It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ahmadinejad Seeks Purging of Liberals!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
Their religion is the reason for the purging, this is what happens when religion runs the government. We will probably see more to come from this guy, he wont stop untill he has stripped every bit of western thinking from the land.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes, and it really doesn't matter just what religion is running the show..does it..
who's working so hard to get religion within our government??
by the way? is IRan killing off their religious scholars now? didn't think so....he just said he wants them removed from the universities....wasn't it delay who said he wanted the liberal judges removed from the benches??



Err,,,I never said that Iran was killing the teachers , and we do need some judges removed from the bench, when a judge hands down a sentence of 90 days in jail for child molestation yea, that judge needs to go........




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Can you please post the link where Delay wants liberal judges removed for being soft on child molesters?

otherwise you have failed in your sideways political slam...

Serves back to ya: Actually Delay just wanted the fluffy feel good judges off the courts, that would have actually defended the constitution of the UNITED STATES, and the rights and freedoms of the citizens... Because we do get to see what kind of judges they have been replacing them with... and give me a liberal judge any day of the week...

back to topic:
Irans president has finally shown his true colors, and those moderates within Iran are feeling scared now. This is also the first step in forming a 5th column within Iran for foreign influence...
the Shah will start to seem like a bargain after the taliban treatment for awhile...

The more extreme that Iran pulls its people, the less our actions will cause them to push towards extremism.

In other words, If Iran pulls their own people, it will result in revolution and inner strife... if we push them, then it will result in more extremists, and a more unified "against the West" Iran...


did that make sense?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
It's not delay that I was talking about I mearly stated that if a judge hands out a light sentance to a child molester, that judge should be removed or step down I've heard a couple of different cases this year where it has happend.

I agree with the rest of your post Lazarus if we just left Iran alone I believe there would be an uprising within...............but we wont leave them alone will we?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
iori_komei, I hope your support of an invasion includes you going there yourself, even if you will only be alive a few days once you have entered the country. Mountainous and forst covered terrain makes it quite difficult for mass columns of tanks to move in quickly. Many of them will be destroyed. Snipers will be picking off foot soldiers left and right. Their air defenses are hidden in all kinds of caves and shrubbery along their borders, and are alot higher than sea level, making the distance traveled before reach our jets less and quicker. Many of the routes will most likely be mined. They have their own airforce, while although no match for our superior one, will pose a good fight and will work to pick off our ground forces with the right timing.

If you support sending everything we have at them, then you are leaving them extremely vulnerable when they have to land and refuel. Not to mention our other interests we have to protect.

Face it, invasion is a silly and unimaginable idea.

Let him say what he has to say and be done with it. # I dont see why we do not just make him an ally. We already have a communist ally with a slave population, and a fanatical religious ally which has a physical presence to enforce and punish their religious laws in Saudi Arabia. Whats one more Lunatic at the dinner table if it can ensure peace?

[edit on 9/6/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
What kind of country will Iran become without free thinkers? Ahmadinejad seems to want a totally radical Islamic superstate that will reject even the hint of a western idea. But can he just erase 150 years of secularism? we shall see.


Yes. liberals and appeasers (iran's biggest supporters) in the West, please take note of this. If islamo-fascists such as this are allowed to take power in Spain, France, the UK, or elsewhere, exactly who do you think are going to be the first to "disappear"? That's right, you!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
First Reaction:
Looks like he has something in common with many of the Republicans in the US.


Jamuhn: Blatant attempt to sidetrack this thread. It's not about U.S. Republicans at all, now is it.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Jamuhn: Blatant attempt to sidetrack this thread. It's not about U.S. Republicans at all, now is it.


Actually, it's an honest observation of the similarities that Iran's president has with many of those in America. I'm not sure why you care because even you were trying to allude to liberals as being supporters of suppresive governments and terrorists in your previous post. Don't be such a baby, this thread is still on track to go absolutely nowhere.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Actually, it's an honest observation of the similarities that Iran's president has with many of those in America.


Which proves my point that you are attempting to hijack this thread in another direction from the original intent. BTW, why do you feel the need to do so?


... this thread is still on track to go absolutely nowhere.


Which, as I said, has been your intent all along - whenever there is a thread even slightly critical of iran.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Look, this silly conversation that you have started is what is derailing this thread. I can make all the comparisons I want to the subject of this thread and yes, it is still on track.

Have you taken any literary classes or history classes before? You always compare one moment to the next. You are just upset because I am not saying things that you want me to. I'm sure in your delusions of America becoming the next Rome you would like to censure me, but America is not Rome, so get over it.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Have you taken any literary classes or history classes before?


Claiming to know something about history, are we? Well, your posts say otherwise. BTW, iran is no reincarnation of ancient persia, either. Then again, who knows? iran could repeat history and suffer a similar fate.


You always compare one moment to the next.


You could call this a layman's definition of what a historian does - so, thank you.

I'm tired of this, so will no longer post. My original comment still stands, and my question about your motives in constantly defending iran remain unanswered.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   


Jamuhn: Blatant attempt to sidetrack this thread. It's not about U.S. Republicans at all, now is it.


It's a perfectly valid comparison. Our rightwingers are making hay of the fact that Ahmadinejad, Iran's local equivalent, is doing in Iran exactly what they'd like to do here. How many right-wing screeds have I read calling for a purge of academic "liberals"?

If you indulge in blatant hypocrisy, you can expect to get called on it.
This isn't some far-right blogland paradise where everyone agrees with you.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
If you indulge in blatant hypocrisy, you can expect to get called on it.
This isn't some far-right blogland paradise where everyone agrees with you.


This is not "blatant hypocrisy", it could only be so if Centurion has called for such action. Speaking of calling people, I'm calling you out and everyone else in here wishing to make this about US radicals. This is about the Iranian President (. of state) issuing a mandate to suppress "liberal" thinking, you can't discuss that without pointing to the US and even going so far as to try and make this political? Pathetic.
Blatant hypocrisy? More like Pathetic hijacking.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
............
Many Republicans hate liberals in the US, but when they read a .line like this, they won't mind dogging Iran for it since it can be used in their political interests.

Of course Iran should be faulted for this, but you see the same thing happening in many "nationalizing" countries, including the US.


and there are liberals who hate Republicans with a passion too and are trying their best to "purge the country of Republicans".....



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Actually, it's an honest observation of the similarities that Iran's president has with many of those in America.
.............


I am sorry but it is ironic that you would start your response by claiming "your opinion is an honest observation of the similarities of the U.S. and Iran"....

There are many Liberals who want to "purge the U.S." of Republicans, it is just not many Republicans wanting to purge the U.S. of Liberals....

All you have to do is go to one of the most Liberal Universities in the U.S. and speak against some of the things that Liberal professors are trying to teach. You will probably flunk the class, but then these same professors will claim "we are teaching students to think for themselves"....

Your observation is based on your own opinion and nothing more. There are no "similarities" between the U.S. and Iran.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

This is not "blatant hypocrisy", it could only be so if Centurion has called for such action. Speaking of calling people, I'm calling you out and everyone else in here wishing to make this about US radicals. This is about the Iranian President (. of state) issuing a mandate to suppress "liberal" thinking, you can't discuss that without pointing to the US and even going so far as to try and make this political? Pathetic.
Blatant hypocrisy? More like Pathetic hijacking.


Good luck with that my friend.

Some people would rather die than trying to pass a chance to bash and blame the U.S. for whatever reason they can think of....

You are right, this has nothing to do with the U.S., but do you think some people understand that?

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
and there are liberals who hate Republicans with a passion too and are trying their best to "purge the country of Republicans".....




Oh please Muaddib you surely don't believe that do you? That is simply laughable even coming from you. The left (that is assuming this country has ever had an actual left which I doubt) and liberalism, even in it's hayday didn't have that kind of power, muchless the kind of power Bush and his congressional enablers have today.

Back to reality. The untold story behind this is what the Iranian government has been doing to the Baha'i's in that country. The Baha'i Faith had its start in Iran in the 1840's, they are fundamentally apolitical and their fundamental principles include the essential oneness of all religions and the oneness of mankind...they work towards an agenda of world peace and dialogue between the various peoples and religions towards goals that we can all agree on and that will be a benefit to humanity. Their only sin as it were is that they are considered apostates and heretics within Islam and specifically Shiia. In the 19th century over 20,000 were tortured and killed. The bloodletting continued throughout the 20th century and picked up steam after the Iranian revolution. Since then several hundred have been killed. Their holy places destroyed, their cemeteries dug up, people have been deprived of housing, jobs and their bank accounts. Currently there is a push to deprive them of a basic education, all for believing in the oneness of mankind.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by grover]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Mirthful Me]


df1

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
First Reaction:
Looks like he has something in common with many of the Republicans in the US.


I don't give many of these:
You have voted Jamuhn for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I fail to see how anyone can actually see a difference between christian fundamentalist and muslim fundamentalist. Neither speaks for God, no matter how much they insist that they do.
.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   


This is about the Iranian President (. of state) issuing a mandate to suppress "liberal" thinking, you can't discuss that without pointing to the US and even going so far as to try and make this political?


It is political, I'm not trying to make it anything.

I don't have to - it's power politics at it's worst.

And yes, it's hypocritical when the right attacks Ahmadinejad for doing precisely what they'd like to do themselves. That it's being posted as yet more pro-war propaganda makes it doubly so.

As far Muaddib trying to portray this as "bashing the US", please, get real. I'm bashing the far right that wants to destroy this country by dragging it into pointless conflicts on the other side of the planet.

I'm not opposed to a war with Iran because I have any great love for the Iranian theocracy - which I despise - but because I think it'd be bad for the US.

So take the "anti-American" BS propaganda and stick it...


[edit on 9/6/06 by xmotex]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I believe the topic of this thread is "Ahmadinejad Seeks Purging of Liberals!". Is it not?

There is no resemblance between what Ahmadinejad refers to as "Liberals" and what a Liberal is in the US. He is referring to anyone who is in favor of a free secular society. A US Conservative would be considered a Liberal under his definition. The words Liberal or Conservative mean different things in different era's or parts of the world. This could have been an interesting topic had it not been turned into a Republicans vs Democrats debate which is being held on the wrong part of the board.

If some here are Pro-Ahmadinejad or Pro-Iran that's OK by me, as it makes for a more substantial debate. It would be nice if those who are would admit to it and engage in the debate openly and without subterfuge. If everyone could do that, maybe, just maybe there would be hope for a peaceful world for our progeny. The cause of war in the first place is painfully evident in exchanges like these. War is the act of one group trying to shove its view of how things should be down the throat of those that don't agree. It is only when a groups views endanger the lives and freedom of another group that war is justified and yes there are just wars.

In this case we have a radical leader, who is a danger to his own constituents, that wants to control the dissemination of information to his people. He wants this to make it easier for him to control them. He clearly sees a free society as a personal threat to him and his power over his world. He has no interest in improving the lives of his people and his decisions are based on what will benefit him personally. To believe he even cares about Islam or the Muslim faith is ludicrous. His point of view is clearly myopic. If ever there were a leader suffering from "Delusions of Grandeur", Ahmadinejad is one of them. One need only read a few of his speeches or press statements to understand just what he is. He not only wants complete dictatorial control of Iran, but also wants the same control over Muslims world wide. If one could reach into the deepest, darkest parts of his thoughts you would probably find he does not believe in the teachings of his professed faith and only uses it as a tool to reach his goal of world domination. People are way to quick to assert that these so called Muslim leaders actually believe what they preach. They see their religion as a convenient means of controlling others thoughts and actions. I believe they also see those that blindly follow their faith without questioning it as fools just waiting to be controlled. Ahmadinejad clearly sees religion as means to an end of his choosing.

Eventually the people of Iran will become fed up with this and rebel. The question is, will they do something about it before he succeeds in exacting complete control over them by force. Will they be able to stop him before he builds an atomic weapon and follows through on his threats against Israel and the Western World. I think it may be to late for that already. If you want insight into Ahmadinejad and people like him you should read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by journalist William L. Shirer. The similarities between Ahmadinejad and Hitler are striking to say the least.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
seems rather simple to me, really

if the insane president of Iran is more dangerous to us because he desires to remove the influence of liberals from their society, just how much more dangerous to the US are those who seek to remove the liberal influence from american society?

and ummm... delay wanted the judges removed from their bench because they didn't go along with his and bushes (and the religious right's) wishes regarding terri shivo.....a perfect example of the similarity I think.

if the president of IRan is a danger because he is stating his desires in this regard, then we have enemies also in Isreal, as well as here at home. since there's a movement going on across the world by the various far right religious followers (regardless of religion) to mold their country's laws and government into an image more in tune with their beliefs.

saying that the president of Iran is a danger because he working to have some nukes to attack the US and Isreal with is one thing....
saying that he is a danger for doing the very same danged thing that the neo-con promoters have been doing is byfar another!! it's stupid actually...since in a way, they are also exposing the danger they themselves present to our country.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join