Iran starts to rattle its Saif…

Originally posted by snafu7700

Eerie stories about Ahmadinejad's mystical obsessions have been drifting out of Tehran of late, specifically his devotion to the so-called 12th imam—the Shiite messiah, better known as the Mahdi, who's supposed to return and lead an apocalyptic revolution of the oppressed over vague forces of injustice.

It's Ahmadinejad's belief, not Iran's, similar to if Bush believed in the returning of Jesus. He believes it, but the average Iranian, even if they are Shia themselves, do not believe in it as a serious part of Shia Islam. It's a ancient belief section of Shia.

Originally posted by snafu7700
By some accounts, the new president's first deputy, Parvis Davoudi, recently asked cabinet members during a formal meeting to pledge their allegiance to the Mahdi in a signed letter. And when Ahmadinejad was Tehran's mayor, he reportedly refurbished a major boulevard on grounds that the Mahdi was to travel along it upon his return.

The Iranian people on the street find Ahmadinejad amusing, they don't follow him blindly. They voted him in as a protest against the more previous liberal president who did not pursue the liberal agenda enough. Ahmadinejad's election was a protest vote to say "If you do not modernise, we'll vote for the conservatives, even if we don't want to, to make you sit up."

Originally posted by snafu7700
i am bringing this up to support the idea that Ahmadinejad would have no problem putting his people at risk for war, as he believes he main purpose in life is to bring the messiah back sooner.

That may be, but the Iranian people would have a problem putting themselves at risk of war for Ahmadinejad, and that may show with Ahmadinejad one day being replaced by the Ayatollahs, or himself stepping down for 'health reasons'.

But, if external forces attack Iran, depending how bad the hit is, the people will unite behind their leader, and generations of Iranians will be lost to blind hatred of those who attacked their country.

Originally posted by Nakash
Iran's president has got to be a puppet. Has to. That or some delusional dream of Islamic world domination. Either way this is too much, I simply cannot believe Iran threatened a blockade (defined in the Vienna convention as an act of WAR) in case of sanctions. This is too irresponsible, I heard Iran's president was hand picked by Bilderberger. I'm willing to believe that one.

Some people could say sanctions on Iran is a declaration of war, which amounts to infringment on sovereignty.

Originally posted by Nerdling
cough cough

Iranian Press Service

"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

Definitely a peaceful lot.

Notice that he is saying that if Iran and Israel both have atomic bombs, both would be in stalemate, because as he says "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"

Which in other words is saying, the destruction of Israel would be the destruction of the muslim world too.

Mutually Assured Destruction. Aware that both would be destroyed in the event of war, stalemate ensues.

Originally posted by Regensturm

It's Ahmadinejad's belief, not Iran's, similar to if Bush believed in the returning of Jesus. He believes it, but the average Iranian, even if they are Shia themselves, do not believe in it as a serious part of Shia Islam. It's a ancient belief section of Shia.

no, its not similar to bush believing in christ, as i dont know of any christians who believe that their actions on this earth will bring christ back sooner. a world leader who is (i'll admit, allegedly) trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons and believes that he can bring his messiah back sooner with his own actions is dangerous to the rest of the world.

The Iranian people on the street find Ahmadinejad amusing, they don't follow him blindly. They voted him in as a protest against the more previous liberal president who did not pursue the liberal agenda enough. Ahmadinejad's election was a protest vote to say "If you do not modernise, we'll vote for the conservatives, even if we don't want to, to make you sit up."

it may have been a protest vote, but the man is still in power. my vote for bush was a protest vote against kerry, because the man couldnt make a decision as to what his platform was going to be. but bush is still in power, isnt he?

That may be, but the Iranian people would have a problem putting themselves at risk of war for Ahmadinejad, and that may show with Ahmadinejad one day being replaced by the Ayatollahs, or himself stepping down for 'health reasons'.

if that were the case, they would have shut his rhetoric up long ago. the ayatollahs wont replace him because they actually agree with him.

But, if external forces attack Iran, depending how bad the hit is, the people will unite behind their leader, and generations of Iranians will be lost to blind hatred of those who attacked their country.

dont you think that might be what he is hoping for? bait the world into an attack, and get the people solidly behind you for good?

Some people could say sanctions on Iran is a declaration of war, which amounts to infringment on sovereignty.

were sanctions against aparthaid in south africa a declaration of war? did SA attack it's neighbors to stop the flow of diamonds out of africa in retaliation? Ahmadinejad is intentionally attempting to ignite the world into war with his rhetoric, and no one in his country is trying to stop him.

Notice that he is saying that if Iran and Israel both have atomic bombs, both would be in stalemate, because as he says "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"

Which in other words is saying, the destruction of Israel would be the destruction of the muslim world too.

Mutually Assured Destruction. Aware that both would be destroyed in the event of war, stalemate ensues.

no that is not what he is saying. read it again:

"because the application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in israel"

in other words, israel would be destroyed. period.

"but the same thing would just produce damages in the muslim world"

in other words, the tiny state of israel would be obliterated, while the same attack on the vast islamic lands would only cause a small amount of damage...damage they can live with if it means the destruction of israel. much in the same way that deaths of innocent muslims caused by the bombs of shia extremists in iraq are alright, because they die for the cause.

the western phrase for that is "collateral damage."

Originally posted by snafu7700

no, its not similar to bush believing in christ, as i dont know of any christians who believe that their actions on this earth will bring christ back sooner. a world leader who is (i'll admit, allegedly) trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons and believes that he can bring his messiah back sooner with his own actions is dangerous to the rest of the world.

There are Christian sects that believe their actions or others will bring Christ back sooner. There have been those who think their leader of their sect if Jesus reborn.

If Ahmadinejad said "I want to bring the Messiah back by World War and I shall do this by Allah" I would agree with you. If I remember rightly, the act of war itself would be declared by an Ayatollah, not the President.

The Ayatollahs don't neccesarily believe in the Messiah's returning Ahmadinejad speaks of, as it is an ancient, dying out sect of Shia Islam.

Ahmadinejad is appealing to the strict hardliners by his talk, and that's what it is: talk.

Iran's leaders have talked of the destruction Israel for 20 odd years.

But they know if they tried, Iran would cease to exist, and Ahmadinejad knows this too. He is trying to look tough on the world stage.

Originally posted by snafu7700
it may have been a protest vote, but the man is still in power. my vote for bush was a protest vote against kerry, because the man couldnt make a decision as to what his platform was going to be. but bush is still in power, isnt he?

Yes but Bush does not have 100% support in the US. Neither does Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Originally posted by snafu7700
if that were the case, they would have shut his rhetoric up long ago. the ayatollahs wont replace him because they actually agree with him.

If Ahamdinejad was to step down, it would be too obvious. Don't be surprised if he shuts up, steps down, or is assassinated.

Don't forget that the Ayatollahs like to keep the President of Iran in check, and he may well start pushing his weight around in Iran that will upset Iranians. The Ayatollahs want to keep their power, and Ahmadinejad may well be the sacrifice.

But, if external forces attack Iran, depending how bad the hit is, the people will unite behind their leader, and generations of Iranians will be lost to blind hatred of those who attacked their country.

Originally posted by snafu7700
dont you think that might be what he is hoping for? bait the world into an attack, and get the people solidly behind you for good?

In which case, don't rise to the bait.

He would also know, that depending on the scale of attack Iran would be in ruins, and a foreign army heading for Tehran, he wants to bait an attack, but not see one.

Originally posted by snafu7700
were sanctions against aparthaid in south africa a declaration of war? did SA attack it's neighbors to stop the flow of diamonds out of africa in retaliation? Ahmadinejad is intentionally attempting to ignite the world into war with his rhetoric, and no one in his country is trying to stop him.

South Africa became involved in wars in neighbouring countries, some of whom probably did export diamonds, so yes.

If Ahamdinehad is baiting, all it takes is for someone to raise to the bait, and he's won his game.

Let him rant, giving fuel to his fire will make it worse. Without credibility, he will burn out.

Originally posted by snafu7700
no that is not what he is saying. read it again:

"because the application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in israel"

in other words, israel would be destroyed. period.

"but the same thing would just produce damages in the muslim world"

in other words, the tiny state of israel would be obliterated, while the same attack on the vast islamic lands would only cause a small amount of damage...damage they can live with if it means the destruction of israel. much in the same way that deaths of innocent muslims caused by the bombs of shia extremists in iraq are alright, because they die for the cause."

"but the same thing would just produce damages in the muslim world"

You translate his words one way. I translate them as saying that an attack on Israel "would just produce damages in the muslim word" thus, an attack on Israel is not good for the muslim world, because it would just produce damages. and would not be good for the muslim world.

And actually, the majority of civillians in Iraq killed by insurgents in Iraq is a result of the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Zarqawi's group targetting Shias, and thus not the work of Shia extremists, who tend to carry out assassinations and plant roadside bombs for passing US or UK military vehicles.

Originally posted by Regensturm

There are Christian sects that believe their actions or others will bring Christ back sooner.

really? which ones? got a link to that source? because i am a moderate christian who grew up in the deep south among fundamentalist christians, and have never heard of any christian faith that believes this. in fact, the bible says that christ will come "like a thief in the night" and that no one will know when that time is. i know of several sects that believe they can pinpoint that time, but not of any that believe they can actually expedite his return.

There have been those who think their leader of their sect if Jesus reborn.

any of them ever been the leader of a country trying trying to become nuclear?

If Ahmadinejad said "I want to bring the Messiah back by World War and I shall do this by Allah" I would agree with you.

he doesnt have to. he is a member of the Hojjatieh sect that believes this. therefore it is understood that he, also, believes this.

If I remember rightly, the act of war itself would be declared by an Ayatollah, not the President.

actually the head ayatollah, or supreme leader, is the only one with power to declare war. just as in the united states only congress has the power to declare war. funny thing, we havent actually declared war on iraq, have we...but we're there.

The Ayatollahs don't neccesarily believe in the Messiah's returning Ahmadinejad speaks of, as it is an ancient, dying out sect of Shia Islam.

umm, no. all shias believe in the return of the 12th imam. this is one of their main differences from sunnis.

The Origins of the Sunni/Shia split in Islam

FUNDAMENTALS OF FAITH OF THE SHI'Í IMAMÍ ITHNA ASHARÍ
Compiled by Ilyás Islám

The Twelth Imam is still alive. He is in a state of occultation. He will reappear at a moment determined by Alláh. He is the Awaited One who will spread justice throughout the world.

what the ayatollahs dont necessarily agree with is the hojjatieh sects belief of being able to bring the hidden imam back sooner through their own actions in the world. however, if they truelly had a problem with ahmadinejad's beliefs, the supreme leader would get rid of him.

Ahmadinejad is appealing to the strict hardliners by his talk, and that's what it is: talk.

that must be why one of his first actions in office was to give £10 million to the jamkaran mosque, the ideological center of the hojjatieh sect.

Iran's leaders have talked of the destruction Israel for 20 odd years.

true, but not quite so openly on the world stage, and not in conjunction with openly declaring that the holocaust was a lie and setting up a conference to try and prove that, while at the same time trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

But they know if they tried, Iran would cease to exist, and Ahmadinejad knows this too. He is trying to look tough on the world stage.

i think he believes that god will miraculously protect the iranian nation, much as fundamental jews and christians believe the same of israel.

Yes but Bush does not have 100% support in the US. Neither does Ahmadinejad in Iran.

did he need 100% support to attack either afganistan or iraq? ahmadinejad has the full support of the ayatollahs. that is all he needs.

If Ahamdinejad was to step down, it would be too obvious. Don't be surprised if he shuts up, steps down, or is assassinated.

he hasnt shut up since day one, and the ayatollahs have allowed him to continue his rhetoric. in a society where the supreme leader is an ayatollah, that says quite a bit.

Don't forget that the Ayatollahs like to keep the President of Iran in check, and he may well start pushing his weight around in Iran that will upset Iranians. The Ayatollahs want to keep their power, and Ahmadinejad may well be the sacrifice.

you might be right, but so far theyve allowed him to continue. i think that he is their front man because they agree with him. during the presidential elections, hundreds of candidates were not allowed to run by the ayatollahs. this one was, and won. i wonder why?

In which case, don't rise to the bait.

youre preaching to the choir here. tell it to the western governments.

He would also know, that depending on the scale of attack Iran would be in ruins, and a foreign army heading for Tehran, he wants to bait an attack, but not see one.

again, i think that he believes in protection of iran by the hand of god. after all, as governor of tehran, he reportedly refurbished a major boulevard
on grounds that the Mahdi was to travel along it upon his return. IOW, the mahdi is going to make his initial return in tehran, and therefore god will protect the land for his return.

Originally posted by snafu7700
were sanctions against aparthaid in south africa a declaration of war? did SA attack it's neighbors to stop the flow of diamonds out of africa in retaliation? Ahmadinejad is intentionally attempting to ignite the world into war with his rhetoric, and no one in his country is trying to stop him.

South Africa became involved in wars in neighbouring countries, some of whom probably did export diamonds, so yes.

becoming involved in wars around you is not the same as seeing the sanctions as an act of war, and blocking trade of a particular commodity to the rest of the world.

If Ahamdinehad is baiting, all it takes is for someone to raise to the bait, and he's won his game.

so which is it? is he baiting for war or is he just "trying to look tough on the world stage" as you said earlier?

You translate his words one way. I translate them as saying that an attack on Israel "would just produce damages in the muslim word" thus, an attack on Israel is not good for the muslim world, because it would just produce damages. and would not be good for the muslim world.

the site is iranian, and the translation is made to english by iranians. if you read the article in question, that paragraph is immediately followed by their take on the ayatollahs words:

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

i'm inclined to believe an iranian's take on the translation over yours.

And actually, the majority of civillians in Iraq killed by insurgents in Iraq is a result of the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Zarqawi's group targetting Shias, and thus not the work of Shia extremists, who tend to carry out assassinations and plant roadside bombs for passing US or UK military vehicles.

you are quite right, a slip of the tongue on my part. but it doesnt change the fact that muslim extremists consider the deaths of other muslims, regardless of whether they are shia or sunni, to be "collateral damage" in their war against the west.

Originally posted by snafu7700
really? which ones? got a link to that source? because i am a moderate christian who grew up in the deep south among fundamentalist christians, and have never heard of any christian faith that believes this. in fact, the bible says that christ will come "like a thief in the night" and that no one will know when that time is. i know of several sects that believe they can pinpoint that time, but not of any that believe they can actually expedite his return.

Why not use a search engine?

I don't mean to be rude, but it's going to take a long time to reply to your post, and I just don't have time to look up links for the various sects.

Originally posted by snafu7700
any of them ever been the leader of a country trying trying to become nuclear?

The US president thinks he's pretty close to God, saying God told him to invade Iraq.

Originally posted by snafu7700
he doesnt have to. he is a member of the Hojjatieh sect that believes this. therefore it is understood that he, also, believes this.

Not by world war. Apocolypse yes, but not specifically a world war.

An Apololypse can be descripitive of something akin to a natural disaster like famine.

It's easy to jump to conclusions.

Originally posted by snafu7700
actually the head ayatollah, or supreme leader, is the only one with power to declare war. just as in the united states only congress has the power to declare war. funny thing, we havent actually declared war on iraq, have we...but we're there.

No, and to compare Iran to America in terms of protocol over a declaration of war is thus made quite dark when we come compare the two, the US president not using congress and being unilateral....makes you wonder whether the concern is over the wrong sovereign president.

The Ayatollahs don't neccesarily believe in the Messiah's returning Ahmadinejad speaks of, as it is an ancient, dying out sect of Shia Islam.

Originally posted by snafu7700
umm, no. all shias believe in the return of the 12th imam. this is one of their main differences from sunnis.

The Origins of the Sunni/Shia split in Islam

FUNDAMENTALS OF FAITH OF THE SHI'Í IMAMÍ ITHNA ASHARÍ
Compiled by Ilyás Islám

The Twelth Imam is still alive. He is in a state of occultation. He will reappear at a moment determined by Alláh. He is the Awaited One who will spread justice throughout the world.

Actually the main split in Islam between the Sunnis and Shia came from the Shias refusing to recognise the Sunni choice as successor to the Prophet Mohammed, but the twelth imam is indeed integral to Shia Islam.

What I was saying when I said 'The Ayatollahs don't neccesarily believe in the Messiah's returning Ahmadinejad speaks of,' is that they don't neccesarily believe that the 12th imam will bring the next apololypse, but instead, justice.

Originally posted by snafu7700
what the ayatollahs dont necessarily agree with is the hojjatieh sects belief of being able to bring the hidden imam back sooner through their own actions in the world. however, if they truelly had a problem with ahmadinejad's beliefs, the supreme leader would get rid of him.

And they may well do so.

Originally posted by snafu7700
that must be why one of his first actions in office was to give £10 million to the jamkaran mosque, the ideological center of the hojjatieh sect..

I was referring more to his rhetoric that 'Israel should be wiped out'.

He has not waged war because of his beliefs and views, so thus, it's just talk.

Iran's leaders have talked of the destruction Israel for 20 odd years.

Originally posted by snafu7700
true, but not quite so openly on the world stage, and not in conjunction with openly declaring that the holocaust was a lie and setting up a conference to try and prove that, while at the same time trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

In a post September 11th 2001 world, it is inevitable that Islamic extremist rhetoric will be made notice of more in the media and the world at large.

If Iran do go nuclear, I doubt they will start lobbing them around. They are not stupid, they know they would be annihilated by nations such as the US with superior in numerical terms weaponry.

If we look at the reason why Iran wants a nuclear weapon, it's most likely because of fear of a US invasion, US troops have done it to their two neighbours, and Iran are not on friendly terms with the US.

I would say it's more of a defence view then attacking viewpoint.

Originally posted by snafu7700
i think he believes that god will miraculously protect the iranian nation, much as fundamental jews and christians believe the same of israel.

As do many leaders of their nations, such as Bush saying 'God bless America'.

But attacks happen, and I don't think Ahmadinejad is that far from reality to know it.

If he was, the Ayatollahs would start to hear the alarm bells.

They believe in Allah, but to stay in power, they have to be realists when not spousing rhetoric.

Yes but Bush does not have 100% support in the US. Neither does Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Originally posted by snafu7700
did he need 100% support to attack either afganistan or iraq? ahmadinejad has the full support of the ayatollahs. that is all he needs.

I don't think he does have full support of the ayatollahs. He's drawing unwanted attention.

The US is a superpower, Iran is not. Any war he wages would have disastrous condequences for Iran, and he knows it.

Originally posted by snafu7700
he hasnt shut up since day one, and the ayatollahs have allowed him to continue his rhetoric. in a society where the supreme leader is an ayatollah, that says quite a bit.

Not really. They don't want to make any removal of him too obvious, and let's not forget, the previous president was a liberal in contrast, and the Ayatollahs tolerated him. although restricted in reform, he was not overthrown, and tolerated. Ahmadinejad, the successor, may well raise the hairs of the Ayatollahs.

Originally posted by snafu7700
you might be right, but so far theyve allowed him to continue. i think that he is their front man because they agree with him. during the presidential elections, hundreds of candidates were not allowed to run by the ayatollahs. this one was, and won. i wonder why?

I theorise it's because they did not realise how extreme his views were and how hot-headed he is. It was a blunder on their part.

Originally posted by snafu7700
youre preaching to the choir here. tell it to the western governments.

They tend to have selective hearing and selective deafness.

Originally posted by snafu7700again, i think that he believes in protection of iran by the hand of god. after all, as governor of tehran, he reportedly refurbished a major boulevard
on grounds that the Mahdi was to travel along it upon his return. IOW, the mahdi is going to make his initial return in tehran, and therefore god will protect the land for his return.

Ahmadinejad wants to leave a legacy for himself to be remembered via statues and gardens. Saddam did the same.

It's vanity on his behalf.

Originally posted by snafu7700
were sanctions against aparthaid in south africa a declaration of war? did SA attack it's neighbors to stop the flow of diamonds out of africa in retaliation? Ahmadinejad is intentionally attempting to ignite the world into war with his rhetoric, and no one in his country is trying to stop him.

Originally posted by snafu7700
becoming involved in wars around you is not the same as seeing the sanctions as an act of war, and blocking trade of a particular commodity to the rest of the world.

It could be said SA became involved in wars around them as result of the sanctions, seeing it as an act of war to combat actively in neighbouring nations for it's interests.

Blocking trade can be seen as an infringement of national sovereignty to those sanctioned.

Originally posted by snafu7700
so which is it? is he baiting for war or is he just "trying to look tough on the world stage" as you said earlier?

He's trying to look tough on the world stage by his baiting, but if the world gives him war, he will look all the brave leader he wants the Iranians to see him as, the one who stood up to the US and it's allies.

Originally posted by snafu7700
the site is iranian, and the translation is made to english by iranians. if you read the article in question, that paragraph is immediately followed by their take on the ayatollahs words:

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

i'm inclined to believe an iranian's take on the translation over yours.

The controlled Iranian press are not likely to say that his statement is saying "If we destroy Israel, we will get destroyed too" are they?

That would be weakness.

And analysts should read his words carefully.

Originally posted by snafu7700
you are quite right, a slip of the tongue on my part. but it doesnt change the fact that muslim extremists consider the deaths of other muslims, regardless of whether they are shia or sunni, to be "collateral damage" in their war against the west.

There is a limit to that view, they are human after all. Thus why Iraqi insurgents are turning against Al-Zarqawi's groups and affiliates.

Here it is folks:

"57% Americans support military action in Iran"


news.ft.com...

WASHINGTON — Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.


The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran’s Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Support for military action against Tehran has increased over the last year, the poll found, even though public sentiment is running against the war in neighboring Iraq: 53% said they believe the situation there was not worth going to war.

And yes, I am one of them. I was against going into Iraq, but I am for Iran. Its the Iranian people that will suffer the most unfortunatly.

And Syria too btw, they need a good shellacking as well.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by skippytjc]

Originally posted by Regensturm

Why not use a search engine?

I don't mean to be rude, but it's going to take a long time to reply to your post, and I just don't have time to look up links for the various sects.

but you had time to post this extremely long reply? i think you did a google search, found out that i was right (no christian sects believe in being able to bring the christ back sooner), and just dont want to admit it.

you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

The US president thinks he's pretty close to God, saying God told him to invade Iraq.

but does he believe that he can expedite the return of the messiah? huge difference.

Not by world war. Apocolypse yes, but not specifically a world war.

An Apololypse can be descripitive of something akin to a natural disaster like famine.

It's easy to jump to conclusions.

say what? if your going to try and spin the conversation, at least try to make sense. as we discussed, the hojjatieh sect believe that they can expedite the return of the hidden imam by their own actions. please explain how a human being is going to cause a natural disaster.

No, and to compare Iran to America in terms of protocol over a declaration of war is thus made quite dark when we come compare the two, the US president not using congress and being unilateral....makes you wonder whether the concern is over the wrong sovereign president.

actually, i was simply pointing out that there are ways around any "protocol." the fact that you keep trying to shift the conversation back to bush is interesting though. i will say it again. the fundamental difference is that the american president does not believe that his own actions will bring back the messiah sooner. ahmadinejad does.

originally posted by snafu7700
umm, no. all shias believe in the return of the 12th imam. this is one of their main differences from sunnis.

Actually the main split in Islam between the Sunnis and Shia came from the Shias refusing to recognise the Sunni choice as successor to the Prophet Mohammed

which is why i specifically said "one of the main differences." youre not very good at this spin thing.

What I was saying when I said 'The Ayatollahs don't neccesarily believe in the Messiah's returning Ahmadinejad speaks of,' is that they don't neccesarily believe that the 12th imam will bring the next apololypse, but instead, justice.

you really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you? that would be alright, except for the fact that youre spouting off garbage trying to make it look respectable, and doing it without providing a single source. i've never seen someone backpeddle so fast.

how exactly do you think the mahdi is going to bring about that justice? with a sword, that's how. he is supposed to lead the islamic forces in the great battle, and then afterwards rule over the world with peace and justice.

I was referring more to his rhetoric that 'Israel should be wiped out'.

then you need to clarify, because the conversation was about ahmadinejad's beliefs.

He has not waged war because of his beliefs and views, so thus, it's just talk.

and hitler was all talk until he invaded poland. hell, we thought he was all talk about the jews until we finally pushed into germany towards the end of the war and found the death camps.

I would say it's more of a defence view then attacking viewpoint.

that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. i, however, have read a helluva lot of material on the iranian president and the religious leadership, and believe that the ayatollahs and ahmadinejad feel that iran will be protected by the hand of god, and therefore they have nothing to fear.

As do many leaders of their nations, such as Bush saying 'God bless America'.

lmao. there is a huge difference between asking for god's blessing and actually believing that he will physically stop an attack upon your people. keep reaching, your showing your ignorance of the topic more every minute.

I don't think he does have full support of the ayatollahs. He's drawing unwanted attention.

iran is a theocracy, with the supreme leader being an ayatollah. if ahmadinejad did not enjoy the supreme leaders full confidence, he would not be president.

I theorise it's because they did not realise how extreme his views were and how hot-headed he is. It was a blunder on their part.

yeah, i guess his military record as a militia assassin and hardline enforcer wasnt very well known by the supreme leader who is also the commander in chief of the military. you really really need to do some research before you start typing.

Ahmadinejad wants to leave a legacy for himself to be remembered via statues and gardens. Saddam did the same.

It's vanity on his behalf.

vanity, huh? that must be why he drives a really old beaten up car and still lives modestly in one of the poorest sections of the city. face it, the man is a true believer.

It could be said SA became involved in wars around them as result of the sanctions, seeing it as an act of war to combat actively in neighbouring nations for it's interests.

sure, that could be said.....do you have any proof to back that up? you know, something like the SA army blocking trade routes to other countries? didnt happen, so get over it.

Blocking trade can be seen as an infringement of national sovereignty to those sanctioned.

yeah, i think that was already mentioned. thanks for reiterating my point for me though.

He's trying to look tough on the world stage by his baiting, but if the world gives him war, he will look all the brave leader he wants the Iranians to see him as, the one who stood up to the US and it's allies.

which is completely different from your original argument. you said that he was only trying to look tough and wanted nothing to do with war. quit backpeddling already, it's really getting old.

The controlled Iranian press are not likely to say that his statement is saying "If we destroy Israel, we will get destroyed too" are they?

That would be weakness.

And analysts should read his words carefully.

except that this didnt come from the "controlled iranian press." it came from an opposition group operating outside of iran.

and again, this is completely different from your original statement. make up your mind, please.