Follow by Email

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Farred Zakaria, "Is Iran rational?": Which Other Country Hangs Homosexuals?

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Is Iran rational?," Obama cheerleader Fareed Zakaria admits that Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei might reject the cost/benefit balance deriving
from the so-called Lausanne "understanding," yet, at the same time, he makes the argument that Iran's quest for an atomic bomb is "rational." Zakaria writes:

"Look at a map of the Middle East. Shiite Iran is surrounded by hostile Sunni states. Across the Persian Gulf sits Saudi Arabia, its fanatically anti-Shiite and well-armed archenemy . (Last year, Saudi Arabia was the largest weapons importer on the planet.) In Iraq and Syria, Iran faces large Sunni insurgencies dedicated to slaughtering the Shiites. Add to this the nuclear dimension. Iran has several nuclear-armed neighbors — Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Israel.

Plus, Iran has faced active opposition from the world’s superpower for more than three decades."

. . . .

[G]iven these realities, is it so bizarre that Iran has behaved as it has? Or that it has sought to build a nuclear industry that could give it a pathway to a nuclear weapon? Would a secular, hyperrational country facing this same array of threats have acted differently?"

Or in other words, Zakaria is acknowledging what the Obama administration refuses to say: Tehran's heart is set upon an atomic bomb.

But now do a search of Zakaria's opinion piece and look for the word "homosexual." You won't find it. The significance? Allow me to answer this question with another question: A "rational" nation requires nuclear weapons so that it can continue to hang homosexuals . . . and stone to death women accused of adultery, and brutally persecute Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, and hang poets for "waging war on God"?

Sorry, Fareed. Your friend Obama might love this argument, but I don't buy it.

1 comment:

  1. Where does one begin???!!!

    Becoming Shi'a was very rational for 16th century Persia:

    "...More than most Muslim dynasties the Safavids worked for conversion to their branch of Islam and for ideological conformity. The reasons for this conversion policy included:

    One of the main reasons why Ismail and his followers pursued such a severe conversion policy was to give Iran and the Safavid lands as distinct and unique an identity as was possible compared to its two neighboring Sunni Turkish military and political enemies, the Ottoman Empire and, for a time, the Central Asian Uzbeks — to the west and north-east respectively.[9][10][11]
    The Safavids were engaged in a lengthy struggle with the Ottomans — including numerous wars between the two dynasties — and this struggle continuously motivated the Safavids to create a more cohesive Iranian identity to counter the Ottoman threat and possibility of a fifth-column within Iran among its Sunni subjects.[12]
    The conversion was part of the process of building a territory that would be loyal to the state and its institutions, thus enabling the state and its institutions to propagate their rule throughout the whole territory.[13]..."

    wait, Zakaria wrote:
    "...Iran has faced active opposition from the world’s superpower for more than three decades..."

    Iran declared war when they seized the USA embassy in Teheran in 1979. Seems a good reason for "active opposition" from the USA...

    and, then there is this big question:
    "...Would a secular, hyperrational country facing this same array of threats have acted differently?"

    Maybe the world should answer this question by voting for an independent Kurdistan, which currently fits the descriptors of a secular, hyperrational country.

    In closing, how can any Shi'a theocracy ever be described as rational?

    how many angels are dancing on the head of this pin-head?