Ahmadinejad challenges Obama to TV debate on solving world's problems

page: 5
92
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Aeons
 


okay. Play word games. Say question for Persia/Iran.


You certainly are. Nothing you are challenging me on has anything to do with what I posted.

This is a thread where I posted a break down of the speech in question, using the religious-cultural definitions of his own context.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Originally posted by Aeons
Let us review meanings. Because, sometimes you can use the same words but mean wildly different things.

So let us look at what some of the words he used mean to someone of his religious and cultural background. Tell me if these words mean the same thing to you.

Note that I have taken all sourcing from Islamic sources, not from their detractors.

Justice -
the placement of things into their rightful place where they belong according to the Koran. Equal treatment as it is defined by the Koran in its distribution of your rights and duties. Inequality is often deemed necessary to acheive justice. The measurement of the balance of justice is defined by the Koran and the Prophet, and it is all encompassing and universal. All means to achieve Justice as it is defined in the Koran and are not specifically mentioned to violate Islamice Law are fine and valid.

Justice is to put things in their rightful place, by any means not deemed specifically to violate the Koran, and those rightful places and their weight balanced against one another and where they are in terms of equality are laid out in the Koran.


Equality -

Please let me refer you to the Cairo Declaration On Human Rights in Islam.

Where you will find that all men are equal in terms of DIGNITY. and their obligations as they are found to be defined as God's subjects. God's place for you in submission is laid out in the Koran - your place, your value, your measurement against others. While you may have equal dignity, you also have your PLACE which is defined by Shar'ia.

All Human Rights are granted only so much as they do not proscribe Shar'ia.

You have the right to marriage, and all of society will come to bear upon this right. In which your place and roles are defined.

Shar'ia equality places men in charge of women. Shar'ia also defines how you may acquire and keep slaves, and treat them with proper justice in terms of their status.

You have rights to your equal care medically and socially BASED UPON YOUR AVAILABLE RESOURCES.

Peace -
To be at peace with God and oneself.

Peace means submission. Nothing you can do as a human can achieve peace. Peace is granted to you by submitting to God. It is the removal of anything that is between you and your submission to God.




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This won't ever happen because Obama knows he would get his butt handed to him in a New York minute. Ahmadinejad may be a bit loony but I think he's a sharp cookie. Unlike our president, who is only good at giving speeches with a prompter.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
This thread is nothing more than an exorcise of imagination.

There's no way in hell any US president would ever agree to this, and Iran knows it. It's nothing more than a political stunt... and you guys are fanning the flames.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


If he were truly a legal president, well hell why not. Still (yes a birther) awaiting something that would convince otherwise. Want happen? So many obvious lies stack upon more LIES strait from hell itself. Almost everything out of his choreograph mouth has gone south and who pays. Certainly not the elite. The only reason this (has been) nation doesn't wake up is because dumb down zombies have lost the ability to wake up absence any simbient process. Debate what? Both would establish themselves through lies and downright nasty evil sh*t.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
First off...The Whitehouse has been engaged in more outreach and dialouge with Iran than any administration in the past 30 years combined.

Secondly Ahmadinejad is loony tunes. he is just looking for high profile exposure to spout BS. No US President should ever afford him this kind of PR.

If he wants to talk...he can pick up the phone.

Here is a great interview with John Limbert, one of the 53 hostages in Iran, he spent 400+ days in captivity there and came home in 81.

He came out of retirement to serve as the Obama administrations point man on Iran.



He recounts a conversation that a colleague had with an Iranian official, who said, "Look, if we Iranians cannot get along with a Barack Hussein Obama, who speaks to us of mutual respect, who sends us greetings on Persian New Year, then it's clear the problem is not in Washington, that we have a problem," he says.

www.npr.org...



In the eyes of poverty stricken, war exhausted Americans, they see things much simpler. The collective mind of us average americans perceives this as a chance to talk peace and end war. It will not look well for Obama to refuse it....I'm talking on a PR level.

And since Ahmadinejad wants this to be on television, forces Obama's hand IMHO. How could a peace talking U.S. President, refuse such an offer to end war and reconcile differences? Isn't that the Democracy he so desires to spread? hehe

Every second that passes, and every B.S. excuse or maneuver this Government makes, in response to this move by Ahmadinejad, brings our Government's true motives and intents to light.



[edit on 2-8-2010 by Visitor2012]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I really respect Ahmadinejad,
but i suspect he's another player making the interests of the NWO agenda.
He's the next public enemy, we always need one.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Obama's real slogan:

Yes We Can (leave you with only) Change.

He will not accept this invite. It would only expose the weakness of his (general lack of) vision. He his a puppet, and will do as he is told, as any president before him.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
quoted from Amhadinejad:



"They say we'll issue sanctions? Okay, do it. How many resolutions have you issued so far? Four? Make it 4,000," he said to loud applause from the conference


i dont know about anybodies personnel opinions on this
but i would say the same thing and not bow to any bully
lets even put it ....Iran put sanctions on the USA
will Obama bow to Iran or simply accept them and shut up...

of course the "israel wipe out the map" statement didnt help
(if it was not edited in the first place)
the real statement was probably "Israel regime needs to be wipe off the map"... its easy to remove one word in a translation...and release it to many worldwide corrupted media producers...
i would agree with that statement to wipe out the regime in israel but not the country itself ... many Jews like i said before are very good people
and dont support the Israel Gov actions but cant do anything
like Americans in the USA ...
or Canadians in Canada



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Of course, it won't happened ! Of course, Ahmadinejad knows it and exploits it to his advantage.
It would be easy to shut him up by accepting a public debate. The situation is very serious, the life of millions is at stake. Isn't it worth "losing" some time with talks, open public talks ? Lots of people out there don't believe anymore the US have sensible leaders fighting for freedom and peace. That would be a gigantic PR op for Obama actually. Seriously, for what legitimate reason could he refuse a simple public talk ? Is there any risk we don't know about ?


We know Obama will refuse like GWB refused and that tells about the world we have built ! Everything must remain behind closed doors, we are not properly informed, the more important the matter, the more we are not informed about it. Too delicate for us poor pigs, too complex for us poor rats to understand. But hey, don't forget to pay your taxes and to send us your children. And please vote so we can claim we are legitimate. Well the outcome is the same anyways.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
excuse me for being one of those people who skip through pages but ive just got in from work and see this thread. Damn the iranian president (forgive me for not being able to spell his name) is gaining a bit more respect from me all the time. If the US Government want to play world police and tell who can do what and where then yes, let obama go head to head with this guy.

But as many posters have put Obama wont agree to it which is shame. Who knows if Iran are making atomic weapons, who knows if they are actually creating nuclear fuel for a country that is almost 3rd world. What if the Iranian president is trying to make things happen in the country, giving the country clean efficent fuels. Im sure theres more to it but im not a fan of politics so my brain doesnt function well when it comes to the NWO and other political issues.

But damn, this is my two pence, let them have a head to head.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Note in every set of "peace talks" with Islamic states you mean "let us stop fighting" and they mean that you will submit.

Nothing you can do as a human can achieve peace. Peace is granted to you by submitting to God. It is the removal of anything that is between you and your submission to God.

Your belief is not required. Merely your subjugation to God's laws.

Isn't it nice to know that you are on the same page?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Here's a start for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad..stop executing protesters and homosexuals. That could be a good step into a better country for Iran...and perhaps send a better message out to the Muslim world...where homosexuality is basically a crime.



[edit on 2-8-2010 by SeventhSeal]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Which Islamic state are you thinking of ? There's a handful, what is this experience you remember of peace talks with an Islamic state ?

The problem is not the talk anyway, the problem is that it would be public. There are talks already. And you don't have to be pro-iranian and to trust the mollahs to have hope there is still an exit to this mess that is not war.

SeventhSeal, the US are not embroiled in diplomatic rows with Iran over homosexuality or protestors questions.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
obama would never do it thats exactly why amj did it same as saddam challengeing bush to a duel it just wont happen



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

Still no answer to my question. I think we GET that you have an opinion about their words and issues with subjugation.

And your opinion is certainly good enough reason to refuse or even attempt to have any kind of dialog with them


[edit on 8/2/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
pay per view?
man everyone should be able to see


Hear Hear! Brilliant idea, and I would love to see it come about but unfortunately it won't.

If it did it should be broadcast worldwide - and beamed into space so that intelligent life that gets the signal can see why the 3rd planet from the sun suddenly blipped off their telescopes.

BOOM!!!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Peace is granted to you by submitting to God


And which of the 2000+ Gods that are around in several thousand different religions might we be talking about here?

Really this has nothing to do with any of the imaginary Gods.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
No way in hell would Obama agree to this. He would be exposed for what he is very quickly.


ya, obama is not "THE SUPREME LEADER".

While the President of Iran is in direct support of and supports and works for an individual who is to be addressed as "THE SUPREME LEADER".

why not just move THE SUPREME LEADER to the white house, so Americans can know something about being SUPREME FOLLOWERS?

Move Obama to Tehran.

see which lasts longer, at the very least we would have saved alot of gas on moving troops.


Iran plays politics very well, far better than the western world. Ahmadinejad would tear him to pieces with questions Obama could never give a satisfactory answer.


why does obama owe Ahmadinejad answers or nuclear technologies?


Ahmadinejad has spoken in the US, why hasn't Obama or Bush spoken over there?


do they still gather by the tens of thousands once a week and do more than criticize the western cultures in public?

do Americans gather by the tens of thousands once a week and spew anti-iranian rhetoric and burn Iranian flags?

which is more tolerant of truisms? (rhetorical question) I don't know, simply because the Main Stream Media is insufficient at supplying us with the correct information to know the answer, i think. i think one of those "Ms" in MSM should stand for MARSHAL. as in marshal law, cuz we are in it to some degree, aren't we? iranians and americans alike?



Those who speak the truth welcome questions.


what are the number of laws i would have to abide by in order to live in Terhan? the specific number of laws that i would have to conform to in order to be an effective citizen of Iran, please?

what are the number of laws i would have to abide by in order to live in Washington DC? the specific number of laws that i would have to conform to in order to live up to the expectations and be an effective citizen of America, please?

these are variables in my "opinion maker".


if people are not in support of the united nations and group rule where individuals of various specialities all have an equal voice, then are we in favor of someone who speaks that is motivated by a "supreme leader"?

united nations "nwo" OR pro "supreme leader" ... with nukes.


not sure if either choice is perfect. Both may have flaws.


these two talking, debating?

world leaders who face off with eachother on a stage to argue their positions and the interests of their people BEFORE THE BOMBS START DROPPING?

sounds to me like exactly what they do at the united nations already, under a slightly different format.

there are secrets both sides probably have that it is percieved as not being in the best interests of any nations' best interests of their peoples to be revealed. but i am glad to know i may be wrong.

true measure of success should be which nation has an average citizen that can debunk the other nation's "president" in a debate.


i think we are too conditioned to believe opposites actually exist on all issues.


there is a big puzzle, and each of us are a piece of it.
some people want the puzzle, some are content to admire what they can of the masterpiece that is the puzzle.


who makes the rules?
rulers make the rules.

upon election and taking office, i think President Obama may have learned about rules that exist that Senator Obama did not know about.

As for the President of Iran, maybe our collective problems are the same problems. Blind little men touching the same giant elephant in different places and both determined that what they are touching is more truth than what the other is touching.



on behalf of myself, all alliances and loyalties aside:

Dear Supreme Leader & President of Iran,

when i'm in your city or town, i will treat it like it is the capital of earth.
when i'm in your city or town, i will treat it's inhabitance like they are the royal family of all the planet.

when you are in my city or town, please afford my city/town and it's inhabitance the same respect.

thank you,
earth dweller.





[edit on 2-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Aeons
 

Still no answer to my question. I think we GET that you have an opinion about their words and issues with subjugation.

And your opinion is certainly good enough reason to refuse or even attempt to have any kind of dialog with them


[edit on 8/2/2010 by ~Lucidity]


Dialogue requires a common goal and common language.

The same words mean different things, and so long as you refuse to understand that talking "peace" means that you are discussing the terms of your surrender I'm sure that these countries will be happy to continue the discussions with you.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by Aeons
Peace is granted to you by submitting to God


And which of the 2000+ Gods that are around in several thousand different religions might we be talking about here?

Really this has nothing to do with any of the imaginary Gods.


There is no God but Allah.

Context - it defines everything.





new topics
top topics
 
92
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join