6 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against... Probably something

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against... Probably something other than the one thing that would justify lifting the mid 90's fatwa declaring the creation, possession, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law. How aware is this community of the Supreme Leader's staunch opposition to nuclear weapons? This is pure imperialism.

tptacek 1y ago
They literally printed a bank note celebrating their nuclear program. The SL is not "staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons". (I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Nuclear program != nuclear weapons program, though.
  - aisenik 1y ago
    It is remarkable to see such intellectual dishonesty from so highly a respected figure here. Those of you who received adequate Liberal Arts education will see through him, whether you agree with his intended rhetorical outcome or not.
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    Ok, I will take the bait. Two countries that are frequently noted as having the capability to build nuclear weapons is Japan and Korea. (For the purpose of this post, please assume with good faith that they don't have secret programmes to build nuclear weapons.) Both have world-leading civilian nuclear power programmes and at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. Side note: One thing that I never see discussed: As both countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Act, I assume that they have regular audits of their facilities by IEAE. (If they were consistently failing with major mishaps, or secret programmes, I am sure that we would read about it.) Both of them have incredibly sophisticated national scientific research programmes that could easily pursue nuclear weapons. What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world. Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
    - aisenik 1y ago
      Israel just attacked Iran. Perhaps the perceived bellicosity of Iran is both justified and overblown? What is the reason to trust Israel, who engaged in subterfuge to develop nuclear weapons in the 1970s, over Iran? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
      - tptacek 1y ago
        Iran attacked Israel with a huge barrage of missiles in October of 2024. No high-horses to ride here.
        aisenik 1y ago
        Indeed. The lowest of the horses, however, is clearly the USA. Our history and our actions (POSIWID is the most effective heuristic in the modern information environment), including the capricious abandonment of the very successful JCPOA, suggest complete dishonesty in this realm. There is zero reason to believe we have any legitimate reason for attacking Iran and every reason to distrust our stated motivations. Iraq was 22 years ago. We presented outright fabrications to the UN to justify an imperial war after the president campaigned against "nation building." It is hard to ignore the parallels to Iran and Trump, proclaimed "anti war" candidate that you had to vote for to prevent WW3. Here we are.
        tptacek 1y ago
        There are only murderers in this room. And there is only one guarantee: None of us will see heaven.
        aisenik 1y ago
        I am bathed in the light of heaven for my war is in service of justice and peace for all existence. Those who stand in opposition to these goals are an evolutionary dead-end. An answer to the Fermi Paradox. My father, a middle-class mormon and far-right political enthusiast, once told me in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East, "people will die for their country, but they'll kill for their god." This harrowing indication of his radicalization nonetheless holds as a true and instructive maxim. Who is your god? For most of America, it is power and the best proxy for power is the demigod of Money. Avarice and greed are in, Christlike works are out. Too woke. It is literally possible to use all of this incredible technology and productive capacity to enable food security, high quality housing, access to healthcare, unlimited access to the wealth of all human knowledge and digitizable creations, while protecting our only habitable planet and nurturing its biosphere, and so much more, for all of humanity. Yet money and the desire for power will see billions suffer and die in the next century while mass global extinctions will only decelerate due to depletion of species. Why can't we do better than the current environment of lawless global and domestic violence waged by the US government? It is barbarism.
- aisenik 1y ago
  Did I say the Supreme Leader is a benign figure? Iran has problems. Big ones. You are disingenuous and malicious when you portray my position in this way. The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons. He is the respected religious leader of the Iranian government. The actions of the Iranian government, including their adherence to the JCPOA that Trump capriciously discarded, are consistent with this fatwa. You must provide some other justification for your stance than merely accepting the US propaganda.
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    "The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons" He is LYING. Because he is a liar. Who lies. Like about opposing nuclear weapons.
    - aisenik 1y ago
      Strict adherence to the JCPOA, capriciously discarded by the man who just bombed Iran in my name, suggests that Iran's position was legitimately held. In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment. It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.
      - UltraSane 1y ago
        You don't build uranium enrichment facilities deep underground if it isn't part of a nuclear weapons project.
        aisenik 1y ago
        You might if a nuclear-armed genocidal pariah state backed by the most powerful and richest country in the world was obsessed with you. Especially if the superpower I've alluded to had previously installed its regime in your country.

tptacek 1y ago

They literally printed a bank note celebrating their nuclear program. The SL is not "staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons". (I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)

CamperBob2 1y ago
Nuclear program != nuclear weapons program, though.
- aisenik 1y ago
  It is remarkable to see such intellectual dishonesty from so highly a respected figure here. Those of you who received adequate Liberal Arts education will see through him, whether you agree with his intended rhetorical outcome or not.
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  Ok, I will take the bait. Two countries that are frequently noted as having the capability to build nuclear weapons is Japan and Korea. (For the purpose of this post, please assume with good faith that they don't have secret programmes to build nuclear weapons.) Both have world-leading civilian nuclear power programmes and at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. Side note: One thing that I never see discussed: As both countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Act, I assume that they have regular audits of their facilities by IEAE. (If they were consistently failing with major mishaps, or secret programmes, I am sure that we would read about it.) Both of them have incredibly sophisticated national scientific research programmes that could easily pursue nuclear weapons. What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world. Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
  - aisenik 1y ago
    Israel just attacked Iran. Perhaps the perceived bellicosity of Iran is both justified and overblown? What is the reason to trust Israel, who engaged in subterfuge to develop nuclear weapons in the 1970s, over Iran? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Iran attacked Israel with a huge barrage of missiles in October of 2024. No high-horses to ride here.
      - aisenik 1y ago
        Indeed. The lowest of the horses, however, is clearly the USA. Our history and our actions (POSIWID is the most effective heuristic in the modern information environment), including the capricious abandonment of the very successful JCPOA, suggest complete dishonesty in this realm. There is zero reason to believe we have any legitimate reason for attacking Iran and every reason to distrust our stated motivations. Iraq was 22 years ago. We presented outright fabrications to the UN to justify an imperial war after the president campaigned against "nation building." It is hard to ignore the parallels to Iran and Trump, proclaimed "anti war" candidate that you had to vote for to prevent WW3. Here we are.
        tptacek 1y ago
        There are only murderers in this room. And there is only one guarantee: None of us will see heaven.
        aisenik 1y ago
        I am bathed in the light of heaven for my war is in service of justice and peace for all existence. Those who stand in opposition to these goals are an evolutionary dead-end. An answer to the Fermi Paradox. My father, a middle-class mormon and far-right political enthusiast, once told me in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East, "people will die for their country, but they'll kill for their god." This harrowing indication of his radicalization nonetheless holds as a true and instructive maxim. Who is your god? For most of America, it is power and the best proxy for power is the demigod of Money. Avarice and greed are in, Christlike works are out. Too woke. It is literally possible to use all of this incredible technology and productive capacity to enable food security, high quality housing, access to healthcare, unlimited access to the wealth of all human knowledge and digitizable creations, while protecting our only habitable planet and nurturing its biosphere, and so much more, for all of humanity. Yet money and the desire for power will see billions suffer and die in the next century while mass global extinctions will only decelerate due to depletion of species. Why can't we do better than the current environment of lawless global and domestic violence waged by the US government? It is barbarism.
aisenik 1y ago
Did I say the Supreme Leader is a benign figure? Iran has problems. Big ones. You are disingenuous and malicious when you portray my position in this way. The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons. He is the respected religious leader of the Iranian government. The actions of the Iranian government, including their adherence to the JCPOA that Trump capriciously discarded, are consistent with this fatwa. You must provide some other justification for your stance than merely accepting the US propaganda.
- UltraSane 1y ago
  "The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons" He is LYING. Because he is a liar. Who lies. Like about opposing nuclear weapons.
  - aisenik 1y ago
    Strict adherence to the JCPOA, capriciously discarded by the man who just bombed Iran in my name, suggests that Iran's position was legitimately held. In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment. It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.
    - UltraSane 1y ago
      You don't build uranium enrichment facilities deep underground if it isn't part of a nuclear weapons project.
      - aisenik 1y ago
        You might if a nuclear-armed genocidal pariah state backed by the most powerful and richest country in the world was obsessed with you. Especially if the superpower I've alluded to had previously installed its regime in your country.