It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NEWS: Iranian Spiritual Leaders Sanction the Use of Nuclear Weapons in New Fatwa.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
If the Iranian president had intentions of attacking Israel or the United States with it's nuclear arsenal, do you think he would publically announce it? I don't.
< snip >
I am just trying to enlighten people to their faulted mentality of analyzing EXACTLY what he said said as his gospel and true intentions. It is a faulted way of thinking.

Well, that's more of a problem when people take what someone says one time and treat it as gospel. For example, when Bush made a joke about being dictator, people ran with that as the true heart and soul of George W. Bush.

That's entirely different from Iran's president saying he wants to push Israel into the sea. He has said that dozens of times. There's a pattern emerging there, and it would be foolish to ignore it.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:06 PM
Well if this is true, maybe they are trying to convince the Islamic public that the use of nuclear weapons against Israel or the US would be permissible, despite the Fatwa to the contrary. Makes me wonder just how close they are to obtaining them, if they haven't got them already...

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Jamuhn

mullahs would not be making such comments without the approval of the supreme leader.

Do you have proof of this? Because last I saw...

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

so what you are saying is that in iran, which is a theocracy, it is okay for a mullah to make comments that go against a fatwa issued by the supreme leader? do you have proof of that? because last time that i checked, going against a fatwa of the supreme leader had some very harsh death.

as i have said before, if this particular mullah was making these statements without the approval of khamenei, he would no longer be in a position to make them....just as ahmadinejad would no longer be president if khamenei disagreed with his policies. if you are the expert of shia islam that you have claimed to be on other threads, you know this to be true. cant have it both ways....either khamenei is in charge and agrees with the remarks of those under him, or he no longer holds the power the west thinks he does and his people openly disregard his fatwas. which is it?

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by snafu7700if you are the expert of shia islam that you have claimed to be on other threads, you know this to be true. cant have it both ways....either khamenei is in charge and agrees with the remarks of those under him, or he no longer holds the power the west thinks he does and his people openly disregard his fatwas. which is it?

I never stated I was an expert, but it doesn't take an expert to state facts!

Ok, so you want to see where Khamenei stands in relation to the President, let's see what we find...

In fact the president has less power than any of his Islamic Republic predecessors. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has seemingly been startled enough by Ahmadinejad's disruptive tendencies to grant the expediency council (a non-elected body headed by Rafsanjani) oversight of the presidency.

The hardliners are facing rising opposition from a moderate faction, which appears to enjoy support from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran's Supreme National Security Council secretary, Ali Larijani, recently praised some aspects of the Russian plan and emphasized that Tehran did not intend to withdraw from the NPT. Larijani is widely viewed as a political protege of Ayatollah Khamenei's.

Ahmadinejad enjoyed the backing of Ayatollah Khamenei during the initial stage of his presidency. But Ahmadinejad's pursuit of a radically conservative political agenda quickly prompted Ayatollah Khamenei to distance himself from the president's faction. The supreme leader, apparently seeing a need for Iran to have a political counter-balance to the presidential faction, has reached out to centrists led by Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.


Discussions about Iran tend to focus on two opposing groups: the conservative clerics, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who keep Khomeini's dream alive; and the reformers, led by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who seek to gradually open up Iran's moribund politics and economy to the world.

This depiction is true, but incomplete, as Ramin Jahanbegloo, an Iranian scholar living in Tehran, wrote last year in the Journal of Democracy. The reality of Iranian politics is "characterized by multiple and competing power centers whose rivalries have created a chaotic situation in which various shades and types of 'reformism' and 'conservatism' interact in often bewildering ways." Bewildering, yes, but these "shades and types" also represent the most likely means of breaking Iran's political gridlock.

While the world is focused on the clock of Iran's nuclear program, the other clock, that of the nation's domestic politics, is all but ignored by most commentators.


The event to watch is the forthcoming election of a new Assembly of Experts, a body of mullahs whose task is to elect the "Custodian-Theologian" - more commonly known as the "Supreme Guide," who has virtually unlimited powers under the Khomeinist constitution.


During the presidential election Khamenei was astute enough to adjust his tactics. Having backed Qalibaf in the first round he switched to Ahmadinejad in the second. Ahmadinejad, however, feels he owes nothing to Khamenei. By putting the focus on the "Hidden Imam" Mahdi as the sole source of power in the Islamic Republic, Ahmadinejad has tried to marginalize the "Supreme Guide." In many of his speeches he puts the Mahdi ahead of all prophets and claims that he has "a private personal channel" to the "Hidden Imam." 404829&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:45 AM
Well what a suprise. As the day gets closer when Iran starts to sell it's oil in Euros instead of Dollars we find the "need" for intervention increases.

The nuclear threat is a distraction to fool the US public in supporting an economic war. Millions of Iranians will die so the US citizen can carry on buying goods in the shopping malls.

What is very suprising is how many folks on ATSNN are falling for this.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:08 AM
What's A Little Fatwa Between Friends?

The question is moot since Iran is not in the process of pursuing nuclear weapons capability.

Just ask them.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:39 AM
Malcr have you not been keeping up with events concerning the present stance of Iran with respct to their nuclear ambitions & intentions. Your statements imply that the U.S. (in particular) is leading a disinformation campaign against Iran. However the European Union, Russia, the U.N., etc., have all been saying the same things the U.S. has. While it is true the U.S. started saying most of these things first, it is also true that the U.S. has, arguably, the best intelligence agencies in the world and is thus in a better position to learn such things before other countries. I don't believe there is much doubt left in the world that Iran has nuclear ambitions that go beyond just nuclear power--in spite of all their statements to the contrary.

To ignore information coming out of Iran about past nuclear activities, about wiping Israel (and the U.S. off the map), about creating chaos in the world to prepare for the return of the Mahdi and to ignore Iran's overt & covert support and funding and training of terrorist groups in the Mid-East and elsewhere would not be a prudent and responsible thing for any government to do. All U.S. actions to date have been both prudent and responsible and have not included any plan to invade Iran or to employ any sort of military actions against them.

The U.S. has shown great patience in this whole affair and seems to be trying very hard to reach a diplomatic settlement.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:55 AM
While I agree Iranian government is is important to note several things. In response to Muaddips comments...Iran is not the only group bit by the endoftheworlditus bug. Many of the funnymentalists in this country have it as well. I have heard claims ranging from James Watts assertion that Christ would only come after the last tree was cut down, and then there were those"Christian" thugs who were caught in Isreal plotting to blow up the Dome of The Rock to hasten the rebuilding of the temple and so Christ. This type of worldview is dangerous to us all whether it comes from Jerry Foulwell or Pat Robertson or Allatollah Khomeni or Al Sadr or some rabid head of state whether he wears a turban or cowboy hat. Second: I have said it before and I will say it again any country worth its salt is going to look long and hard at its weaponary and try and boost it as much as possible especially after the axis of evil speech and the invasion of Iraq. They would be fools not to, and that is G. Bushes own doing. If I had been listed in that speech, I know I would be stockpiling like crazy. One more example how unthought out Bushes policies actually are. Any invasion of Iran would be far more of a disaster than Iraq, and a far tougher fight as well, but that will never happen. China is too deeply involved and I would put money down (and I am not a betting man) that if we actually setting up an invasion, they will politely remind Bush that they hold trillions in loans of ours and if we continue, they will call them in. And that will stop that.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:00 AM
Which is worst, to attack Iran NOW before they can "burn" the planet or wait until they can in the name of the moon false god "allah'?

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Now we have a mullah declaring a fatwa that it is alright to use nuclear weapons.

Remember THIS Mullah declaring a similar Fatwa?

Mini-Nukes in Conventional War Theaters - "SAFE FOR CIVILANS"

There are indications that the Bush administration does not exclude using thermonuclear bunker buster bombs in the Middle East war theater. These weapons were specifically developed for use in post Cold War "conventional conflicts with third world nations".

In an utterly twisted logic, the nuclear bunker buster bomb is presented as an instrument of peace-making and regime change, which will enhance global security. It is intended to curb the dangers of WMD proliferation by "nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and "rogue states". Pentagon propaganda has carefully distorted the nature of this bomb.

The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional battlefield weapons and nuclear bombs. Already during the Clinton Administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians.

The B61-11 is casually described as causing an underground explosion without threatening "the surrounding civilian population".

Interesting, that while one "Rouge Nation" is persuing their Nuclear Technology for Civilan Use - United States goverment is slowly Bludding the Line between Conventional and Nuclear Weapons, and is READY to use Nuclear weapons in Conventional Warfare.

The Bush administration has gone one step further in defining the use of tactical Nuclear weapons, which are now part of America's Preemptive arsenal.

So, who is THREATENING who here?

Robert S. McNamara, US Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations

Current US nuclear weapons policy is immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the US nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power - a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years."

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:56 AM
As I told you in that thread, Souljah, the bunker-busters to which you refer are not weapons of mass destruction. They are special weapons. While a WMD would be a special weapon, a special weapon does not have to be a WMD.
Simply being nuclear does not mean collateral damage, radiation poisoning, etc.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:13 AM

Originally posted by thermopolis
Which is worst, to attack Iran NOW before they can "burn" the planet or wait until they can in the name of the moon false god "allah'?

(1) Allah is the same god as YHWH and what we (some of us) call Jehovah, they all share the same root as a semetic tribal diety and most scholars, theologians and historians would agree. In so much as what we call God, is an approach to the ineffable, there are no false gods.
(2) Also as it stands, only Russia and the United States actually have the capacity to burn the planet. If Iran gets the bomb, which it will, they will become a nusience, that is all...our overwhelming capacity to erase any nation we want has stood and will stand as a deteriant unless we end up with madmen in power....wait a minute...bush and whatshisname in Iran and Ill son qualify don't they?

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:24 AM
Talk about yellow journalism.

These guys are talking about a "level playing field" - NOT saying they intend to use nuclear bombs, but rather, to have them to use as a counter measure:

"One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel."

I don't think any nation should have nuclear bombs. But they do. So the only way to avoid world domination by military bullying is for everyone to have the same weapons.

What's that line? Oh yeah. "You broke it, you fix it." And stomping all over anyone who disagrees with you ain't a fix.


posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:42 AM
Soficrow, i don't think you read the article. This is the second or third time that I have to bring this up to another member in this same thread.

i just wonder why you didn't see the following statement from the mullah.

He also said: "When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only the goal is important."

Excerpted from original link.

He is saying it is ok for them to use nuclear weapons when the entire world has them.

There are four fallacies here which for some reason some members don't want to see.

The first one is that the Iranian president, and the Iranian regime have been talking about wiping Israel and the U.S. off the map, you won't be safe in Canada sofi if any nuclear attack happens in the U.S.

The second one is that even the Iranian president himself has been stating that the goal/mission of their regime is to pave the way for the 12th Imam, which means the world must be at the end of days. The ends of days are supposed to be the times when there is total chaos all over the world.

The third one and one of the most concerning fallacies, is that meanwhile some people are claiming that iran does not want to get their hands on nuclear weapons, we clearly see that this is not so. That is their intention for going after nuclear technology.

The fourth one is that some people just want to read parts of what the Mullah says and for some reason want to give him the benefit of the doubt even when he says "it is alright for Iran to use nuclear weapons once the whole world has them, and it is ok for iran to get their hands on nuclear weapons because the U.S. and Israel have them....

Well, the thing is that neither the governments of the U.S. nor Israel have said they want to wipe off the map any other nation, the Iranian regime and their president is saying, that "soon enough and by the grace of Allah, the world will continue without the U.S. and Israel".

If people can't read between the lines on all of this.....

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Simply being nuclear does not mean collateral damage, radiation poisoning, etc.

Well how is that Possible?

It is STILL a Nuclear Device - it still creates an Explosion with the help of Radioactive Material and it WILL create Collateral Damage, because there are people living in those "Rouge States" if you did not notice - it is not a Barren Desert designed to Test new nuclear toys.

Bunker-Busters are NUCLEAR bombs - therefore they are classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

B61-11 Concerns and Background

The United States is now fielding a new tactical and strategic nuclear military capability that has already been used to threaten a non-nuclear country. This new capability was certified without nuclear testing, using an existing surrogate testing facility with capabilities much less than those under construction and planned. The weapon was developed and deployed in secret, without public and congressional debate, contrary to domestic and international assurances that no new nuclear weapons were being developed. Other new or "modified" nuclear weapons, earth-penetrating and otherwise, are planned.

So tell me, how come that this mini-nukes were developed in secrey, without any pubic or congressional debate? How come, that the United States are the ONLY country in the world, that can Threaten a non-nuclear country with a Nuclear pre-emptive strike? And how come, that the NUCLEAR weapons, that the US can now use against non-nuclear countries are simply being SAFE FOR CIVILANS?

How will that happen TC?

Will Harry Potter arrive on his Magic Broom and sprinkle the Magic Dust over the Radioactive cloud and make it all go away?

Apparently there is yet ANOTHER Treaty, that was BENT or Broken by the US Goverment:



1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

A central and expressed purpose of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has always been to arrest the further evolution of the world's nuclear arsenals - so how come that US, a signatory Member of this Treaty, is NOT following its most Important first two basic obligations?

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Soficrow, i don't think you read the article. ...i just wonder why you didn't see the following statement from the mullah.

He also said: "When the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only the goal is important."

As you point out, he says, "it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-measure."

If people can't read between the lines on all of this.....

I assure you I do - and I see that yellow journalism is being used to war-monger, and justify yet another round of pre-emptive strikes.

I see it. I call it. It sucks.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:51 AM
Ahhh, currently the only country still testing nukes is FRANCE.......

And when it comes to nukes being developed by insane islamic countries screw the treaties, stop the insane..........

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by soficrow
I assure you I do - and I see that yellow journalism is being used to war-monger, and justify yet another round of pre-emptive strikes.

I see it. I call it. It sucks.

Yellow journalism?....

So if the media shows the true intentions of regimes like Iran, it is "yellow journalism".... If the media shows what some soldiers, from the U.S. or Israel are doing when in a powertrip, it is all true and it shows the "evilness of the U.S.".....

The comments from the Iranian president comes from the Iranian media...and "his own statements." Or are you sugesting that now the media has a mind control device on the regime, and they also put a mind control device on the president of Iran and the U.S., or Israel are the ones behind what these mullahs, and what the Iranian president keep saying?

It is a question btw, because i am not sure how you reached the conclusion of "yellow journalism". You choose and pick what is "true journalism, and what is yellow journalism.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:14 AM
Souljah, i think we all know by now that you hate the U.S., Israel and the west in general, but that is not the topic in this thread, so stay on topic please. Thanks....

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:26 AM
This whole thread is really kind of a non issue...
it isn't really news, that extremist muslims will use Nuclear weapons . It is not really news that muslims in general, will use nukes if attacked with nukes...
(and any other country that is capable)

a big captain obvious statement there... is there any need to "study it"?

Now I do think there is an interesting side note to study?

why is this being perported as "news"

if you cant read propaganda when you see it, then you are not prepared for the next 10 years...
newspeak... and it is real... and they are really good at it...

you hafta be smarter than the cow your eatin people...
or else you become cattle also...

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in