Ahmadinejad's stance on 9/11

[Junai]

Brilliant, but expected. AE911Truth show staying power, perps get irritated. They've demonized Ahmadinejad to the degree where people froth with hatred as soon as the c***ie opens his mouth. Perfect tool. Lump him in with the "truthers", and voila - people hate said group even more.

 

Hang in there.. they'll rezz Bin Laden too, before this is over. I promise you.

 

J.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Junai

[Walsingham]

Brilliant, but expected. AE911Truth show staying power, perps get irritated. They've demonized Ahmadinejad to the degree where people froth with hatred as soon as the c***ie opens his mouth. Perfect tool. Lump him in with the "truthers", and voila - people hate said group even more.

 

Hang in there.. they'll rezz Bin Laden too, before this is over. I promise you.

 

J.

 

It's not that I disagree. I just have NO freaking idea what you are saying.

[kirottu]

Brilliant, but expected. AE911Truth show staying power, perps get irritated. They've demonized Ahmadinejad to the degree where people froth with hatred as soon as the c***ie opens his mouth. Perfect tool. Lump him in with the "truthers", and voila - people hate said group even more.

 

Hang in there.. they'll rezz Bin Laden too, before this is over. I promise you.

 

J.

 

It's not that I disagree. I just have NO freaking idea what you are saying.

 

It

Edited March 13, 2010 by kirottu

[Walsingham]

Brilliant, but expected. AE911Truth show staying power, perps get irritated. They've demonized Ahmadinejad to the degree where people froth with hatred as soon as the c***ie opens his mouth. Perfect tool. Lump him in with the "truthers", and voila - people hate said group even more.

 

Hang in there.. they'll rezz Bin Laden too, before this is over. I promise you.

 

J.

 

It's not that I disagree. I just have NO freaking idea what you are saying.

 

It

[Zachariah Tam]

And you still have to explain how exactly do you figure that the Iranian leadership would execute an action that would put the whole world against it, guaranteeing international military intervention that would mean the end of the Islamic Revolution. I'm all for sending airstrikes against Iranian nuclear weapons plants, but what you propose is, quite simply, mad.

 

They would gain martyrdom. From my understanding, there is no greater sacrifice than sacrificing yourself for the jihad by taking out the enemies of Allah. If Iran got nuclear weapons, it would not surprise me for them to use such terrible weapons against Israel regardless the consequences. They would sacrifice their nation if it means to remove a nation that is, in their view, an enemy of God.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Khomeini said "We don't care about Iran, let Iran burn so long as Islam wins".

[Pidesco]

And you still have to explain how exactly do you figure that the Iranian leadership would execute an action that would put the whole world against it, guaranteeing international military intervention that would mean the end of the Islamic Revolution. I'm all for sending airstrikes against Iranian nuclear weapons plants, but what you propose is, quite simply, mad.

 

They would gain martyrdom. From my understanding, there is no greater sacrifice than sacrificing yourself for the jihad by taking out the enemies of Allah. If Iran got nuclear weapons, it would not surprise me for them to use such terrible weapons against Israel regardless the consequences. They would sacrifice their nation if it means to remove a nation that is, in their view, an enemy of God.

 

You have to understand that the political leadership of Iran isn't quite as keen on martyrdom as the general ignorant fundamentalist Muslim. They are leaders because they like power and want to keep it, not because they're trying to achieve moral victory against "evil".

[Zachariah Tam]

Yes, but at the worse case scenario this what Israel's leadership believes the Iranian leadership will do, especially given Ahmadinejad's stance on wiping out Israel. With the Iranian leadership calling out for Israel's destruction, coupled by the threat of nuclear arms and the Islamic extremist stereotype, it stands to reason that Israel would want to strike first, with prejudice.

[Pidesco]

Israeli leadership would have to be really, really naive to believe that.

[Zachariah Tam]

Israeli leadership would have to be really, really naive to believe that.

Naive, or use it as an excuse to eliminate a potential threat.

[Walsingham]

Whatever else you may say about Israel, it's rare that they are accused of being dumb as posts. There's no point in removing one enemy if 1000 will rise from his ashes.

 

Unless those enemies were really small. And really crap. Sounds like a boss fight.

 

Ahem.

 

On teh other hand I suppose in Iran's case it is conceivable that they might use a nuking to polarise action in the hope of making enemies of their enemies suddenly take action. i'm not saying I rate that as a probability, but it is conceivable.

[Asol]

And you still have to explain how exactly do you figure that the Iranian leadership would execute an action that would put the whole world against it, guaranteeing international military intervention that would mean the end of the Islamic Revolution. I'm all for sending airstrikes against Iranian nuclear weapons plants, but what you propose is, quite simply, mad.

 

They would gain martyrdom. From my understanding, there is no greater sacrifice than sacrificing yourself for the jihad by taking out the enemies of Allah. If Iran got nuclear weapons, it would not surprise me for them to use such terrible weapons against Israel regardless the consequences. They would sacrifice their nation if it means to remove a nation that is, in their view, an enemy of God.

 

You have to understand that the political leadership of Iran isn't quite as keen on martyrdom as the general ignorant fundamentalist Muslim. They are leaders because they like power and want to keep it, not because they're trying to achieve moral victory against "evil".

 

Thats quite loaded language, no one is keen on martyrdom and a fringe extremist shouldn't equate with the 'general ignorant fundamentalist muslim' nor be representative of the body. As christians are not by and large abortion bombers nor are americans pederasts because of the presense of nambla or a Roman Polanski and so on.... The general fundamentalist practicioner of islam should not be labled ignorant out of hand as the teaching and the practice are more steeped in self discipline and self developement than the way christianity is generally practiced, I would also say lines of learning tend to be less marginalized for practicing muslims than practicing christians. Compulsion is very minimal compared to other world religions, islam is expected to be spread by example...

 

This thread hasn't been anything but watercooler wardrumming.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Asol

[Junai]

Brilliant, but expected. AE911Truth show staying power, perps get irritated. They've demonized Ahmadinejad to the degree where people froth with hatred as soon as the c***ie opens his mouth. Perfect tool. Lump him in with the "truthers", and voila - people hate said group even more.

 

Hang in there.. they'll rezz Bin Laden too, before this is over. I promise you.

 

J.

 

It's not that I disagree. I just have NO freaking idea what you are saying.

 

It

[Pidesco]

Thats quite loaded language, no one is keen on martyrdom and a fringe extremist shouldn't equate with the 'general ignorant fundamentalist muslim' nor be representative of the body. As christians are not by and large abortion bombers nor are americans pederasts because of the presense of nambla or a Roman Polanski and so on.... The general fundamentalist practicioner of islam should not be labled ignorant out of hand as the teaching and the practice are more steeped in self discipline and self developement than the way christianity is generally practiced, I would also say lines of learning tend to be less marginalized for practicing muslims than practicing christians. Compulsion is very minimal compared to other world religions, islam is expected to be spread by example...

 

This thread hasn't been anything but watercooler wardrumming.

 

 

Way to misinterpret what I said.

[ramza]

Oh awesome, so looks like you both are then worse than him... You would love to see wiped millions of people just to get rid of one person... I am wondering how many of people like you are in charge of your army and foreign politics...

 

shame on you...

 

Its just not one person. It is the the Islamic clerics that support him. It is the Iranian citizens who support him. It is the "elected" officials and military that supports him. I like to see all of them removed from any sort of power, not death but made powerless. Let the Iranians who oppose his side take the reigns of power, to instill a proper democracy and freedoms for all of Iran. That is the side I will be cheering for.

 

You know, with your logic, we could have thought exactly the same thing when the US was governed by G.W. Bush. Attacking a country that didn't pose any real threat, saying lies to justify the war, violating UN regulations, killing thousands of iraquians and throwing a whole country/region into chaos. For what? Money!

 

Think twice before you write crap such as this! The US is not an angelic nation either. Neither is Israel for that matter.

[213374U]

Way to misinterpret what I said.

It's called "style over substance", technically. With some PC thrown in for flavor.

 

Also: hey Hades, having fun with your new alt?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Eh, what?

 

I don't think that Iran would directly attack Israel. They would do so with proxies like they have been for decades. Israel on the otherhand I cna see them doing direct military intervention, with or without the US blessing.

[213374U]

Eh, what?

Keep trying buddy.

 

I'm not going to cater to your immensurable attention need by discussing it anymore, though.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Okaaaaaaay...

[HoonDing]

Just like Ahmadinejad's remark about "wiping Israel off the map", this reeks of another case of the Western media seeking to demonify a Middle-Eastern leader by quoting out of context.

[Zachariah Tam]

I don't know how much demonizing is necessary in the case of Iran, given the heavy handed nature that the government attacked peaceful protest demonstrations and their support of terrorism.

[Asol]

Way to misinterpret what I said.

It's called "style over substance", technically. With some PC thrown in for flavor.

 

Also: hey Hades, having fun with your new alt?

 

Biffed hunch. Anway saying it is being PC is fair, but hardly anything is being 'misinterpretted' if I object to terms used. General ignorant fundamentalist Muslim is a big stinky foot to shoehorn in when refering to things like state sponsored terrorism or religious political extremism etc. Thats just a sauce for goose is sauce for gander question, if you don't want to see it that way fine.

 

As to 'style over substance' where is any substance? When the discussion can be summed up, 'their leaders wouldn't suicide the country because they like the power and want to keep it' it pretty much implies that the boundaries of theocratic madness could barely be guessed, I don't think its unfair to call that kind of attitude warmongering when that has become the thrust of the thread.

 

Then maybe that is over the top but this thread has had a lingering ugly direction. I may overreacted.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Asol

[Aram]

The really disturbing part is you have a highly placed politician feeding bold faced lies to his entire country.

Thank god we never had one of those in America.

[Walsingham]

The really disturbing part is you have a highly placed politician feeding bold faced lies to his entire country.

Thank god we never had one of those in America.

 

[Mamoulian War]

The really disturbing part is you have a highly placed politician feeding bold faced lies to his entire country.

Thank god we never had one of those in America.