Ahmadinejad condemns religious crack down

It seems Ahmadinejad is not evil and ignorant as portrayed by Western media, he is an intelligent and charismatic character.

"The government does not agree with this behaviour and will respond to and control it as much as it can," he said. "It is an insult to ask a man and woman walking on the steet about their relation to each other. Nobody has the right to ask such questions."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

He is right, that the actions of the Iranian police is designed to create tumult.

Although it is the job of the police to enforce the law, it doesn't necessarily mean they have the right to question who ever they see in the street without clear suspicion, or evidence.

That would simply mean everyone is a suspect, that would create distrust between the people and the governing body.

Thumbs up Ahmad

Well, the western media as well as a depressing amount of westerners either don't mind, or actually prefer to have their views on Iran coming straight out of Tel Aviv.

No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that western media is portraying him inaccurately!! Just like Saddam, we're gonna get those WMDs from that madman! Did you see how he flaunted the UN? What nerve! *rolls eyes*

Ahmadinajad and Chavez are the great leaders of this century - we can only hope that they are able to stand their ground, gaining enlightened world support - silencing the war drums of the warmongers.

There are not many who understand the war propaganda that is being directed against these guys. No-one would envy their position - the guns of the US and Israel are directed at them both.

reply to post by Amagnon


I agree.

America even tried to rid Chavez through a coup, if you have seen it, you would fall in tears as you see all the Venezuelans coming back to fight the American coup, thousands and thousands, surround the palace and ask for Chavez's release.

Now that I talked about it, I had to find the link ^^:

www.youtube.com...

Watch all the parts.

He makes sense often and is far from the madman that the u.s and isreal try to paint him as..

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and Jose Mujica are the great men of the 21st Century. They all challenge the dominance of the west, they all push for equal rights in the UN, they all push for Social Justice, they all push for environmental protection and they are all opposed to the power of international bankers and corporations.

They aren't exactly running the most free and least corrupt countries but they do good for their people and their people like them.

Ahmadinejad is a lunatic. I wonder how many will join his love in when he has nukes?

Originally posted by sinthia
Ahmadinejad is a lunatic. I wonder how many will join his love in when he has nukes?

The same logic you are using I'll regard you as lunatic, and also regard you as trying to obtain nukes, so you can go for a crusade mission and nuke Iran.

It is your logic, no reasoning behind it, no subjectivity, no rational, nothing, you are mute.

reply to post by LittleSecret


Hmmmmm. I wonder if he smells a coup attempt coming and is trying to get a handle on his religious nuts before they can be used against him. (Much like the Taliban seized power of a more liberal Islamic nation)

It could go either way, but personally, if that is what is happening, he is doing the right thing. The fanatical is always a minority, but they use terrorism to frighten the majority into submission. Having your leader speak out against it might keep the minority from growing out of control power wise and lend confidence to the more moderate majority to resist the push to extremism.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Like the coup in Venezuela?

They can try it, but we all know the popularity of Ahmedinejad in Iran.

What do you mean by extremist/liberal/moderate?

reply to post by LittleSecret


By extremist, I mean as the Taliban is, compared to what the majority of Afghanistanis were, (moderate.)

Like Christian fundamentalists are, compared to the majority of Christians in the US.

Those on the lunatic fringe of a religion are often the minority, but they seem to have an innate desire to seize power and then force the majority who are more moderate in their beliefs to do it their way.

I would not put it past the PTB to feed this lunatic fringe on dreams of conquest and control just to tear Iran apart from the inside out. And, once they unseat Ahmedinejad, and the lunatics begin a campaign of terror on Irans people, they can easily use the same bull# "humanitarian" sales pitch they have grown so fond of to sell yet another war to the people of the West.

Its just a formula we have seen all too often.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


The moderate rely on the extreme to protect them in the absence of justice, do you agree?

When justice comes back the extreme becomes moderate also, do you agree?

See the example is Palestine, they didn't resort to violence until the 2nd intifada, at least the extremist violence where suicide bombers were sent to Israeli settlements.

But then again that is a whole different issue, Iran is becoming stable, justice is served, but world wide justice is still absent which fuel the Iranian extreme values.

For example the recent sanctions which has absolute no legitimacy, get what I mean? Everyone can agree that Iran has the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, they have even signed a treaty which states they won't pursue nuclear weapons.

Iran is doing very well considering the sanctions implemented on it, and that achievement will slowly rid the extreme values.

That being said, if International justice is absent, the moderation will flourish within Iran (example of this news), but extreme values will be implemented outside Iran.

if what is coming out of his mouth is inconsistant with his actions and behaviors...

how stupid would i have to be to believe their mouth when it is saying "i love you more and know what is best for you", whiile their hands are punching me in the face?

there are, and were, priorities and agendas being served behind this statement by Ahmadinejad .

Ahmadinejad

he is aa mouthpiece for someone who calls themself:

THE SUPREME LEADER

is there any possible intentions we might exert some level of empathy towards to comprehend what possible motivations someone who calls themselves THE SUPREME LEADER ???

i wonder what they might want?

just some thoughts,
ET

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


What does the supreme leader have to do with this?

Ahmedinejad explains his opposition in regards to the religious crack down, and he explains in respectful manner why he opposes such ideas.

What is your point?

Originally posted by LittleSecret

The moderate rely on the extreme to protect them in the absence of justice, do you agree?

Unfortunately, I do agree. But there is a significant difference between religious extremism and the sort of extremism that you seem to be talking about. They behave in similar ways initially, but their end goal differs. All human groups do rely upon military "extremists" to fight enemies. Not all groups use religious extremism, though it is common.

Originally posted by LittleSecret
When justice comes back the extreme becomes moderate also, do you agree?

It can. Or religious extremism can itself become stable, as it has in Saudi Arabia, and as it did in the Western world for many centuries, until a natural event, the black plague, loosened its hold enough to let moderation begin to fight its way back in.

Originally posted by LittleSecret
See the example is Palestine, they didn't resort to violence until the 2nd intifada, at least the extremist violence where suicide bombers were sent to Israeli settlements.

This sort of extremism, military, can happen without religious extremism piggy backing along. You see it in the French and American revolutions, etc. Yes, they are temporarily labeled "terrorists" until they succeed and establish legitimacy, (or die terrorists) but in the case of non-religious extremism, their goal is often to establish moderation, whereas the goal of religious extremism is always to perpetuate itself. Not to set the stage for moderation. It may become stable religious extremism, but that is just not the same as moderation.

You may be able, in theory, to use religious extremists to accomplish a revolution, but you better have a plan to extinguish them after the goal is accomplished IF moderation is the kind of stability you want. Or, you get civil war that rages on for decades or even centuries.

Originally posted by LittleSecret
But then again that is a whole different issue, Iran is becoming stable, justice is served, but world wide justice is still absent which fuel the Iranian extreme values.

I do agree that injustice offers religious extremists a common thread with which to tie themselves to the more moderate (religiously speaking) temporarily.

Originally posted by LittleSecret
For example the recent sanctions which has absolute no legitimacy, get what I mean? Everyone can agree that Iran has the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, they have even signed a treaty which states they won't pursue nuclear weapons.

Iran is doing very well considering the sanctions implemented on it, and that achievement will slowly rid the extreme values.

Unless enemies in the West have operatives whose only goal is to fan the flames of the religious extremists in order to disrupt the stability of Iran for their own purposes. Again, instability may give those of moderate religious beliefs and those on the lunatic fringe a common enemy, temporarily, but it is a mistake to think that they have the same end or goal in mind, and that the religious extremists will willingly step aside once the battle is over. Religious extremists are enemies of moderation itself. Its the same in any country, and in any religion.

Here in the West we also have religious extremists who would love an opportunity to seize control and impose their values on the moderate many. So far, they have simply not had the opportunity, and our Constitution acts as a safeguard. However even with our relative domestic stability, they have way more influence than their numbers merit. At least a portion of our meddling in the middle East is because of that influence. They need Israel to do certain things in order for their Messiah to come back. It is also about oil, but it isnt ALL about oil. (And other resources) At least not to all the people who support Israel and our polices down there.

I'm admittingly ignorant on the good Amadinejad has done. I'm sorry but all I've ever heard is he is crazy and blah blah blah. I'm not one to follow the MSM at all, but I just haven't heard any different on him at all.

Now I hear that he is one of the great leaders of this century? I would love to see more information on this, I find it quite interesting.

Originally posted by TheFinalTruth14
I'm admittingly ignorant on the good Amadinejad has done. I'm sorry but all I've ever heard is he is crazy and blah blah blah. I'm not one to follow the MSM at all, but I just haven't heard any different on him at all.

Now I hear that he is one of the great leaders of this century? I would love to see more information on this, I find it quite interesting.

What evil did you hear about him, let's start from there.

Then we will go towards his good qualities of leadership.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Again, instability may give those of moderate religious beliefs and those on the lunatic fringe a common enemy, temporarily, but it is a mistake to think that they have the same end or goal in mind, and that the religious extremists will willingly step aside once the battle is over. Religious extremists are enemies of moderation itself. Its the same in any country, and in any religion.

That is the only difference between me and you, that you believe extremists won't step aside at the time of normality.

The truth is, that yes they won't step aside rather they will change at the time of stability.

They will tone down the extreme ideas, because extremism is needed for order, hence Afghanistan after the defeat of USSR.

Afghans had a huge civil war, corruption was huge, crime was huge (rape, murder..).

What happened? People allowed the extremist Taliban to come and bring order, as I said, extremism brings order.

Extremism did bring order, but Afghanistan was still in civil war, the northern alliance helped by external forces managed to hold a portion of Afghanistan.

In the Taliban controlled areas, crime dropped significantly, corruption dropped significantly, drug production dropped significantly.

These are the things which extremism can bring, extremism is something like curfew, shoot to kill, and Afghanistan needs a long curfew, so that everyone can sit down and get their heads straight.

The West did not allow the Afghan extremism to continue, therefore brought instability, corruption, drugs, crime etc back.

They did not even give the Taliban a chance, how do we know whether they were willing to change or not?

You give Saudi Arabia as an example, but we all know Saudi Arabian dictators are helped by external forces, and intelligence to stay in power as long as their interests are protected (hence oil).

Without that protection the Saudi government would collapse faster than you can say ding dong 20 times.


I'll give Iran as an example oppose to Saudi Arabia.

Iran got its independence from the US empire, Saudi Arabia still hasn't.




[edit on 19-6-2010 by LittleSecret]

I would not hold your breath on waiting for any meaningful reform. Many middle Eastern leaders have a "western" face and a "local" face. The Western face is a champion of peace and democratic values in English language interviews with American and European press.

The Local face is a hardliner. It is a champion of fanatical Islam and wants to crush all those that oppose him.

Originally posted by LittleSecret


That is the only difference between me and you, that you believe extremists won't step aside at the time of normality.

Looking back over history, I just dont see it happening. But you are right, it is the main disagreement we have.

The seed you plant has a lot to do with what you harvest. And while you may be right, that in times of stability, extremism can slowly morph into moderation, we are talking very long, extended periods of time over which that may happen.

Most of us are too selfish to want our great great great grandchildren to enjoy moderation. Most of US want to enjoy moderation. And we can. By not making the same mistake humans have made time and time again in believing that extremism leads to moderation.

The reason the world is the way it is, is because of people believing that you need extremists to promote safety and stability. Even here in the US during times of crisis we elect "extremists" like George W. to fight our battles. It has not made us safer. It has not made us happier. It has not improved the quality of our lives. What it HAS done is provoked other people into buying into the idea that an extremist is needed to restore stability.

The Taliban did nothing good for Afghanistan. They "lowered crime" by committing even more heinous crimes. Overall crime was not lowered, it was simply legitimized and enacted "officially." It is time for humanity to grow up and stop resorting to hiring or electing psychopaths to protect them, and to continue to figure out how to do it without resorting to fascism or tyranny.