor will ever have that kind of impartial thinking about the region. It's naive to think that he could. 

[Phoenix_person]

23 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Exporting notions of government by consent, inalienable human rights, free market capitalism, technological advancement: Good things.   Hooray.

Funny how we only do these things in regions that have something of value to us. 

I would argue that free market capitalism is not, in fact, a universally good thing. It's the reason why so many of the products we enjoy as Americans come from labor exploitation in places like SE Asia and West Africa. American exceptionalism comes at a terrible price.  And if the average lifespan of the empires on your chart are any indicator, our tab is overdue. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Phoenix_person

[laronius]

8 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Funny how we only do these things in regions that have something of value to us. And I would argue that free market capitalism is not, in fact, a universally good thing. It's the reason why so many of the products we enjoy as Americans come from labor exploitation in places like SE Asia and West Africa. American exceptionalism comes at a terrible price.  And if the average lifespan of the empires on your chart are any indicator, our tab is overdue. 

In any society someone has to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong," whether it be economically, socially, whatever. But somebody has to decide it. I personally would rather it be me (us the people) rather than some ruling class. If we fail it's on us and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The influence of the US in the world is obviously both good and bad. But if it's have both or have neither then I would much rather be a citizen of most any nation with the US in the world than not. 

Lastly, it's really hard to know what people really think about us. We know what they think based on what they are told about the US but that's not always accurate. And the less freedom a people enjoy the more likely their perceptions are skewed. 

[mirkwood]

𝐀 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥—𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦.

Let’s roll the clock 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤—𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. Before 1948. Before the current state of Israel was acknowledged. Try 1788, when the U.S. was barely a country.

Most folks forget this history, but I don’t. Even back then, 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬 by the Barbary pirates—North African states under the Ottoman Empire.

𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢—𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭? "To the shores of Tripoli"? Yeah, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 Tripoli. Our ships were stopped, crews hauled off into slavery. Between 1750 and 1815, it's estimated 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 Europeans and Americans were taken.

Jefferson and Adams went to the Ottoman ambassador in London and asked him straight: “Why do you do this to us? We’ve never fought Muslims. We weren’t in the Crusades. We weren’t in Spain’s wars. Why enslave our people? Why attack our ships?”

The ambassador, Mr. Abdul Rahman, didn’t mince words. He said, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘵. 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬.

That was the answer. So Jefferson said, “Fine. I’ll build a navy and 𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞.” And he did. And thank God he did.

So let’s be real clear—𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. And it sure as hell isn’t because of our support for Israel. That’s a 𝘭𝘪𝘦. A 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘪𝘦. One that shifts blame away from the people who are actually doing the killing—and points it back at us.

𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬. The truth matters. Don’t rewrite it just because it makes someone uncomfortable.

Our enemy isn’t Israel. It isn’t Republicans. It isn’t Democrats. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 within a major religion that’s made it crystal clear: 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮—𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺.

𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Because if you do—𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵. Taken from a ship, a plane, or a street... not as a citizen, but as a 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞.

 

~ M.A. Rothman

[Phoenix_person]

12 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

𝐀 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥—𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦.

Let’s roll the clock 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤—𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. Before 1948. Before the current state of Israel was acknowledged. Try 1788, when the U.S. was barely a country.

Most folks forget this history, but I don’t. Even back then, 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬 by the Barbary pirates—North African states under the Ottoman Empire.

𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢—𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭? "To the shores of Tripoli"? Yeah, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 Tripoli. Our ships were stopped, crews hauled off into slavery. Between 1750 and 1815, it's estimated 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 Europeans and Americans were taken.

Jefferson and Adams went to the Ottoman ambassador in London and asked him straight: “Why do you do this to us? We’ve never fought Muslims. We weren’t in the Crusades. We weren’t in Spain’s wars. Why enslave our people? Why attack our ships?”

The ambassador, Mr. Abdul Rahman, didn’t mince words. He said, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘵. 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬.

That was the answer. So Jefferson said, “Fine. I’ll build a navy and 𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞.” And he did. And thank God he did.

So let’s be real clear—𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. And it sure as hell isn’t because of our support for Israel. That’s a 𝘭𝘪𝘦. A 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘪𝘦. One that shifts blame away from the people who are actually doing the killing—and points it back at us.

𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬. The truth matters. Don’t rewrite it just because it makes someone uncomfortable.

Our enemy isn’t Israel. It isn’t Republicans. It isn’t Democrats. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 within a major religion that’s made it crystal clear: 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮—𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺.

𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Because if you do—𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵. Taken from a ship, a plane, or a street... not as a citizen, but as a 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞.

 

~ M.A. Rothman

So your argument against an entire (and predominantly peaceful) religion is that the Ottoman Empire was pro-slavery in *checks notes* 1788? I wonder who else was pro-slavery back then....

The fact that our slaves were African tribesman instead of white westerners doesn't make our position any more morally right than the Ottomans. Try again.

[laronius]

49 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

So your argument against an entire (and predominantly peaceful) religion is that the Ottoman Empire was pro-slavery in *checks notes* 1788? I wonder who else was pro-slavery back then....

The fact that our slaves were African tribesman instead of white westerners doesn't make our position any more morally right than the Ottomans. Try again.

You sidestepped the whole point, which is that they haven't changed. And by "they" we don't mean the predominantly peaceful element of their religion but the extremists and more in particular the extremists who are in power.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

So your argument against an entire (and predominantly peaceful) religion is that the Ottoman Empire was pro-slavery in *checks notes* 1788? I wonder who else was pro-slavery back then....

The fact that our slaves were African tribesman instead of white westerners doesn't make our position any more morally right than the Ottomans. Try again.

This is not exactly and entirely true.  I am very white (blond and blue eyed) mostly from Scandinavia.  I am descended from a white slave in the Americas named George Darling.  It is true that the vast majority of slaves were black from Africa, but it is not true that they were the only slaves being traded in the slave markets.  The other critical bit of historical information is that there were no white slavers in Africa.

The history of slavery is that various cultures made slaves of the other cultures they conquered.  Strange as it may seem, the first cultures taken into slavery were the closest cultures to the most powerful waring cultures.   Historically these were the most genetically and otherwise similar cultures.  The history of slavery was never really about racism, as it was about class warfare.

It should also be noted that western civilization was the first to politically abolish slavery.  Well, sort of the first, if you exclude the progressive political support for human trafficking (though such support is mostly indirect) – that I believe is the modern version of slavery.   Who else will supply the labor for our agriculture, hospitality, restaurant and recreational industries (do the work we sophisticated upper class are above doing).   The mentality of bigotry seldom changes.

Even the native populations, long before Europeans even discovered the Americas engaged in slavery as a standard practice.  The concepts of slavery seem to resurface in the strangest of ways.  For example, there are efforts from blacks to enslave everybody else in America in a modest element of slavery called reparations.

It is my theory that the worse kind of bigotry is about being oppressive in the now – using history as the excuse.   In LDS theology oppressions is always evil and is made a greater evil with the excuse of revenge.

 

The Traveler