arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.
When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.
Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.
We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.
And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.
Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.
