Iran's new president: “…Islam will conquer the world…”, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 29-7-2005 @ 08:38 PM by Seekerof

Originally posted by sal88
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.

Do you practice real Islam?
Of interest to you?
Why It Makes “Sense” For the Resistance to Target Innocent Iraqis
Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop.

Or this, which can be backed by multiples of more. Suicide or the use thereof is strictly forbidden:
Suicide Bombers: Why do they do it, and what does Islam say about their actions?
Suicide is forbidden in Islam

Again, if terrorism, suicide or uses thereof, and the blatant targeting of innocent civilains are strictly forbidden, then why is the new Iranian president glorifying martydom by way of creating suicide brigades?
Is he sanctioning the real and true teachings of Islam or the twisted radical fundamentalist version? You can continue to argue this as you wish, but you argument in no ways changes the meaning nor the implications of what the new Iranian president has asserted.

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.

No, that is my way of saying that if the new Iranian president adheres to the ways of radical Islam, that he practice what he preaches by leading by example.

seekerof

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]

reply posted on 29-7-2005 @ 09:12 PM by sal88

Do you practice real Islam?

yep

Why It Makes “Sense” For the Resistance to Target Innocent Iraqis
Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop.

Right the resistance in Iraq are targetting civilians, as if there aren't enough military targets - against Islam.

Or this, which can be backed by multiples of more. Suicide or the use thereof is strictly forbidden:

My only evidence for suicide being allowed in order save the lives of more than one persons is what a very learned person told me. I feel they are perfectly logical reasons, -why have 10 people die if 1 can do?- so I can't see why they wouldn't be part of Islamic belief. I assumed it would also be the same if fighting a war, you are fighting to save your people/beliefs, and you are very likely to die anyway on the battle field, so you may as well do a suicide bomb attack and take down as many soldiers as possible?
The article you refer to do not mention these circumstances, and your google search does not seem too worth while considering you could do one on the opposite and get a lot of results. So i suppose the logical reasoning is required.

if the new Iranian president adheres to the ways of radical Islam, that he practice what he preaches by leading by example.

ok but i can't see the point in implying that a leader is expected to blow themselves up, or that he wouldn't

If...the blatant targeting of innocent civilains are strictly forbidden, then why is the new Iranian president glorifying martydom by way of creating suicide brigades?

I can see we've been going round in circles now, it comes down to this, where does he glorify the killings of innocents and a war to spread Islam?
His glorification of martyrdom to me meant that he said that any country that has been born from dying for ones beliefs, can surely never come under attack. I do not see him saying that Islam will spread thanks to his band of suicide bombers.

reply posted on 29-7-2005 @ 09:26 PM by edsinger

Originally posted by Seekerof

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

seekerof

You dont know just how accurate that statement is.....

Originally posted by djohnsto77The 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 don't seem to hear of Southern Baptists and Methodists blowing up folks at a wal mart...I see a big difference...

Tolerance of this crap will be the end of the West......

Originally posted by Seekerof
Would you have a problem if the Pope or Bush asserted that Christianity "will conquer the world"?
seekerof

Nope I sure wouldnt, I would think that it would be a good thing as Islam has already declared such anyway.

reply posted on 29-7-2005 @ 11:52 PM by cjf

The statements made by Ahmadi-Nejad are understandable as a puppet is to the puppeteer. This is a conspiracy forum, yet no one looks to the strings on this one?
This man has made no original statements of his own.

The power base is not in the ‘presidency’ of Iran, it is crap. The presidents of Iran’s powers are weak, ineffective and very limited; yet acts as an effective mouthpiece for the ‘powers that be’ (an office of ‘representative’ convenience for the upper echelons).

The power base is in inside house of the “Supreme Leader”, in this case the family member is Mojtaba Khamenei pushing buttons, who drew off the influence and sway of the “Guardian Council” and completely off of his father’s influences as a show of power in this recent election. No more ‘conservative’ and no more ‘reformist’ by definition; however all under control. Iran is no more a republic than Zimbabwe; yet it is deceptive with ‘exceptions’.

The country should be renamed the “Islamic Despotic Mullaharchy of Iran”, soon to be ‘Monarchy’ under the Khamenei clan even with the ever increasing tensions coming from the Rafsanjani clan.

.

reply posted on 26-10-2005 @ 02:18 PM by Freedom_for_sum

....and the first step to conquering the world is the destruction of Israel.

Just another fine example of this wonderful, peace-loving, and tolerant religion called islam!!

reply posted on 26-10-2005 @ 03:27 PM by Dronetek

Look how people fight till the end to prove the Iranian leader "aint like that!". However post an article that claims Bush said or did something and its automaticly hailed as 100% gospil!

reply posted on 26-10-2005 @ 04:09 PM by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by Dronetek
Look how people fight till the end to prove the Iranian leader "aint like that!". However post an article that claims Bush said or did something and its automaticly hailed as 100% gospil!

Dronetek;

Could you please provide an example of who is trying "to prove the Iranian leader "aint like that!"?

reply posted on 26-10-2005 @ 06:02 PM by Dronetek

Originally posted by Umbrax
I'm not trying to defend the new President of Iran, but is there anyway of using a less bias news source for this?

Above linked is Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

MEMRI is founded by two guys who are formerly of Israeli military intelligence.
Yigal Carmon, one of MEMRI's founders, is a former adviser on terrorism to the Israeli Prime Ministers.

MEMRI is not an objective news source.
Is there an objective news source running this story? Once again it looks like a Anti-Islam site is being projected as a credible news source.

Originally posted by Umbrax
Unfortunately MEMRI is cited in several publications.

The Times, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, The Jerusalem Post, The National Review, The Toronto Sun, Wall Street Journal, Libertad, FrontPageMagazine, Columbia Journalism Review, Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, etcetera.

www.sourcewatch.org...

I can't say what is being reported isn't true, by Ramita Navai or MEMRI, but we need to be aware of disinfo tactics in the media.

Originally posted by sal88

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.

Originally posted by sal88
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.

There are so many examples of this "double standard" all over these forums.

reply posted on 27-10-2005 @ 12:28 AM by Heartagram

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble of assumption djohnsto77 but your knowledge of the Islamic view of martyrdom is very mediocre. Put it this way, what if I say "The radical Christian view of martyrdom is to die fighting against the ubelievers of the Christian God". That obviously shows how low my knowledge on the Christian view of martyrdom, do you agree?

Back to my point, there is no such thing as radical Islamic martyrdom, only radical acting-Islamic martyrdom. In other words, the radical views are not within the boundaries of Islam. Yes, we have to fight and kill the "infidels" if they attack Islam such as destroying Mecca or mass burning of Quran supported by a party. Now, do I or you see any of that happening? NO.

Know that the Jihad has a very wide spectrum of definitions that varies from one situation to another. And yes, the Christian martyrdom too has such similar concept of having different kinds of factors and meanings.

Learn more:

Find Out More About Jihad

Find Out More About Jihad Part 2

Chapter 2, verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."

[edit on 27/10/05 by Heartagram]

reply posted on 27-10-2005 @ 07:39 AM by skippytjc

CNN.com is now reporting this:
www.cnn.com...

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Several world capitals have condemned Iran's leader for saying Israel should be "wiped off the map," and Israel's vice premier has called for Tehran to be expelled from the United Nations.

During a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency

reply posted on 27-10-2005 @ 08:40 AM by sminkeypinkey

It's nothing new skippy, it's fairly standard Iranian revolutionary talk (which some of them have been at for 27yrs).

Whilst I'd happily agree it's not the kind of rhetoric anyone would call good or helpful it isn't the scary barbaric escalation in threat some want to portray it as either; it's pure noisesom rhetoric.....from a place not exactly unknown for the occasional outburst of noisesome rhetoric.

There is apparantly a rally in support of the Palestinian people in Iran this weekend, the BBC have been reporting from Iran today that the Iranians saw the speech as an attempt to encourage Iranian support for the rally (ie for local domestic consumption only) and apparantly they have expressed surprise that anyone took much notice of it.

reply posted on 30-10-2005 @ 09:21 PM by Senser

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by evanfitz
Hell, why would Washington even suggest that its rigged when they infact rigged it. Makes little sense.

Thats definately a educated assertion, eh, evanfitz?

Did Washington tell the Iranian government to forbid/disqualify nearly one thousand possible candidates before the elections? Did Washington demand Iran use the Revolutionary Guards to intimidate and force voters, who were boycotting the elections, to vote? Did Washington tell Iran to bus in voters? Did Washington tell Iran to have those within the Revolutionary Guards and government people to vote multiple times?

The Iranian elections were about as legit as those held by Saddam when he recieved 98% of the Iraqi vote. Washington must have had something to do with that mockery also?

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

seekerof

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Just as legit as the american elections, you want me to eloborate on that??
It happens alot these days but only in corrupt countries, and yes the US is corrupt, very actually.
This kind of hypocrism is really pathetic and quite arrogant.

reply posted on 31-10-2005 @ 02:41 AM by Astronomer68

Currently the Iranian President does not officially speak for Iran. He effectively has almost no power to do anything but talk. The ruling Mullas actually run the country and almost all official actions must be cleared through Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani the loser in the last presidential election. However, Rafsanjani, while more polished than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is still a hardliner. The link below gives his viewpoint about nuclear weapons and Israel and they are at least as bad as Ahmadinejad's.

www.iran-press-service.com...

In the article linked to above, Rafsanjani openly says Iran should nuke Israel.

I hope you'll pardon me when I say I don't trust the Iranian authorities any further than I can throw them and I do believe they are moving just as fast as they can to acquire nuclear weapons. In my personal opinion they are a much greater threat than Iraq ever was.

[edit on 31-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

reply posted on 31-10-2005 @ 05:51 AM by sal88

Originally posted by Dronetek
Look how people fight till the end to prove the Iranian leader "aint like that!". However post an article that claims Bush said or did something and its automaticly hailed as 100% gospil!

and could you please post evidence of the second part of your statement?

reply posted on 31-10-2005 @ 08:02 AM by St Udio

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Currently the Iranian President does not officially speak for Iran.
He effectively has almost no power to do anything but talk.
The ruling Mullas actually run the country....

that seems correct...
and the Martyrs Brigades are (more accurately) to engage against 'The Great Satan' which is our U.S.FederalGov't (according to the Mullas, Imans, OBL etc etc), and includes many of the western/allied/NATO powers.

++++

the Wahabbi & Islam aren't the only bombers of buildings & targeting civilians, in a strategy of militancy for a cause.
we, seem to forget that abortion doctors & the abortion clinics here in the USA were targets/victims of some mens' moralistic, religious (i.e. Cristian) ferver.

++++

perhaps this conflict, will ultimately leave the world in a more serene state...i wouldn't be terribly upset with a western society that sorta styles itself loosely on the Amish way of life.
It's just that the destructive process to get to that socio-economic environment would be very unpleasant.

[edit on 31-10-2005 by St Udio]

reply posted on 31-10-2005 @ 09:29 AM by deltaboy

www.iran-press-service.com...

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

it looks like they show their true face long time ago and the President of Iran just made it more clearly just from his words alone recently that would collaborate with the clerics words. no doubt Iran wants nukes to end Israel once and for all after a long struggle supplying the Palestinians with money and small arms and after failure to destroy Israel and the Palestinians wanting to have a state next to Israel which is horrible to the clerics of Iran. also they believe they would face not much damage from nukes which somehow means they hope to sneak in a couple of nukes in Israel which Israel would not be able to respond if they dont know who attacked them except the Palestinians. of course im sure the lives of the Palestinians are second importance to the primary importance of the destruction of the Zionist state from the Iran's point of view.

reply posted on 31-10-2005 @ 01:02 PM by sminkeypinkey