Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear de-proliferation and non-proliferation must be done

Calling the country an Islamic Republic and running it according to Islamic laws already make the non-Muslims of that country less than regular citizens. The reality on the ground is also that Iran does indeed persecute religious minorities. See, for example:

 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/07/167733.htm and http://iran.bahai.us/

 

The persecution and injustice against the religious minorities in Iran are being done under the guidance of the 'ayatollahs'. A truly religion-neutral advocate of human rights could not revere these fanatic 'ayatollahs' as some kind of wise scholars, nor could she/he certify like 'Iranians are not known to be cruel to their religious minorities.' May be, the Iranians are not as cruel as the other beasts in the jungle, but they are far from being civilized.

 

=================================

From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Nuclear de-proliferation and non-proliferation must be done

 

       'Ayatollah' is a kind of higher degree in religious studies in the Iranian system.  One goes through a long and arduous and regimented strudies, having to pass many exams, and so forth in order to become an Ayatollah. Calling Ali Khameini a "religious fanatic" does not make sense -- he is a man of religion by profession. It is like calling a Catholic Cardinal or a Buddhist Mahathero a "religious fanatic."  Ayatollah Ai Khameini may be a politically shrewd man veering the country towards conservative policies against the wishes of people.  But Iranians are not known to be cruel to their religious minorities.  Having visited Iran during the Shah regime, I have a soft corner for the Iranian revolution.      However, changing the 'heading' of Robert Scheer's article at a personal whim or opinion about a "religious fanatic," whose opinion, deceptive or not, is extremely important right now in terms of averting a disastrous war in the Middle East, is a bit presumptuous.          I really do not know who to call a "religious fanatic" these days.  I certainly do not call BD Jamaatis or Indian RSS or Sangh Parivar "religious" just because they use communaliism as their tool of political oppression. Those crazies around a Protestant Church group in the USA, breeding 'creationism' down the neck of the local School Board Council, may be.  But for BD non-Muslims it seems that the term is reserved for any kind of Muslim irrespective of Shia, Wahhabi Sunni or Sufi.         Has Sukhamaya Bain cared to read the Scheer article?  I do not think so.  The article is full of up-to-date information on the various double-talks among US politicians.  He could have made intelligent comments on any one of them instead of the old hash mumbo-jumbo about "de-proliferation."   

 

========================= 

To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.comFrom: kamalctgu@gmail.comDate: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 06:06:08 +0600Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear de-proliferation and non-proliferation must be done 

The advent of nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction has brought in relative peace compared to earlier history.  War, on a much lesser scale than before, has now shifted to the less developed countries.  Non proliferation is unattainable.  The U. N. O. should organize an equitable distribution of these materials to assure 'world peace' by mutually assured destruction (MAD).

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Since I do not want to talk under the banner of a religious fanatic (Khameini), I have changed the heading. Looking at the new heading, it should be obvious what I think; de-proliferation should be talked about before non-proliferation.

 

The way the possessors of nuclear weapons are demanding non-proliferation by others is indeed hypocritical. There is no morality here, it is all about who has the power. I think they could ask for non-proliferation with a degree of morality only if they did the following:

 

1)      Acknowledged that it was a mistake for them to possess those weapons of mass destruction.

2)      Stopped testing for new weapons and for ensuring the effectiveness of the old weapons.

3)      Submitted a clear cut plan as to how and within how long they would bring the level of their arsenal of nuclear weapons to zero.

4)      Execute at least a part of the plan proposed in point 3 above.

 

Having said the above, I think the non-possessors of nuclear weapons should not aspire for nuclear weapons; rather they should make the above four point demands to the possessors of nuclear weapons. This, however, can be very hard; because the possessors of nuclear weapons have been ignoring such demands for the last more than half a century. Thus, the world is in a serious predicament on this. I am worried about a war of mass destruction originating in the Middle East.

 

BTW: Khameini's wise words could be just a deception. If these fanatics had any morality, they would not have made the non-Muslims of their land an inferior class of citizens.

 

 

===================================

From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: naz chow <nazrulic@gmail.com>
Cc: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Nuclear Weapons Are Sinful: Ayatollah Ali Khameini

 

I do not want proliferation of nuclear weapons to cause premature death of the civilization. 

:***************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".                -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.