Iran war has drained U.S. supplies of critical, costly weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya

You can not give consent when you are a prisoner/slave. We recognize this and throw in jail any prison guard who has sex with people under their complete control. It is rape. When a slave has your child it means you raped them. A slave can not give consent just like an inmate in prison can not give consent, a child can not give consent. All such cases are rape. Slaves (of which four are listed here) + sex = sex slavery being commited.

Ibn 'Abbas said: When Maria gave birth to Ibrahim the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, 'Her son has set her free.

From the very end:

Abu ‘Ubaydah said about Muhammad:

He had four [concubines]: Mariyah, who was the mother of his son Ibraaheem; Rayhaanah; another beautiful slave woman whom he acquired as a prisoner of war; and a slave woman who was given to him by Zaynab bint Jahsh."[35]

That is not a man above raping multiple women or sex slavery. And actions by religious leaders tend to have as much weight as words.

Again not deep diving but an Iranian theologin had to publish multiple letters publically because Iranians were using what he said as justification for raping virgins before execution. He had to publically call out that that is not what he said to stop it from happening. Again first source, I'm not deep diving so don't 'give me a different source'. Anyone that reads this is welcome to google that mans name (Hossein Ali-Montazeri) and the topic. You don't have to explain why 'people need to not rape because of what I said' if people are already... not raping.

https://wncri.org/2015/11/13/female-prisoners-virgins-raped/ https://www.womensvoicesnow.org/films/final-moments

No, I took your comment literally..and even if it was sarcastic I agree with it. It's like in the Art of War. Those who are strong don't need to say anything, and those who are weak bluster. Trump found himself in a weak position but wanted to look strong. Same thing with the mullahs over the years. Predictably once they felt their military capabilities were strong enough, they mellowed their rhetoric:

  It is also clear that “Death to America” does not mean death to the people of America. The people of America are like other peoples. It means death to American policies and to arrogance. 

> 9/11 happened after my childhood and was not conducted by a supreme Islamic leader, why would it be relevant to what I wrote?

Sorry, I don't get your point. First, the whole world doesn't revolve around your childhood, and foreign policy is not based on your childhood. This is really getting tedious. Am I supposed to also only care about things that happened when I was a child? Ok, well as a french-iranian person in the US I received hate from actual people in real life, being called a terrorist, etc, and it only got worse when France rejected the premise of the Iraq war. Republicans started boycotting anything french, breaking wine bottles, etc. My dad's french-iranian restaurant had its windows broken when when this was happening. You don't hear me mentioning it in every comment. Did anything bad actually happen to you? For all I know you were a spoiled kid who watched too much TV and weren't brought up to question what you were told.

Second, are you actually saying that calls for destruction of the US from religious extremists are only concerning if the leader was not well off? When Khomeini didn't even grow up poor at all? It doesn't add up.

The reason it's relevant is because you implied that the primary threat is from Shia islam, even though the vast majority of and most damaging attacks against the US were not by Shias.

I haven't read the HN guidelines in a while looks like I do violate a couple, like calling out people for commenting before reading an article. That should be table stakes, I think. I also have a low tolerance for people seemingly playing dumb, and am guilty of snark for sure. I'm not really sure how to interpret the 'cross-examination style' thing in practice, but you're definitely not following this guideline:

  Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize

Do bear with me a moment while I sort your paperwork

> You can not give consent when you are a prisoner/slave

In Islam you absolutely can, (لا ضرر ولا ضرار) is a core Islamic concept, and I can cite many narrations that further prove this, let alone scholarly consensus and historic accounts.

You are doing the typical fallacy of projecting western nomenclature and behavior onto another culture during a different era. Orientalists and Islamophobes do this all the time.

Rape is not permitted in Islam, and is punishable. End of story. You have so far no brought any evidence. Even the wncri article you posted does no such thing, the headline is clickbait, and the body actually says the opposite. Did you even read what you posted?

Now, on the other hand, rape is very widely used and weaponized and ideologically justified by the israelis against Palestinians, and is extremely well documented for many decades now.

[1] https://x.com/novaramedia/status/2046178399085809773

[2] https://x.com/CensoredHumans/status/2008359532393615580

[3] https://x.com/CensoredHumans/status/2049403131877073175