It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irans Supreme Leader is a great guy

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
How about the context. Is it meant only if they are attacked or invaded by?




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05 Show me the "Fountain of Blood" monuments in American cities or glorification or funding of people who strap bombs to themselves and walk into crowds of innocent people.


As far I can tell this is a private enterprise in America ad many western countries where people strap bombs to themselves to rob banks.

Comparing the motives of both sides I will leaveit up to you to decide whose cause is more noble.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde

Originally posted by Realist05 Show me the "Fountain of Blood" monuments in American cities or glorification or funding of people who strap bombs to themselves and walk into crowds of innocent people.


As far I can tell this is a private enterprise in America ad many western countries where people strap bombs to themselves to rob banks.

Comparing the motives of both sides I will leaveit up to you to decide whose cause is more noble.



I can only find 2 or 3 instances of bank robberies where the suspect had strapped a bomb to themselves, whereas I can find thousands of instances where people have strapped bombs to themselves and detonated it in a crowd of innocents. To my knowledge there has never been a suicide bomb detonated in a US bank. The same goes for European banks.
As far as you can tell, this is a private enterprise? Yup. It's so private that nobody has ever even heard of it happening.



So on comparison, I think it's pretty obvious which cause is more noble as your comparison doesn't stand up to the merest piece of scrutiny.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

I can only find 2 or 3 instances of bank robberies where the suspect had strapped a bomb to themselves, whereas I can find thousands of instances where people have strapped bombs to themselves and detonated it in a crowd of innocents. To my knowledge there has never been a suicide bomb detonated in a US bank. The same goes for European banks.
As far as you can tell, this is a private enterprise? Yup. It's so private that nobody has ever even heard of it happening.



So on comparison, I think it's pretty obvious which cause is more noble as your comparison doesn't stand up to the merest piece of scrutiny.


This wasn't a comment on specific method. You display a typical flaw of most posters on this site. Narrow minded literalism.
We cause terror for cash. They cause it for whatever inscrutiable reason. I am not making a factual or analytical comment in my previous post. Perhps you should think beyond the end of your nose.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde


This wasn't a comment on specific method. You display a typical flaw of most posters on this site. Narrow minded literalism.



Then why make it look as if you were writing about a specific method?
You display a typical flaw of some other posters on this site.
It's called bull#ting.

If you want to make an impact, then do it with truths. Don't do it with something that can be construed by those who know nothing about the subject as fact, when it isn't. If your point is that the West funds terrorism then fine - state that. But don't make it look like suicide bomb bank robberies are a common occurence in the US and the West when they aren't. And don't expect people to come to your conclusions by drawing from a statement that has no bearing to the idea that you are trying to draw out.

You accuse the West of just wanting to make money. Although I disagree with that statement, I could also level it at the Iranian regime. To believe that the people who control Iran don't make money and aren't after more is naive. They even have a powerful weapon to gain control - religion.
The difference between the West and the East is that more of the wealth is spread around. In Iran it's only the mullahs and those who kowtow to the regime who have wealth. In the West, to a large degree, it doesn't matter what your particular political affiliations are. That's not to say that the West is perfect - there is corruption, but it on a far lesser scale than the authorised corruption of a regime such as Iran. There, it is such a way of life, it isn't even classed as corruption.
You should also be aware that the single largest cause of terrorism is poverty. A regime that picks and chooses who it gives wealth to and keeps it's enemies poor, breeds terrorism. The regime therefore has to bring in opressive measures that tend to hit more people than it should - they don't just hit the prospective terrorists but many innocents as well (in fact te majority of the victims of this oppression are innocents).

Now I don't know about you, but I don't go to bed at night worrying about whether something I've said during the day will bring my country's police force knocking on my door at 3-o'clock in the morning. I am generally safe from oppression because my government hasn't bred terrorism amongst my fellow countrymen and doesn't mistakenly target me in order to get at them.

Sure, it's possibly all about money. But that money isn't going to get me killed by my own people.





[edit on 24-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Did you even read my post?

Whatever...



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
You silly, silly people. Don't you know that the Iranian mullahs, are the good guys? They are freedom loving people. Just like the leaders of North Korea and Cuba.

You are the evil oppressors.

Why you say? Because various workers parties say so, thats why.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
In the presence of another solutions that doesn't require such extremism ,
blowing himself between innocent civilians like women , children , elders , and disarmed men is a terrorist act , despite if it is for resistance or for robbery .


But before judging others , let's look at ourselves :

The zionists don't have self-blowing men , but they have much more destructive capabilities that they don't hesitate to use against the civilians :

- Mines :
The Israeli forces’ refusal to deliver maps of mine fields , leaving the civilians of south Lebanon threatened by land mines scattered across inhabited or human reachable fileds .

- Missiles and bombs packed with nails :
"This type of weapon was regarded by the United Nations as so abhorrent that they banned it under the Geneva Convention which regulates the behaviour of armies while at war ."

Qana Massacre

The Qana Holocaust

- ...



Talking on the nobility of the actions of the Israelites and the Palestinians , nothing of them is noble . But there is always worse and worst . I'll keep for you to choose which cause of the three is more noble : The agressor , the resistance , or whatever example you may give ...





.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
how people can call Islam a religion of peace/ deny how destructive these people would be with Nuclear weapons in hand. Their leader, religious leaders, and soldiers seem to wish for a complete destruction of all those with a different belief system than they have.




quote: I was just wondering how people can call Islam a religion of peace/ deny how destructive these people would be with Nuclear weapons in hand. Their leader, religious leaders, and soldiers seem to wish for a complete destruction of all those with a different belief system than they have.


Right there you condemned all of Islam as a violent religion. Nearly everybody in Iran is a Muslim, which thereby blankets the entire group as violent by your previous statement, not just the leaders and the soldiers. Your post is extremely suggestive of wiping out such violent types and by blanketing the religion as being one of violence, you are condemning the entirety of its followers to such a fate. Thats how I interpret it.

It sucks enough that we have to deal with these people on a global level but it sucks even worse for the oppressed millions who follow leaders like this and as history dictates, tyrannical dictators whether serving as political, ideological, or religious leaders often times the only leading they do is into the ground and most of the time millions follow because of the slow progress of mankind in the areas of "thinking" and "Peace".

Peace.

~Rebel Saint~
"Death to Israel" means death to the illegitimate Zionist state that was raised on massacres and bloods of the Palestinians , and that occupied Lebanon and part of Syria , Egypt , Jordan .Israel's goal is to establish a Zionist state from Euphrates to the Nile . Israel don't respect the Islamic sacred places and want to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque .


but hey I tell you
wait for the birds sent from the heaven. and they will help you!
as Israelis leader is about to destroy it lot of birds will show up. so why worry about it
right? I say not.



and then if not why not? do you think that such event is possible or not?


Death to America" and "Death to Israel" means "Death to Terrorism and Oppression" .
blah blah blah .... mmm I am sorry where you saying something? or now you are happy and will just live your life normaly and wait for the birds




Hey Islam has virtually imprisoned a lot of average Iranians? how do you propose we sort it out then?


Please yeah Islam is so kind to the Jews? Right? we just don't see it ?????



So how you still see the danger from Iran , a country that wants world peace and aims to remove the terrorism , lies and oppression of USA and Israel from this world .
by; EGIONS


yeah please !!!!!!!!! yeah you are right Iran want peace but unfortunately the one who are ruling it and the ideology and methodology that is being inforced to people in Iran are clear examples of oppression and terrorism


Yeah right. death to America means.................... Death to America.
Personal I dont see why we dont just assasinate every member of the Iranian Government, seems like it would solve a lot of problems.


well you see most of these people are not even part of the government! the government in iran has no power; well real power any way. If any body challenges the Constitution mysteriously gets terror ed! not every Iranian can stand to be nominated! not that that would make any difference because nobody would worry. They are just "gotten read off!"





kill the real top ayatollahs but unfortunately they rule from their house and just as easily order execution of an government official. killing government officials wont change anything,



do a search for "persian ivasion and islam" and read what happened to Persians
so far we have egyptians, Jewish, Persian, indian,... anybody care update the list if they can think of any other country.






[edit on 24-2-2005 by zurvan]

[edit on 24-2-2005 by zurvan]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Amen. Bush can be challenged under the constitution and can be called a tyrant only in the loosest construction of the word.
But call Mohammed a child molester in Iran and see what happens.
Let your wife/daughter/sister go out alone in saudi Arabia and see what happens.
Let me know what invention, medicine, art or discovery the islamic world has produced for the betterment of mankind in the last century.
Are all Muslims the same? No one would sensably argue that, but until one of 'em stands up to say that stoning people to death with the smallest pebbles possible is a merciful act because it gives the convicted more time to reflect on thier evil acts, I would have to assume they stand with thier demented co-religionists.
As to the "death to America" chant being directed at a specific governing group, get off it. That is the most transparant lie in this thread.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Your post is total fantasy.
Let me reply to just one of your quotes.

Israel has never advocated "throwing the Palestinians into the sea" as you so falsely state. The Arab nations have repeatedly called for the total destruction of Israel though.




Read some quotes of the heads of zionism :



In Hertzl's "The Jewish State," the father of Zionism said, "...We must investigate and take possession of the new Jewish country by means of every modern expedient."


"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
- Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel.... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours ... When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle."
- Rafael Eitan,Israeli Chief of Staff

"... we have no solution, that you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave - and we will see where this process leads? In five years we may have 200,000 less people - and that is a matter of enormous importance."
- Moshe Dayan, encouraging the transfer of Gaza strip refugees to Jordan

"I ask Rabin to make concessions, and he says he can't because Israel is too weak. So I give him arms, and he says he doesn't need to make concessions because Israel is strong"
- Henry Kissinger

"I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism."
- Moshe Sharett, Israel's first Foreign Minister and later a Prime Minister

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves .. politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. ... Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."
- David Ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel






The Palestinians haven't ben promised a single acre of "Muslim land". The Arab states sit on far more Palestinian land that Israel and there isn't even the merest hint of them returning it.
Although the history of the Jews in "Muslim lands" shows no genocide once the Muslim power was established it should never be forgotten that Islam forcibly expanded through use of warfare. During that time, many were killed. Or do you call carting caravans of severed heads through North Africa "tolerance"?


From where did you bring the story of the caravans ?
Another "Islam is terrorism" propaganda ?




As for showing respect to the Al Aqsa mosque? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the site of the holiest of Judaic monuments - The Temple of King Solomon. Islam usurped the site and has been destroying Jewish history there ever since. You are saying that you condemn Israel for somthing that you suspect that they want to do when the Muslims on the Mount have already done it!!!


The Temple of King Solomon (pbuh) was destroyed by the Babylonian the first time and by the Romans the second time .
Until the arabs came to middle east , the temple was under control of the Roman empire .
So how the arabs are reponsible on usurping the site and destroying the jewish history there "ever since" ?

Do you think that Islam permits to destroy a temple for king Solomon (pbuh) .
It will be a sin for muslims to destroy a temple of a prophet .





Your claim that either Israel or the US seriously wanted to wipe out Arab nations is total and utter crap.
Why? Because those nations are still there.


What an evidence !




If either nation wanted an end to the Arab states they would have done so decades ago and it would have occured within the blink of an eye. The power that Israel or the US could bring to bear on the Middle East, if they had malicious intention is probably well beyond your comprehension.


Maybe you watch a lot of Rambo , Superman , James Bond ....






You may defend Islam by all means. I totally agree that the vast majority of people within that religion are peaceful.


I wonder if you agree that Islam is a peacefull religion .




Unfortunately they are sheep controlled by religious madmen.
You may deny that basic freedoms aren't curbed. You may deny that people don't "disappear". You may deny Arab confiscation of Palestinian land. You may even deny the agression that some Arab states have shown towards Israel since it's conception.


Choose wich arab state invaded Israel :
Palestine .
Lebanon .
Syria .
Egypt .
Jordan .

Let's start one by one .







Unfortunately history shows different.


Yeah , the history written by zionists shows everything different .





.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by XLEGIONS]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by RebelSaint
Look, I don't want to just jump in here but there are a great many decent and peaceful people in Iran and in every country on the planet. The Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei does not represent the entire population of Iran. He most likely does not represent a serious majority of the population either. People chanting in the streets yelling "Death to America" are evil and cold-harded and maybe it is partially the U.S. fault for the bad P.R. but when the "supreme" head of your government has been openly declaring jihad since 1979 against the Judao-Christian world and has publicly reaffirmed the ultimate mandate of his people to "send Israel into the sea", it's kind of difficult to have political diplomacy when the person at the other side of the table would want nothing more than to see you and your countrymen wiped off the planet.

The point I'm trying to make here is that people may hate other people for watever legitimate reason but when heads of state do it, usually a war breaks out. So there is no rational defense of Iran politically based on its overall military objectives. With that being said, there should be no way that any religious zealot (Jew,Christian,Muslim) should have nuclear weapons at his disposal.

It sucks enough that we have to deal with these people on a global level but it sucks even worse for the oppressed millions who follow leaders like this and as history dictates, tyrannical dictators whether serving as political, ideological, or religious leaders often times the only leading they do is into the ground and most of the time millions follow because of the slow progress of mankind in the areas of "thinking" and "Peace".

Peace.

~Rebel Saint~


finally, something i can agree with. i don't know which side of the line you stand on (rep/dem) and it doesn't matter here as what you posted just makes sense. on the other hand, i believe every country in the world has the right to do or say as it pleases as long as it does not affect other countries, this is called "sovereignty." in this case, that wouldn't apply, as it has been suggested that these things have affected other countries.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fledgling666
finally, something i can agree with. i don't know which side of the line you stand on (rep/dem) and it doesn't matter here as what you posted just makes sense. on the other hand, i believe every country in the world has the right to do or say as it pleases as long as it does not affect other countries, this is called "sovereignty." in this case, that wouldn't apply, as it has been suggested that these things have affected other countries.


Thanks for seeing the world as clearly as I do fledgling and if you really want to know I am currently in the "Independent" line of free thinkers because I don't want to be connected to either party as of this moment. I guess I would describe my political affiliation as "Liberal with Traditional Values", "A John F. Kennedy Democrat not a John F. Kerry one", or good ol "Moderate Republican". Party affiliation really means little to me because its the character and intentions of the men in office that I judge as worthy of my vote.

~Rebel Saint~



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I disagree. People have rights.Governments have only the rights granted to them by thier people. Governments that do not represent at least a plurality of thier citizens while affording protection and respect to its' citizens that dissent are morally illegitamite.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
CosaNostra,do you think Ayahtollah Khamenei represents all of Islam?Do you think Hitler represents all of the Germans?Do you think General Yama#a represents all of the Japanese?Do you think Bush represents every single American?

I'm dying for you to answer these.


I'll answer. You're making yourself sound like an absolutely naive fool. No, those people don't represent ALL the people in their respective countries. They do (or did in the case of Hitler and Yamamoto), however, control their country's military and police. You know, the ones that can make the wars and harass the citizens? This is the part you seem to have so much trouble comprehending.


[edit on 2/24/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Just checking the facts as you state them:

1. You don't know or can't learn to spell the name of the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei .

2. the people you believed to be air force personnel were kind enough to chant in English for C-SPAN.


More pseudo-intellectualisms from the (empty) masked avatar.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller




Then why make it look as if you were writing about a specific method?
You display a typical flaw of some other posters on this site.
It's called bull#ting.



you too
no offence?




You accuse the West of just wanting to make money. Although I disagree with that statement, I could also level it at the Iranian regime. To believe that the people who control Iran don't make money and aren't after more is naive. They even have a powerful weapon to gain control - religion.
The difference between the West and the East is that more of the wealth is spread around. In Iran it's only the mullahs and those who kowtow to the regime who have wealth.

true that



You should also be aware that the single largest cause of terrorism is poverty. A regime that picks and chooses who it gives wealth to and keeps it's enemies poor, breeds terrorism. The regime therefore has to bring in opressive measures that tend to hit more people than it should - they don't just hit the prospective terrorists but many innocents as well (in fact te majority of the victims of this oppression are innocents).



OK doesn't this then apply to US and its economic sanctions on nations like Iran?



Now I don't know about you, but I don't go to bed at night worrying about whether something I've said during the day will bring my country's police force knocking on my door at 3-o'clock in the morning. I am generally safe from oppression because my government hasn't bred terrorism amongst my fellow countrymen and doesn't mistakenly target me in order to get at them.






Maybe if you look at world as a global village you might see that happening and slowly increasing. We saw one manefestation of this on 911.


Sure, it's possibly all about money. But that money isn't going to get me killed by my own people.





[edit on 24-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
the leaders of Iran have been pulling the tail of the Tiger (America) since 1979 and now the Tiger is in their backyard.

Common sense would tell any normal person to change their tune and actions when you see that 400 lb. Tiger in your backyard, but The Iranian leadership is'nt very smart and their too arrogant to be afraid....they will only know fear when they look out the window and see an American smart bomb whizzing towards their luxury suite...only in their last seconds of life will they realize......"My God, I screwed up and pulled the Tigers tail one too many times"

Point of my post......don't yank a Tigers tail, unless your ready to deal with its teeth and claws.

Maximu§



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
1. You don't know or can't learn to spell the name of the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei .


...So? His spelling doesn't mean his idea is invalid. Judge people on their words, not their letters.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Are you saying that because of the actions of some religious leaders one can then come to the conclusion of whether that religion is good or bad? Well, your kind of reasoning is perhaps the precise reason why there is such a thing as a course in logic. Perhaps logic 101 would be a good starter. Base on that kind of logic, we could then draw the conclusion that Catholicism and Christianity are both religions of perversity since hundreds, if not thousands of Catholic and Protestant priests have been charged with child molestation and pedofilia. And we could then also conclude that Judaism condones racism and violence because some Jewish religious leaders have expressed racist sentiments and supported violent acts against Muslims and Arabs.

Elm = A tree

Oak = A tree

Since Elms and oaks are trees, elms are oaks, and oaks are elms

That's how you tend to reason....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join