Lilithu, I can understand that you look at the phrase "speak truth to power" in light of its religious/theological roots, but I was using the phrase in a much more casual and plain spoken manner and I have no theology about it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Would Happen If The US Attacks Iran?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Lilithu, I can understand that you look at the phrase "speak truth to power" in light of its religious/theological roots, but I was using the phrase in a much more casual and plain spoken manner and I have no theology about it.
Cynic
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, this hypothetical scenario is a possibility. I know that they have B-52s ready in Iraq, I'm not going to mention anything else. Military movements, strategic deployments, mobilization, etc, will give you an idea what may come next.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
It doesn't change anything. To speak truth to power credibly you have to be one of the people speaking for the people. To think that you can, from the outside, come in and speak on behalf of others with no risk to yourself shows that you are in a position of privilege. In a position of power.
To not recognize that, to think we have the right, that's the same attitude that makes us think that we can go "liberate" other countries and then wonder why the world is mad at us.
If someone tells the President 2 + 2 = 4, the truth or falsity of that statement does not in any way that I can see depend on the moral position of the person who speaks it. That's all I meant by Speak truth to power. I wasn't intending to get into a theological discussion on what it would mean to a priest.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Intelligence analysis is not a mathematical process. To think it is, is what got us into a mess here. Sadam Hussein was a problem, but how much thought was given to dealing with an Iraq in chaos? We had no plan to win the peace. Why? Because the commander in chief let people tell him intelligence was a mathematical process.
Regards,
Scott
Huh? Are you following the conversation, Scott. We were discussing Lee Bollinger's remarks at Columbia -- not the intelligence estimates presented to the President.
neves
Active Member
toe to toe like this?
YouTube - Ahmadinejad at Amir Kabir University 1/8 Subtitled
and no they were not be-headed...
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
OK.
but it's to a prophet, not a priest. The phrase comes from black liberation theology, and the idea is that it is the position of oppression that gives the person speaking his or her moral authority to speak. And we are talking about morality here, not 2+2=4.
Just to be clear, not that I think you thought otherwise, I am no fan of President Ahmadinejad. His response to the question of the execution of a gay couple in Iran was appalling. But honestly, I think that inviting him to one's university and then publicly denouncing him as a "petty and cruel dictator" does nothing to help the people in Iran. All Bollinger accomplished was to personally insult and embarrass him, to make it even less likely that he would listen to any concerns of human rights violations. One has to ask what the goal was in this, to help the Iranian people? or to voice one's own feeling of moral superiority?
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Sorry.
I think Bollinger was caught in a PR vise. To do other than he did would not have put the university in the best light. To do what he did not put the university in the best light. It was a negative sum game--everybody loses, no way to win.
Regards,
Scott
To speak truth to power credibly you have to be one of the people speaking truth.
fullyveiled muslimah
Evil incarnate!
What you and chicken Boo have said came to fruition already in this article:
Iranians decry harsh words for president - Yahoo! News
I feel like if I detest a person and all that they stand for, the last thign I do is invite them to my home only to treat them harshly. I simply don't understand the purpose for that at all. If he is detestable what does it say about you if you invite him places with you? Again I am not taking up for this guy based on who he is. What I am doing is saying that there is certain etiquette between the guest and the host, and America lokked silly doing it rather than ******.
Frubals!
moegypt
Active Member
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
I think Booko was saying that physically attacking Iran would cause Iranians to unite. I was the one who extended that to these remarks. Don't want to put words in Booko's mouth.
From the article:
Ahmadinejad's popularity at home has been suffering, with many Iranians blaming him for failing to fix the faltering economy and for heightening the confrontation with the West with his inflammatory rhetoric.
But in the eyes of many Iranian critics and supporters alike, Ahmadinejad looked like the victim. He complained about Bollinger's "insults" and "unfriendly treatment" but kept a measured tone throughout the discussion.
"Our president appeared as a gentleman. He remained polite against those who could not remain polite," said Ahmad Masoudi, a customer at a grocery store who had watched state TV's recorded version of the event, including Bollinger's remarks. Iranian Farsi channels did not air the event live.
Another customer in the store, Rasoul Qaresi, said Bollinger showed that even Americans "in a cultural position act like cowboys and nothing more."
Yup.
Otoh, allowing him to speak in the U.S. and say what he did definitely inflamed Americans against him. Maybe that was the intent. I could spin some conspiracy theories from this...
fullyveiled muslimah
Evil incarnate!
Could couldn't you? It'd be easy to i know that. Ahhh, so you've hit upon the purpose of the invitation lil. This makes him look all the villain that it would take to gain a popular disposition for support to invade Iran. You answered my original question without trying...you're good!
However, what many people will overlook is that while he may be an unsavory character, it doesn't make everything he says false. He did say in another article about his countries involvment in nuclear activity, that he was open for normal inspections that everyone's else is subject to. However, he didn't want to lay himself open for it to become a political issue. He said he is not and doesn't plan on doing anything illegal in regards to nuclear power. I didn't see a problem with that. It is enough if he is not guilty of any criminal activity to allow the UN to inspect as per normal, but not anything more.
Iran leader says nuclear issue closed - Yahoo! News
He claims the nuclear power in Iran is for peaceful civilian purposes and not war. It has been substantiated that Iran does not enrich uranium beyond 5%, and from what I hear it has to be at least 90% for weapons grade nuke power. What do you all think about that? Do you believe him? Should he concede Iran's right to produce enough nuke power for civilian grade reactors as they have been, or should he halt the enrichment of uranium altogether to quell the UN and the US? If he does stop the program, will that stop the US from attacking them?
.lava
Veteran Member
hi
i don't really want to talk about this but can't hepl myself.
the truth aout this war is horrifying.
let me ask you one question in return.
why do you think USA didnot attack Iran yet?
what are they waiting for and why?
from where i stand, these questions should be asked.
so, any idea?
Cynic
Well-Known Member
Because they have not found evidence of WMDs. The Bush Administration has decided not to invade a country without provided evidence to prevent a diplomatic disaster.
They are waiting on intelligence forces to provide some kind of evidence of WMDs, or for an event to occur that can be used as a casus belli (a justification to go to war).
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
That didn't stop them the first time around.
.lava
Veteran Member
when they made up reason to invade Iraq, they also let the lie to be heard by public. they also use protesters to control their citizens and they use public as their reason.
they didnot attack Iran because their main target is Turkey. since Iran has very strong army, US gov. decided to "creat" a reason to make Islamic countries attack eachother. attack Iran is the last thing they would do. yet Iran may attack Turkey if they buy it.