If Iran attacks any adherent of the Bahai faith then the attack will

[Boojatta]

be considered an attack by the whole Islamic world on the Bahai faith."

--> Would that be a reasonable statement to make?

Why should all adherents of the Muslim faith -- a religion -- be blamed for the actions of a particular institution? For example, why should a Sunni be blamed for the actions of one particular Shi'a institution?

[whistle]

1. Don't know, could you elaborate please

[MamaBear]

2. Is that a statement from the World Centre?

That would be a very odd statement for the Baha'is to make, since the unification of mankind in peace is among their primary goals.

[Boojatta]

3. It's a hypothetical statement that could be made by anyone who is

not an adherent of the Bahai faith.

[Tempest]

4. You're making an unsupported conclusion

"If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in a telephone conversation with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.


No where does Ahmadinejad claim to be speaking for the all Islamic nations. It appears he is making a personal statement.


On edit:

"considered like" and phrases such as this indicate a personal opinion.

[n2doc]

5. Why does this all remind me of the start of wwI and ww II?

WW I in particular, started because there were a series of entangling alliances between states,"attack one and you attack all" Humanity hasn't learned.

[Tempest]

9. In WWI there was a formal agreed upon alliance between nations

There's no such formal alliance between Arab nations today.

It would be naive though to believe extremist elements in Arab countries wouldn't come to the aid of their brethren. We've already seen it happen in Iraq.

[Boojatta]

6. Need support to equate #1 and #2 or need support to claim that #1 and #2

are necessarily different in meaning?

#1 "If Iran attacks any adherent of the Bahai faith then the attack will be considered an attack by the whole Islamic world on the Bahai faith."

#2 "I personally believe that if Iran attacks any adherent of the Bahai faith then the attack will be an attack by the whole Islamic world on the Bahai faith."

[Tempest]

7. One is specifically stated as a personal statement, one is implied as such

If Ahmadinejad made his statement at a summit of Arab leaders, or his statement was confirmed as accurate by other leaders, you would have a case.

Unfortunately, neither is the case and the wording of his statement also indicates it is personal.

[Boojatta]

8. Are you carefully reading what is in this thread?

For example, are you claiming "unsupported conclusion" based merely on the fact that the hypothetical statement at the beginning of this thread doesn't include the word "like"?

[Tempest]

11. I'm claiming "unsupported conclusion"

Based upon the reason you started this thread.

You started this thread after posting in the thread about Iran warning Israel not to attack Syria, making the same assumption that Ahmadinejad was claiming to speak for all Arab nations.

Until there is evidence Ahmadinejad was claiming he was speaking for all nations, you are making a supposition.


If you tell someone that if they they hurt anyone in your family it will be an attack on all your family and there will be retaliation, are you speaking for yourself or your entire family?

[Boojatta]

13. You are objecting to the fact that this thread was created but

you are not able to actually identify something specific in this thread that you object to?

[Tempest]

20. Strawman

No where did I say I objected to the fact that this thread was created.


It appears your inability to comprehend what someone is saying extends beyond the comments of the Iranian president.

[Boojatta]

21. Here are your words:

I'm claiming "unsupported conclusion"
Based upon the reason you started this thread.

Perhaps you could explain how one should go about interpreting those words.

[Tempest]

22. Better yet

Let's see you explain how my words indicate an objection to the creation of the thread.

Or are you one of those people who assume that any dissent is akin to objection?

[Boojatta]

24. "one of those"

If you are interpreting the words "objection" and "dissent" is a technical manner, then perhaps you could explain your particular interpretation. Here's what one of those popular online dictionaries says:

objection
n 1: an expression of opposition to a course of action.
syn: expostulation, remonstrance
2: the speech act of objecting
3: the act of protesting; a public (often organized)
manifestation of dissent. syn: protest, dissent

http://dict.die.net/objection/

[xchrom]

10. yes -- there is no broader ratification of his sentiments.

[Tempest]

12. Thank you.

It's nice to know someone else gets it.

[Boojatta]

15. Do I need to support a claim that #1 and #2 are essentially the same

or do I need to support a claim that there is a significant difference between #1 and #2?

Could you answer that question?

Here are #1 and #2:

#1 "If Iran attacks any adherent of the Bahai faith then the attack will be considered an attack by the whole Islamic world on the Bahai faith."

#2 "I personally believe that if Iran attacks any adherent of the Bahai faith then the attack will be an attack by the whole Islamic world on the Bahai faith."

[xchrom]

18. you're welcome.

[MamaBear]

14. Worse possible example.

Try to think of one that better illustrates your point; the Baba'is are non political and the name of their religion should not be used in this way.

Nobody is making any statements about Baha'is right now. It would be better if you just said what you meant.

When the Baha'is were under serious attack during the Revolution in Iran in the late '70s and early '80s, they turned to quiet diplomacy to try to further their cause. The name of the Baha'i faith should not be tied to any bellicose statement, at least at this time.

[Boojatta]

16. Show me where I claimed that the statement was uttered by an adherent

of the Bahai faith.

[MamaBear]

17. A friend of the Baha'i Faith, or one who understood

its precepts and goals, would not use the name of the Faith in this manner. It is not in keeping in the least with the spirit of the Baha'i Faith. That's all.

[Boojatta]

19. The goal of this thread is to draw attention to the foolishness of saying:

"This specific action symbolizes a lot of other things in my mind and therefore I consider it to be those other things and not to be merely what it actually is."

[Tempest]

23. Boy, if that doesn't remind me of something

"This specific action symbolizes a lot of other things in my mind and therefore I consider it to be those other things and not to be merely what it actually is."

Talk about over-analyzing.


You're readin' my mind you won't look in my eyes
You say I do things that I don't realise
But I don't care it's all psychobabble rap to me

[Boojatta]

25. Can you offer a better reply to post 17?

A friend of the Baha'i Faith, or one who understood its precepts and goals, would not use the name of the Faith in this manner. It is not in keeping in the least with the spirit of the Baha'i Faith. That's all.

[Tempest]

28. I don't speak for others

Make the request to the poster.

[The Stranger]

26. The "WAR ON TERROR" already declared war on the Islamic World.

And it is supposed to go on for generations.

[Boojatta]

27. There's nothing in the OP about declaring war on the Islamic world.

Even if an attack on Bahai by the government of Iran is interpreted as an attack on Bahai by the whole Islamic world, there is not necessarily going to be a counter-attack against the whole Islamic world.

[The Stranger]

29. Deduce.

19 people attacked the U.S. and it launched a war on their religion.

The attack by 19 Muslims was an attack by the whole Islamic world on the U.S. (or on some buildings in the U.S., if you prefer).