U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work
A mere six weeks ago Bush was talking of World War Three should Iran be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon or even the "knowledge" to produce a nuclear weapon.
Now we have a report from all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies - a report which the Bush administration has been keeping on hold for more than a year - which states that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen.
The Bush administration, which has been publicly making the case that Iran are developing a nuclear weapon, sent forth Stephen Hadley to argue that - laughably - the report justified some of their more overblown claims concerning Iran and the bomb.The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.
But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”
It really does say something about the sheer shamelessness of the Bush administration that they can send someone out, after the publication of a report which basically undermines everything that they have been saying, and attempt to spin it as proof that their tactics have been the right ones and that the "assessment does not suggest a failure on the part of the U.S. intelligence community, but a success in finding the true status of the program."But the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes.
“It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”
“The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.
Up until now almost every statement from the neo-cons has implied that the very fact that Iran are enriching uranium is somehow proof that Iran are intent on developing a nuclear weapon. We now know that, for at least the last year, the intelligence was saying the opposite.
And, of course, the argument that Iran might in future seek to develop nuclear weapons ignores Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa - issued in 2005, two years after the programme was shut down - which explicitly forbids the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.
John Edwards issued a statement which, I think, more accurately explains what the report signifies:
"The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war. The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps like the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which needlessly took us closer to war. And it's why I have proposed that we pursue a comprehensive diplomatic approach instead."Hillary tried to spin it to best serve her presidential campaign, but the opening remarks of a statement made on her behalf nevertheless told a bald truth:
"The new declassified key judgments of the Iran NIE expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends."I find it impossible to believe that sixteen intelligence agencies suddenly changed their minds regarding Iran in the past few weeks, which leads me to think that one of the reasons that the Bush administration has tried to halt publication of this NIE report is because it did not fit it with their ideological desire to bomb Iran.
I also think perhaps this is what has produced the subtle change in Bush's rhetoric over the past year, where he has started to talk about preventing Iran developing the "knowledge" to develop a nuclear weapon rather than a nuclear weapon itself. Bush knew when he made those statements that his own intelligence communities were saying that Iran had halted all attempts to build a nuclear weapon and that he was never going to be able to produce proof of any Iranian nuclear weapons programme. So he switched his aim to preventing Iran developing the "knowledge" to develop a nuclear weapon, which simply gives him more scope to pursue his aim of cutting Iran down to size without burdening himself with having to produce proof which he must have known didn't exist.
And only a few weeks ago we had people like John Bolton stating that "Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran" because ElBaredei was insisting on what the US's own NIE report now states, which is that Iran are 3-8 years away from developing a nuclear weapon, although there is no proof that they actually want one.
The Bush regime spin will start today. I expect it to be shameless.
Click title for full article.
19 comments:
I read part of the report yesterday. The wording is problematic. Did Iran start a weapon program in the first place ? This we don't know and there are indications to the contrary. Now a report saying that Iran ended a program means that it started the program and it is this precise question that is not clear at all for me from this report.
Sophia,
I agree that they are making a presumption that Iran attempted to obtain a nuclear weapon based, as they admit, on assumptions.
However, I regard this as now irrelevant. After all, two years later Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa was issued.
Bush's claim is that Iran still desire a nuclear weapon. Either Khamenei is serious about his religious beliefs and he meant that fatwa, or he is not serious about religion and issued the fatwa as a cover for a lie.
Is there anyone who would seriously argue the latter?
U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work
Actually, the unclassified portion of the NIE claims that Iran halted their work. It's a subtle but important difference from ended.
But there's no need to let other's interpret the report for you when you can read it yourself and form your own judgements minus any spin (be warned, it's more than one page).
So what can we actually take from this report...
- US intel assesses with high confidence that until fall 2003 Iran was undertaking activities aimed towards actively developing nuclear weapons.
- US intel assesses that the program was put on hold because of international pressure due to disclosure of previously undeclared activities.
- US intel is unsure regarding future plans to restart their halted program
- US intel believes that Iran may technically be capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime between late 2009-2015.
- US intel assesses that Iran is continuing developing capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons.
- US intel assesses that it will be difficult to convince Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons, particularly given the considerable efforts that have been spent towards that end already.
- US intel assesses that the Iranians will likely use covert facilities for HEU production and not well-known sites.
That's the gist of it. If one is willing to accept the given assessments then one must accept that Iran has a weapons program that is at least temporarily on hold due to international pressure. One would also have to accept that the Iranians will eventually possess the capability to produce HEU and nuclear weapons if they so choose.
a report which the Bush administration has been keeping on hold for more than a year
I'm not sure on what evidence this statement is based, but I do know that the report that was released claims that it includes intelligence reporting up through 31 October 2007, which is just over a month ago.
I find it amusing whenever one of these is released or leaked that one side or the other is always cherry-picking what findings they want to accept, and that the same people who decry the assessments of the US intel community on one hand, openly embrace their assessments when they feel they better serve their political ends.
Jason,
I have read the report.
As I said to Sophia, I regard all of that as irrelevant as in 2005 - two years after the supposed nuclear weapons programme ended -Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa was issued.
Bush's claim is that Iran still desire a nuclear weapon. Either Khamenei is serious about his religious beliefs and he meant that fatwa, or he is not serious about religion and issued the fatwa as a cover for a lie.
Is there anyone who would seriously argue the latter?
Is there anyone who would seriously argue the latter?
Apparently you've never heard of al-Taqiyya.
And have you any example of a fatwa being issued as al-Taqiyya?
From what I can see from the article you linked to it is permissible to lie when your own life is in danger, there is simply no example of a fatwa being issued as al-Taqiyya.
After all, a Fatwa is a clarification of Islamic law; it would be simply bizarre if you could lie about a law whilst defining it.
From what I can see from the article you linked to it is permissible to lie when your own life is in danger
This is not true. There are at least four occasions when lying is permissible:
1st, to save one's life;
2nd, to effect a peace or reconciliation;
3rd, to persuade a woman;
4th, on the occasion of a journey or expedition.
I say "at least" because prominent Muslim theologians have expanded on the idea. For example, Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali stated, "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible."
Nowhere does it claim that Taqiyya cannot be used in the context of a fatwa, and in fact it makes perfect sense to do so when the main target audience for the fatwa are the "enemies of Islam" and issuing the fatwa serves to further permissible objectives in Islam.
The Ayatollah's fatwa fits perfectly here. The target audience for the fatwa was clearly the West, otherwise it made no sense. Iran had a nuclear weapons program prior to issuing that fatwa. If it was un-Islamic to have such a program, then that was the case in 2003 as well as 2005. He is the supreme leader of the country. If he felt such a program were against Islam he would have never given it the green light to begin with. However, given the pressure that Iran was under, issuing the fatwa could conceivably have the effect of staving off the "persecution" from the West.
Regardless of his reasoning, we can agree on two points:
1. Lying and deception are allowed in Shia Islam in the guise of al-Taqiyya.
2. There exists no evidence that forbids the use of al-Taqiyya in the context of a fatwa.
Given these, we must therefore agree that just because the Ayatollah of Rock-and-Rolla issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons (a fatwa obviously aimed at the West in the face of mounting pressure) does not mean that Iran has actually banned nuclear weapons.
there is simply no example of a fatwa being issued as al-Taqiyya
Lack of an example where a fatwa was used as al-Taqiyya neither proves nor disproves anything. Interestingly enough though there are those who believe that a fatwa issued by the head of Federation of Islamic Religious Entities in Spain was in fact an example of al-Taqiyya. Whether it was or not is besides the point though, because as I've indicated whether or not it makes sense to you or me, there appears to be nothing forbidding the use of a fatwa as Taqiyaa.
Nowhere does it claim that Taqiyya cannot be used in the context of a fatwa
A fatwa is a clarification of Islamic law, it is nonsensical to claim that one can lie whilst issuing a fatwa.
If it was un-Islamic to have such a program, then that was the case in 2003 as well as 2005.
Hence the clarification in 2005 outlining it's illegality.
You're bordering on racist here with this claim that "Muslims can lie, it's in their culture". The Wikepedia page you linked to concerning al-Taqiyya also outlined similar practices in other religions, but in all cases referred to the permitted behaviour of individuals rather than that of the overall religion. Just substitute the word "Jew" in place of "Muslim" to see how offensive you are being.
All of the examples you give:
1st, to save one's life;
2nd, to effect a peace or reconciliation;
3rd, to persuade a woman;
4th, on the occasion of a journey or expedition.
...are quite clearly designed for individuals in certain situations. They do not refer to the religion itself.
You're bordering on racist here with this claim that "Muslims can lie, it's in their culture".
Ah, the "racist" claim. A favorite tactic of the liberal left used to try to discredit their opposition, most often used when they can't sustain an argument. However, those are your words, not mine. I stated a fact, which is that Taqiyya (lying and deception to attain certain permissible goals) is allowed in Shia Islam. If you want to twist it or feign offense, feel free.
I'm not going to try to convince you on this further, because quite simply, like most other things you've made up your mind on, I don't think you can be. Suffice it to say you are wrong here if you believe that the practice cannot be applied by a head of state or some organization or that it cannot apply to a fatwa. Assuming that his Ayatollahness MUST be telling the truth because he issued a fatwa is completely ridiculous, it's a completely false train of logic, and I've told you why. Whether or not you choose to believe it does not alter that fact.
You've got enough information to find out more on the subject if you're interested.
Ah, the "racist" claim. A favorite tactic of the liberal left used to try to discredit their opposition, most often used when they can't sustain an argument.
As someone who has several times implied that you "detected a whiff of anti-Semitism" because I dared to criticise the policies of the Israeli government, you are on very thin ice when you charge others with making accusations because they lack an argument.
And your racism is rather overt. Tell me, are lies allowed in Judaism? Because they also allow Taqiyya (dissimulating their faith in periods of danger). And following your own logic, would Rabbis be allowed to lie when clarifying the Torah? Of course they wouldn't. It applies to individuals in periods of danger.
So this reading of Taqiyya is something that you appear to apply only to followers of Islam, which is why I regard you as, at least, virulently anti-Islamic if not an out and out rasict.
However, those are your words, not mine. I stated a fact, which is that Taqiyya (lying and deception to attain certain permissible goals) is allowed in Shia Islam.
By individuals under certain circumstances. You are arguing that Fatwa's can be lies. They are seperate things. A Taqiyya is used by individuals to avoid persecution. A Fatwa is a clarification of Islamic law.
I'm not going to try to convince you on this further, because quite simply, like most other things you've made up your mind on, I don't think you can be. Suffice it to say you are wrong here if you believe that the practice cannot be applied by a head of state or some organization or that it cannot apply to a fatwa.
Oh, now you're slipping off the deep end. Now I'm wrong simply because you insist I'm wrong without bringing a single example to the table.
So, Jason, like, a Muslim is most likely to lie when trying to save his own life in the process of effecting a peace or reconciliation that involves persuading a woman to occasion a journey or expedition with him. Don't trust any Muslim who is that situation. Word to the wise.
By the way...I guess I'll just point out that SOME cultures (no naming names here) believe it OK to lie when:
1. it's "a matter of national security"
2. competing in the free market
3. trying to save someone's feelings from being hurt
4. waging war
5. your buddy co-worker calls in sick to work
6. you have farted in a crowded elevator
7. it's between the daytime hours of 8 a.m. and 11 p.m.
8. it's between the nighttime hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m.
9. anchoring a 24-hour news outlet
10. you have murdered someone
11. wearing dirty underwear
And, oh, what the hell:
12. to save one's life;
13. to effect a peace or reconciliation;
14. to persuade a woman;
15. on the occasion of a journey or expedition.
So, I ask you, Jason: What exactly is the interesting point you wish to make about Muslims and their lies? I am soooo bored right now. Give me something I can munch on, make me laugh, just do SOMETHING.
As someone who has several times implied that you "detected a whiff of anti-Semitism" because I dared to criticise the policies of the Israeli government
You mean, practically dedicated a blog to criticism of Israel.
And your racism is rather overt.
Don't mistake your inability to comprehend something as racism on my part.
Tell me, are lies allowed in Judaism?
I don't know, you tell me.
Because they also allow Taqiyya
I would find it odd if the Jewish religion explicitly follows Quranic tenets. This quip however displays how you're missing the whole point. What we are referring to here is specifically the tenet of Taqiyya as discussed by Islamic scholars and referrenced in the Quran. You are acting as if I'm speaking of dissimulation in general, when as should be painfully obvious, I am not.
It applies to individuals in periods of danger.
If you mean it only applies to individuals in periods of danger, you are incorrect. It applies to protect the person, family, or property. It also applies to protecting the religion. So, if the Ayatollah believes that Iran is under iminent threat from the West, the use of taqiyya would be acceptable to try to avert that threat. As pressures from the West, as well as rampant rumors that the US was planning some kind of invasion, were at their height when this fatwa was issued, his belief that Iran was in danger could certainly be understood.
Another form of taqiyya is reconciliatory taqiyya. This type of Taqiyah is done to intends to reconcile with the other side or to soften their hearts. This type of taqiyya is political.
Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 32:
The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa'l-Adab)
Book 032, Number 6303:
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good.
Another reference to this type of taqiyya:
“Mix with them (i.e.non-shia) outwardly but oppose them inwardly.” (Al-Kafi, vol.9, p.116)
And more:
“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them” (Qur’an 3:28). In other words, don’t make friends with unbelievers except to “guard yourselves from them”: pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them. The distinguished Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that in this verse “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.” However, exempted from this rule were “those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [or taqiyya, the shielding of what is in one's heart] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'"
So, if his Ayatollah-ness was using his fatwa (which was of course clearly aimed at the west) in an attempt to soften the hearts of the West, then he may have been using this type of taqiyya. Since we don't know the Ayatollah-of-Rock-and-Rolla's exact intention, we can't be sure. However, we can clearly see that he may have perceived Iran to either be in danger or that he wanted to weaken the resolve against him. Either one of these goals would be an acceptable use of taqiyya.
Now it is also quite clear that a religious authority can use taqiyya in proclamations to his followers if it is permissible. From the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's website:
If the Qadhi (Religious Authority) of the Holy Places proclaims the sighting of the moon, albeit not according to the shar'i criteria, it may be said to be acceptable for those convinced that the proclamation was correct. They must abide by it; their pilgrimage is valid; otherwise it will be invalidated.
Furthermore, it may be said that to follow the proclamation of such a Qadhi is sufficient, even though a pilgrim is not convinced of its validity, especially when taqiyyah requires such a practice.
So this reading of Taqiyya is something that you appear to apply only to followers of Islam
It's a religious tenet of Shia Islam (some Muslims argue not just Shia Islam though). This isn't an attack on Islam, it's their own tenet as stated by themselves. If you find that tenet of their religion distasteful, that says more about you than anything else.
Now I'm wrong simply because you insist I'm wrong without bringing a single example to the table.
No, you're wrong because you made a completely false analysis of something that you just heard of after reading a single wiki page. When I pointed you to a single definition of taqiyya (albeit with many referenced links that you did not follow), I figured I had given you enough of a head start to do some minimal amount of research with which to make a reasoned argument. My bad.
New Mexico Man,
Time to go back on the meds I think. Try to ignore the previously discussed voices of the trial lawyers in your head (as well as all the other voices in your head).
You mean, practically dedicated a blog to criticism of Israel.
That comment renders you practically unhinged. I merely ask that Israel follows the same international laws that we demand Iran and others comply with. You appear to have a problem with that.
Indeed, if I remember correctly, even if Israel were to illegally invade another nations sovereign territory, you would disapprove but support her anyway. What is suspect here is your slavish support rather than my asking that she plays by the same international laws as everyone else.
So, if his Ayatollah-ness was using his fatwa (which was of course clearly aimed at the west) in an attempt to soften the hearts of the West, then he may have been using this type of taqiyya. Since we don't know the Ayatollah-of-Rock-and-Rolla's exact intention, we can't be sure.
The casual way you insult the Ayatollah is a further example of your rampant anti-Islamic sentiments.
And the fatwa passed by him is his clarification for Muslims on what is allowed and what is not allowed. If you could bring any past example where a fatwa was used as a lie you would have more crediblity, but you can't so you resort to claims that "we can't be sure" which simply means never trust Arabs.
This isn't an attack on Islam, it's their own tenet as stated by themselves. If you find that tenet of their religion distasteful, that says more about you than anything else.
It is also a tenet of Judaism, and it's not the practice that I find distasteful, but your reading of it. You seem to have to come down to, "they're all bloody liars and you can't believe a word they say, even when they are passing fatwas."
My bad.
No, you boring.... And anti-Islamic.
I merely ask that Israel follows the same international laws that we demand Iran and others comply with.
What you do is dedicate a blog towards criticism of the US and Israel. If you were the champion for international law that you claim to be, then your blog would be quite a bit more diverse to put it mildly. But since it isn't, your biases are crystal clear.
The casual way you insult the Ayatollah is a further example of your rampant anti-Islamic sentiments.
Islam does not have a central authority, like the Pope in the Catholic Church. Similarly, neither Shia nor Sunni Islam have central authorities. The Iranian Ayatolla is Shiite. The Iranian Ayatolla does not speak for Shia Islam. What this means is that the Ayatolla neither speaks for Islam, nor does he speak for Shiites. Therefore, disrespecting the Iranian Ayatollah in no way, shape, or form could possibly be construed by any intellectually honest party to be an example of so-called rampant anti-Islamic sentiments.
If you could bring any past example where a fatwa was used as a lie you would have more crediblity
Well, I pointed you to a recent fatwa that many think may have been taqiyya, but much more relevant than that, I pointed you towards interpretations posted on the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's website that definitively showed that religious authorities can use taqiyya when making proclamations to their followers. It doesn't get much more obvious than that.
I've amply demonstrated that taqiyya for the fatwa would be permissible under either of two types of taqiyya, and I've amply demonstrated that a religious authority can issue proclamations (which is what a fatwa is) to their followers when taqiyya is permissible. Asking for anything more than that is just being stubborn and refusing to concede the obvious, which is that a fatwa may be a permissible vehicle for taqiyya.
You tried to make the bizarre claim that the Iranian Ayatollah must be speaking the truth, because, hey, he issued a fatwa. I've demonstrated how that logic is faulty and that such an assumption can't be made. Given what you now know, refusing to concede that his Ayatollahness could not have possibly used taqiyya when issuing the fatwa is nothing more than stubbornness.
Equally bizarre is your sudden reverence for the Ayatollah given your quite obvious disdain for the Christian religion. Would that be some kind of odd double standard?
you can't so you resort to claims that "we can't be sure" which simply means never trust Arabs
Don't confuse your sentiments with mine. This would be you again, having badly lost the argument on a factual basis, trying to paint me as some kind of bigot or whatever. As I pointed out earlier, this is a favorite target of the extreme left, particularly when they have no intellectual leg to stand on. If you can't make the argument, why not try to disparage those you don't agree with?
It is also a tenet of Judaism
Is it? What exactly is the Jewish tenet that is similar? Do you have a reference? Not being overly versed on Judaism, I can't say that I'm aware of it. There is no similar tenet in Christianity, which of course shares the Old Testament with Judaism. But out of curiosity, what made you bring Judaism into the discussion?
You seem to have to come down to, "they're all bloody liars and you can't believe a word they say, even when they are passing fatwas."
Again, your interpretation, not mine.
And anti-Islamic.
Hmm... I've volunteered to put myself in harm's way to help Iraqi Kurdish Muslims and Bosnian Muslims, and spent nine months in combat zones in order to do so. Now why on earth would someone who's anti-Islamic go out of their way to put themselves in danger to help Muslims? I don't think they would. In any case, that's pretty rich coming from you.
What you do is dedicate a blog towards criticism of the US and Israel
What you do is support and attempt to justify the US actions even when they are engaging in torture and offer reluctant support for Israel even were she to engage in blatant violations of international law.
Well, I pointed you to a recent fatwa that many think may have been taqiyya
Where did you do that?
Equally bizarre is your sudden reverence for the Ayatollah given your quite obvious disdain for the Christian religion. Would that be some kind of odd double standard?
When have I ever attacked any Christian religious leader or spoken of them in terms similar to the ones you used regarding the Ayatollah?
you can't so you resort to claims that "we can't be sure" which simply means never trust Arabs
Don't confuse your sentiments with mine.
You know those are not my sentiments, so that's a desperately weak argument.
It is also a tenet of Judaism
Is it? What exactly is the Jewish tenet that is similar?
It's listed in the Wikepedia page that YOU linked to.
Hmm... I've volunteered to put myself in harm's way to help Iraqi Kurdish Muslims and Bosnian Muslims, and spent nine months in combat zones in order to do so. Now why on earth would someone who's anti-Islamic go out of their way to put themselves in danger to help Muslims?
You didn't do that through choice. You were in the army and you were FOLLOWING ORDERS.
So you didn't "go out of your way to help Muslims", you went where you were SENT.
Where did you do that?
In my third comment. But of course, as I said, far more relevant was the quote from Grand Ayatollah Sistani's website which clearly spelled out that religious authorities may make religious proclamations using taqiyya when permissible (ie, when the taqiyya is permissible).
You didn't do that through choice. You were in the army and you were FOLLOWING ORDERS.
You're woefully uninformed on how the US military operates. The first time I went (Provide Comfort I), twelve aircraft from one squadron at my base were selected to deploy at that time. I was not a member of that unit. My unit was asked for volunteers in my specialty to deploy with them. I volunteered.
The second time I went (Provide Comfort II), I was a member of the unit that was deployed. When a unit deploys, at least in the USAF, they only send usually half the unit (or that's my experience anyway). I again chose to volunteer to go instead of remaining behind with the half that didn't deploy.
When I deployed for Joint Guard I went as an individual and not part of a deployed unit, in order to supplement an organization that was already there. Because of the nature of the position, I had to volunteer in order to go and was in fact the only member of my unit to go at that time. Of course, I didn't tell my wife that.
I was up for an involuntary deployment (again, as an individual) to Saudi Arabia not long after I returned from Bosnia, but by that time I was concentrating on college and preparing to exit the service (I was in fact scheduled to leave the military during the time they wanted to deploy me). Because of this, I declined that one deployment, but had I gone, would not have been a volunteer.
Your misconception is a common one, but many of the people who deploy (not all of them by any stretch) do so because they volunteer for it. It's dependent on which branch of service they're in, what their current assignment is, and what job they hold.
So you didn't "go out of your way to help Muslims", you went where you were SENT.
While I appreciate you thinking you know the circumstances of my military service, as I said above, you are so completely wrong.
Where did you do that?
In my third comment.
In your third comment you link to a page that can hardly be taken seriously. It's a reactionary website claiming that because the fatwa condemned the deaths of civilians that it is an attempt to "put the free and civilized world into yet another coma."
And their argument that the Fatwa is Taqiyya is based solely on the fact that it might not be as encompassing as westerners might presume. That's hardly as example of lying within a Fatwa.
As you yourself admit, you have no such example. Indeed, your argument appears to be that "there appears to be nothing forbidding the use of a fatwa as Taqiyaa" which is one of the best examples of guilty until proven innocent that I have ever heard.
Post a Comment