Iran's new president: “…Islam will conquer the world…”

Originally posted by centurion1211


Paperclip, you'd know something about twisting stories to fit an agenda, wouldn't you?

uhmmm what do you mean?

BTW, (from your avatar) did you have to put down your AK-47 to type your post or can you do both at the same time?

Yeah, I'm hunting muggles currently, am taking a short break... ain't an easy job... in my quiet mountain town....

Originally posted by Seekerof
Be assured of one thing: opposition to the Iranian mullah government is increasingly daily. Its just a matter of time....

Wasn't there a surge of oposition at the end of 90s? If my memory serves me correctly. They wanted to limit the powers of clerical court. I think that Khamenei's brother was somehow involved in it... I am not sure though, it was long time ago that I read about it.
The whole "friendly" world situation back then influenced Iran greatly too, but it all went downhill then after the turn of the millenium...

I am not sure that the circumstances are right for oposition right now.
That region is way too destabilised at the moment, and such things usualy go in favor of radicals, rather then reforms.
By that I mean the conservative parties that favor isolationism that has been widely practiced since the Revolution. They will block reform parties that also wanted a more open Iran.

If they plan on invading and conquering the whole world?
Well, for that they would need an army of uhmm 10 billion people maybe

Nice post skippy. I do not believe the nomadic tribes of Iran are interested in Tehran political philosophy. There are over 500 clans, consisting of over a million people who wish to live in peace, not be bombed into oblivion. Will these tribes support the newly elected President's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, anti-American campaign?

The real question comes down to, what groups or tribes are supporting the war in Iraq and going across the border to get experience in fighting? It's a boyhood dream to fight a superior force, survive, and come back to your family.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Christian view of martyrdom is to die under persecution for one's religious views, while the radical Islamic view is one who dies by blowing himself up and taking out as many infidels as possible.

I think they're quite different.

not exactly.

martyrdom is a method which is used by the power sponsored religions such as Islam and Christianity to lure the ordinary man to die willingly for their own agenda. it is similar to the relation between a candy and a kid.

and how did someone died or how many enemies did he take before dying doesnt really effect it, you are a martyrdom even if you broke your leg and died from cangren if you are serving under a power sponsored religion or religion sponsored power.

while killing thousand with a push of a button from hundreds of miles away seems more modern, the suicide bombing serves to the same mentality if you are in a state of war. the difference is funding. suicide bombings were first invented by japanese I believe, in the forms of Kamikaze (winged suicide bombs) and later used by vietnamese to the end of the war (bipedal suicide bombs).

and keep in mind that the invention of explosives are much later than invention of the martyrdom status.

I admit, I might have spoken to soon.

Did Washington tell the Iranian government to forbid/disqualify nearly one thousand possible candidates before the elections?

the 1 thousand is such a small number to the 27,959,253 who voted. Washington would of gotten next to nothing from that move.

Good point/example xu.
Bear in mind that the Bushido Code, a military code of honor, is quite different from Islamic extremism/fundamentalism and its unsanctioned and twisted versions of self-sacrifice or martyrdom.



seekerof

Hmmm, all this talk about 'martyrdom' as if it were a concept almost unheard of in western society.

It's not exactly as if the concept of 'the ultimate heroic sacrifice' or 'taking as many of them with you as you go' is unknown 'in the west' is it?

......and as for the science of targeting and slaughtering as many civillians as possible I doubt we need to go back too far to teach these guys a whole different league to what they are up to now.

IMO we should concentrate on the realities instead of diverting attention and effort and ultimately wasting our time demonising and inventing.
It just, IMO, gets in the way.

The reality is bad enough.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Did you forget to mention the 40,000 strong corps of martyrs that have been recruited?


editted for spelling

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Its there, in the first link.

Originally posted by centurion1211
(from your avatar) did you have to put down your AK-47 to type your post or can you do both at the same time?

Look at your own.

I can see there may be truth in the saying that Americans don't understand irony, war on terror for a start.

Anyway, are people genuinely finding what the Iranian President said offensive? So he says Islam will spread, its only an idea at the end of the day, and a good one at that.

Would you have a problem if the Pope or Bush asserted that Christianity "will conquer the world"?




seekerof

Martyrdom is a pretty nifty concept if your out gunned and desperate. Look at it this way, If for every 100 heavily armed men that are willing to kill for you, I have 10 lightly armed men who are willing to die for me, I will defeat you. Just one man thats ready to meet his virgins is far more powerful then ten who are fighting for survival, so that they can go home to their wives and children.

I don't blame the Iranian President for calling for and praising martyrs. His country is on the short list of the axis of evil and one of the three members is his next door neighbor, Iraq. Hell, i'd be doing the same thing.

The good news about the martyrs is they really don't know how to use them effectively. They waste them on civilian targets that are mostly other Muslims and fellow countrymen. If they ever realize how to actually use them effectively against an occupying army, this war is over.

This is just my humble opinion.

Wupy

If Bush said it, given his record, yes i would have a problem, if the Pope said it, no I wouldn't, because he knows what Christianity is about and proper Christianity is not spread by the sword and it is tolerant of other faiths/non faiths.

I don't think it's worth comparing Ahmadi-Nejad to George Bush, we all know who has more blood on their hands, yes some might say civilian deaths are unavoidable in war, but there is to much evidence to say that the war on Iraq was illegal.

And given the track record of Islam the last 500 years would cause many to be alarmed by what this Iranian president is asserting.

Btw, is the religion of Islam freely allowed to be worshipped in the West?
Is the religion of Christianity freely allowed to be worshipped in Arab countries, for example Saudi Arabia, etc.?

I rest my case.






seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
And given the track record of Islam the last 500 years would cause many to be alarmed by what this Iranian president is asserting.

Btw, is the religion of Islam freely allowed to be worshipped in the West?
Is the religion of Christianity freely allowed to be worshipped in Arab countries, for example Saudi Arabia, etc.?

I rest my case.
seekerof

I get the impression you enjoy thinking from a confined point of view. How many countries/groups/movements DON'T have a bad track record? Does that mean they shouldn't ever be allowed to come out with good ideas? Besides, where is your evidence, good evidence, other than Hollywood movies, and articles via MEMRI that the Islamic faith has a bad track record in the last 500 years??

Of all the posts to claim that Christians are treated badly in Arab states, when it has just been spoken about how Memri isn't the most reliable source. And Iran is not an Arab state, and they do treat Christians, and Jews well.

You didn't answer the questions, sal88.
Why?
Too incriminating or that they conflict with what you are trying to imply?
Case in point as to how Christianity is allowed 'spread' in the Arab world:
Saudi Arabia does not allow the worship of Christianity





seekerof

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Btw, is the religion of Islam freely allowed to be worshipped in the West?

yes the 'West' does allow it

Is the religion of Christianity freely allowed to be worshipped in Arab countries, for example Saudi Arabia, etc.?

Like i implied, I don't know, but I would believe that Christians do get some hassle from some Saudis, but would need more evidence that it was state sponsored.

Now how does that rest your case?

Everyone is a Muslim in Saudi Arabia. My dad made a trip there about 7 years ago during Ramadan. He said during the period of fasting the entire hotel would shut down its catering service and all running water (even sewage). That means everyone must abide by these rules. Luckily though he was able to find a friend who lived there, snuck into his office, closed the shades and door, and sipped on bottle water with 3 others for about 12 hours over 3 days.

Oddly enough, people don't wear shorts in Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by sal88
Now how does that rest your case?

Right here, when you implied:

So he says Islam will spread, its only an idea at the end of the day, and a good one at that.

You indicated that the spreading of Islam, "an idea", was a good one, which is not necessarily what the new Iranian president implied. If his intentions were merely to spread the "idea" of Islam, then he would not have created nor sanctioned those "martyrdom brigades," correct?

And yet, you likewise sanction the spread of "an idea" while stating that if Bush or the Pope had said that "Christinaity will conquer the world," you had issue with that, correct? My point was that the brand of Islam that is going to be spread is NOT the real Islam nor its "ideas." It is a twisted version. You still think that "idea" is "a good one at that"?




seekerof

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
If his intentions were merely to spread the "idea" of Islam, then he would not have created nor sanctioned those "martyrdom brigades," correct?

I have not seen any evidence that these 'martyrdom brigades' are to be used to spread the idea of Islam.

And yet, you likewise sanction the spread of "an idea" while stating that if Bush or the Pope had said that "Christinaity will conquer the world," you had issue with that, correct?

Afraid not, I didn't say I would have a problem with the Pope saying that. My reason for having a problem with Bush saying that is legitimate, and has nothing to do with being against the spreading of an idea like Christianity, but the fact that Bush doesn't seem to be very trustworthy.

My point was that the brand of Islam that is going to be spread is NOT the real Islam nor its "ideas." It is a twisted version. You still think that "idea" is "a good one at that"?

You seem really sure about that, where is your evidence that they guy wants to spread a twisted version of Islam? These Iranians are not savages. They have many part of their history and culture to be proud of, it is unlikely that they have been brainwashed in to an intolerant way of thinking.

I suppose I have overlooked the bad things that do happen in Iran though, under the name of Islam, however i do not believe that these are representative of Islam in Iran, there are other causes for them. What was at the front of my mind though, is Iran's conduct towards other countries, they have not started wars against any other countries for years, yeah they shout death to America, but I doubt that is because they 'hate freedom', as Bush would perhaps want us to believe, but perhaps because of America's constant interference including militarily in other countries. Peace basically is a very beautiful idea to everyone given what is going on in the world at the moment. This is probably how i was viewing the Islamic Iran.

But I can see which angle you are coming from seekerof, not that you see it this way, but many ill educated/lazy people who have nothing better to do than to fear/hate an 'enemy' will look at the bad things that happen in Iran, and decide that the notion of Islam spreading is terrible. Apologies for the 'confined viewpoint' comment btw old boy, it was uncalled for.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by sal88]

Oh, I am quite sure that the Islam that the new Iranian president refers to is not the real or true Islam.

Again, Islam strictly forbids one of faith from committing suicide, and strictly forbids the use of suicide bombings, and strictly forbids the blatant targeting of innocents and civilains.

The brand that he wishes to see spread is called radical Islam, not true Islam and there is a distinct difference between the two. You see one is of submission to Allah and peace while the other is a twisted fundamentalist version, the one that the new Iranian president is referring to when he says, "Islam will conquer the world," the one he references when he sanctioned the creation of "martydom brigades," the very same fundamentalist twisted version he refers to when he condones and glorifies martydom.
Btw, Will he lead by example and be the first to detonate himself on the way to martyrdom?




seekerof

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Again, Islam strictly forbids one of faith from committing suicide, and strictly forbids the use of suicide bombings

suicide is allowed in Islam if it will save more than 1 persons, it is forbidden to kill 'innocents', however I am quite sure it is permissable to do a suicide bombing on the enemy soldiers.

I'm afraid that 'martyrdom brigade' article is not enough evidence to convince me that he wants to spread his twisted version of Islam through violent means. And i am not being picky, feel free to show me the other evidence. Regardless of the questionable reliability of the article (Jihadwatch? honestly), i cannot see the link between the Presidents talk of martyrdom and the 40,000 so called suicide bombers, and it didn't even say if they were targetin civilians or soldiers.

He has a Republic to run, I doubt he would talk about launching a war on the world to try and make them think a certain way. He didn't imply a war on the 'free world' to spread Islam any more than Bush declared a war on Islam when he called the war on terror a 'crusade'.

Will he lead by example and be the first to detonate himself on the way to martyrdom?

lol wheres the relevance in that? that's just asking for a 'parralel' example.