Why is the Iranian President so confident?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
I think it is sad that so many of us seem to have swallowed the spin given to "Israel wiped off the map" statement. The general view by many in the middle east, is that Israel, as a country/ state/ legal entity, has no right to exist. Which upon studying the history of the situation, is an opinion i can easily understand.


Sure, I'm sure your point is easy to understand - by anyone willing to only look at a more recent part of history - one that suits their argument, but doesn't tell the whole story. The real truth is that Jews were in that location almost 2,000 years before the muslim religion was even founded. Now unless you can find some decendants of the Canaanites that were there before the Jews, you must agree that the muslims are nothing more than the latest group of people to conquer, kill and try and drive out the Jews from Israel. Even the Italians (being decendants of the Romans) have a prior claim to the area over the muslims




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Westpoint my historical facts and the facts of the oil usage by the US and the countries that he buy from are not mystery for me.

Understand, do not underestimate me.

My opinion in this thread is as good as yours without having to bring your knowledge of historical facts.

Understand.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by marg6043]


You seem to be telling us all that, facts be damned, if Marg says it we all must accept it as the gospel truth. No questions (allowed to be) asked.

Surely, you are being misunderstood. Right?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
well centurion, we normally seem to agree on most issues, but i think your view of history is a little misguided here. true, king david did make jeruselam his capital 3000 years ago, but he didnt actually found jerusalem...he conquered it from the people that were already living there. he is responsible for making it the city that it is today, since before he took the city, it was only a small township. but the point is, today's muslims are yesterdays canaanites, amorites, jebusites, etc.


Jerusalem in history: notes on the origins of the city and its tradition of tolerance

The Old Testament narrates in detail how David's soldiers broke into the city after passing through a famous tunnel, "Sinnor" in the Old Testament. The well-known story need not be reiterated here. The plain truth is that David did not found Jerusalem. Instead, according to the text of the Bible and Professor Vilnay's encyclopedia, he occupied an already-inhabited city. It is this occupation which occurred in the year 1000 B.C.

At the time of the Davidic occupation, Jerusalem was already two thousand years old. Its original inhabitants were not Jews but Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, Hittites and other races each of whom had a culture and language as well as art, industry and agriculture.

Indeed, the oldest name of the city "Urusalem" is Amoritic. "Salem" or "Shalem" was the name of a Canaanite-Amorite god, while "uru" simply meant "founded by."(3) The names of the two oldest rulers of the city, Saz Anu and Yaqir Ammo, were identified by the American archaeologist W. F. Albright as Amoritic.(4) The Amorites, according to the Bible, are the original people of the land of Canaan. They had the same language as the Canaanites and were of the same Semitic stock.


of course, on the other side of that coin, you have to realize that all of these people were semitic descendents of adam. so i guess you could say that in reality, jerusalem belongs to both muslims and jews. scary, huh?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I'm sure you been complaining about that or mentioning it for the past 27 years haven't you?.


Well considering that I’m just a little over 17 years old I'd rather think that's impossible
I only pointed out a fact which another member was intentionally ignoring.


[edit on 2-2-2006 by WestPoint23]


Then how come is it that you keep complaining that were making threats to Israel or talking about them in a harsh way while we are doing it nearly close to 30 years now and you act as if it's a surprise to you and all of a sudden you actually seem to care since our words should already make people be use to it by now.....



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Why was the former Iraqi information minister so confident... Like anyone is really going to cry and admit they would be defeated in a war against America.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
... but the point is, today's muslims are yesterdays canaanites, amorites, jebusites, etc.


I would think that with all the wars, genocides and mass migrations in that area down through history, it would be very difficult to prove that muslims = canaanites, amorites, jebusites, etc. After all, are today's Egyptians the same as the people that built the pyramids, etc? Of course, the muslims living in Egypt today would say yes, however, the people depicted in all the ancient art seem to look quite a bit different. Especially the Nubians. Guess we'll have to give Egypt back to them next.

Your point about Adam, however, is ultimately the truth for everyone - if you want to take history back far enough.


[edit on 2/2/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bozorgh

Then how come is it that you keep complaining that were making threats to Israel or talking about them in a harsh way while we are doing it nearly close to 30 years now and you act as if it's a surprise to you and all of a sudden you actually seem to care since our words should already make people be use to it by now.....


hmmm.....sounds very much like something NR would have said......



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
This guys confident because he see's weakness....he can spot the urine stain on the pants of the Europeans and he KNOWS that they won't back military action against his country.


Maximu§



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
This guy is acting for the same reason Kim Jung IL is acting this way...he is crazy. Crazy like a fox.

Both leaders know that the US will not send ground troops at this point. Also, they only do this so they can gain power relative to the rest of the world. They do this to get the people inside their country to worry about the big bad US instead of the crap they being fed. They could care less about the UN. Half of the people there have their hands in Iranian oil. As for him doing this to incite a war, that's complete crap.

If he launched ANYTHING towards the US, we would talk about Iran in the past tense the next day. ESPECIALLY if it was nuclear.

As Saddam found out, don't play with matches in a fireworks stand. If this guy isn't careful, he's going to find himself in a room with green walls in his underwear being checked for lice.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
according to shii'te prophecy, Armageddon will start in middleeast in one of the following places:
Mecca in Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Kufa in Iraq
Palestine
Khurasan in Iran

according to early hadiths, when messiah returns, Iraq will be occupied by foreign forces. This is only the second time Iraq is occupied by non-muslim troops, mongols were the first ones. (please correct me if i'm wrong)

from shii'te perspective, no arab government will help messiah, but an Islamic militia movement from 7th century Syria regoin (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, part of Jordan).

but the greatest contribution will come from the iranians (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan,...), numerous troops will join the messiah army, with the green and red flag.

It's interesting to know that early hadiths had actually predicted that iranians would actually one day carry a green and red flag.




the leader of the iranian troops is supposed to come from the Khurasan province (the first iranian province to claim independence from the arab islamic empire). coincidently, the current iranian supreme leader is from Khurasan province.


RESPECT



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Even if you don't consider the President of Iran part of the government he is defiantly a mouthpiece for them.


- How so?

Even here in the UK Tony Blair makes comments and statements but they do not in themselves necesssarily constitute UK gov policy.

Unless he gets policy through the set and defined formalities of the UK Parliament those views will remain simply his opinions and comment.
He is not the government.

I am ignoring nothing by the way Westy; it is you who is obviously doing the ignoring and refusing to give any credit to the fact that Iran has formal structures of government (very different to those in the US).


After all, if the President was going against the Ayatollahs do you think there would be no consequences?


- I think you are trying to make a point that isn't there, you are trying to stretch this idea of "going against the Ayatollahs".

It is clear what happened; he went to a public rally and went too far.

Iran really doesn't much like the Israeli or the US so he got a mild slapping down.

But what you clearly did not see was any kind of formal announcement of Iranian government policy or intent; and no matter how hard you try to make it so I suspect you know this too.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I have a hunch that this is PR game played by the Ajatollahs, just when the current president crosses the line when US starts to react with military power, they will take him down and say "Hey we didn't piss you off, it was the president, and we took care of him for you" This will force US to give some "good will" to the Real Iranian leadership (Ajatollahs)



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Has anyone read the link posted by Breezin? I am of the thought that we as westerners should at least be somewhat concerned.

This guy was selected to be president of Iran by the Mullahs in power to be their mouthpiece, and puppet, because of his extremist credentials. To my mind we as westerners, and non-muslims, or even moderate muslims, should be concerned. Should the vision of a world caliphate come to pass (doubtful I know) alot of us are going to the wall. I won't bore you with a list, as you are all fairly intelligent folk, and are probably capable of making the list yourselves.

So in order to hasten the coming of the Mahdi, the world is to be full of chaos and disorder, and as a supporter of Hamas, and other terrorist organizations I'm sure, he is off to a roaring start. Ain't religion, especially an apocolyptic version, grand?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Then how come is it that you keep complaining that were making threats to Israel or talking about them in a harsh way while we are doing it nearly close to 30 years now and you act as if it's a surprise to you and all of a sudden you actually seem to care since our words should already make people be use to it by now.....


Are you serious? Just because a threat is repeatedly made does not mean that it somehow becomes acceptable or ok. I’m only concerned because several factors are coming together, a radical president, a Nuclear Program, and of course the long held view that Israel should be wiped off the map.

I also noticed that you use “we” repeatedly, who is we? Do you live in Iran?


But what you clearly did not see was any kind of formal announcement of Iranian government policy or intent; and no matter how hard you try to make it so I suspect you know this too.


I know that in Iran only the Supreme Leader has the ability to declare war, however even if a President is not the entire government his views and opinions should matter because even Ahmadinejad has influence and power.


In contrast with most republics, the effective head of Iran's political establishment is not the president, but rather the Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts. For instance, Ruhollah Khomeini, who is perhaps the most famous Iranian leader in the West, was never president (incidentally, Ayatollah was not his first name, but a title of respect).

Despite this, Iran's president fulfills many of the classical functions of a head of state, such as accepting the credentials of ambassadors. Since the change in the constitution that removed the post of Prime Minister and merged most of the prime ministerial duties with the President's, the once figurehead Presidential post has become a position of significant government influence. In addition, as the highest directly elected official in Iran, the President is responsive and responsible to public opinion in a way that the Supreme Leader is not.

President Of Iran


[edit on 3-2-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Maybe Iran is trying to call the U.S hand on the matter, while everyone is hanging around waiting for a decision from the U.N they are probably preparing their defences and who knows what surprises they have up their sleeve, we know they buy arms from Russia and they know what they're doing when it comes to high tech missile systems.
I suppose we will all have to wait and see.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Maybe he's using the new natural male enhancement "ENZYTE"? It apparently increases missile trajectory as well.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I know that in Iran only the Supreme Leader has the ability to declare war, however even if a President is not the entire government


- Well actually to be perfectly clear there is no "if" about it, he is not. Period.


his views and opinions should matter because even Ahmadinejad has influence and power.


- No-one is denying that; that is a fair but it is also entirely different point.

My point to you was that you were taking his statements as if they were the declared policy and intent of the Iranian government, which they are not......and that is one hell of a different thing to whatever personal support or influence he might have.

You cannot just blithely use terms like "the Iranian government *this*" and "the Iranians *that*" on the basis of that mans statements alone.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
along with the explosive mixture which includes parts of religious fervor,
an actor in self-fufilling prophecy,
he is also privy to the insider knowledge of what the NWO/G-8
has in store concerning the world economy....

->the Iranian Bourse, Oil Trading is due to begin trading 20 March 2006
->this oil market will be primarily traded in Euros rather than petrodollars
->the US will stop reporting the M3 money supply in March '06 also
which will benefit the Fed & central banks to hide the hedging & dirivitives
markets played within the Iranian Bourse, in their ploy to manipulate Irans & OPEC & Muslim oriented economies.

the persians/iranians are in thick & strong with this geopolitical drama involving the western empire...as they themselves stand to profit big time from the fees & transaction costs in exchanging USD/Euros
and eventually machinating
an economic crisis as they in turn require the economies of the world to market & trade energy & oil with the petro-Dinar which will be gold based money.

see, he knows that the western economic empire has a need for a vital & vibrant Iran(aka Persia)

...and he knows that a prophetic scenario is unfolding

~~~~~~~

www.energybulletin.net...
{google search} "Iranian bourse, oil trading"

[edit on 3-2-2006 by St Udio]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Well westpoint US doesn't buy oil from Iran and neither any of the oil barons of the US can touch it either.

Now remembering also another country that would not allow the oil barons to touch their oil either.

But history tells now that US took care of that problem. Right?

Now Iran will be the next one to be taken care off.

for anybody that keep telling themselves that US spreading Democracy and freedom is what all the conflicts in the middle east is all about.

Well you need to rethink the priorities here.

Is all about the oil and who has it and who doesn't.


At the same time our administration can tag it to divinely inspired

Why is the Iranian leader so calm?

Why can not be.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
hey marg, you want to show me where the US has said it is going to attack iran? because last time i checked, bush was asking for iran to accept a political solution, and the europeans are taking the lead on this one, with france in the forefront. i've seen alot of rhetoric about the US and their evil empire, but so far not a single quote of anyone in the bush administration saying a single non-peaceful thing in regards to iran. you just cant compare this situation with iraq, because the administration is handling it in a completely different manner.

then again, the anti-bush folks are calling for strong arm tactics against iran...namely one hillary clinton, who keeps telling the world that bush is too soft on iran.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join