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.


Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by purplemer

I see you guys are starting to use the same talking points when it comes to Jews and IRan. There are less than 10k jews who live in Iran today. There used to be much larger Jewish populations, however (and as people constantly point out what Israel did) Arab countries gave Jewish citizens the boot back in the day when Israel was established again.

How many Jews lived in Nazi germany before the holocaust started? How many lived there during it? How many lived there when the Nazis lost?

You guys need to open your eyes and quit grasping for straws, any straw, to somehow shift the focus.

Your Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, has been leading you guys on and you fell for it hook line and sinker. Whats worse is I am almost positive a large group in this thread hate Israel regardless, and are just jumping on the bandwagon because its a "cool" thing to do.

Even with all the evidence provided, you are still willingly keeping your eyes closed and ingore any and all facts that dont support your view.

Even when the facts come directly from the Ayatollah and Farsnews, people still come up with excuses and paranoid conspiracy theories.

Ahmadenijad said wipe Israel off the Map
The Ayatollah said wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews wherever they are found.

These are facts, and been backed up by sources (Iranian sources in both cases that are State controlled).

There is nothing left for you guys to spin.
They said it, its documented, its fact.

Appeal to Ridicule

X is amusing, absurd. Therefore it is false.

Mock the other person's claim and argument. Make fun of it. Get people to laugh at it.

Alternatively, mock the alternatives that they might choose, giving them only one option that you have not mocked.

Supporting that cause would take several surgical trusses!

Those other cars look ridiculous. This is the only man's car here.

Those clothes would make you look like a overdressed donkey.

Ridiculing something is to place it on a lower social position. If a person is associated with that thing, then they, too, are moved to that lower position. When others see a person in a lower social position, they will not associate themselves with that person, for fear of being dragged down to that position. The original person knows this, and will seek to avoid loss of social status.

The ridiculed thing is thus poisoned and made undesirable, and people will distance themselves from it.

Attack, Distraction, Threat

Also known as
Reductio ad absurdum, Ad Absurdum

edit on 6-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

And why would they appear to be "tipping" their hand by announcing all these insane intentions.

Because they WANT war? The 12th Imam won’t show up unless they get this party started!

If they really wanted to "attack", then they should be making friends first, then attack.

They are in with all the radicals in the Middle East and all of the terrorist organizations. Heck, they’re even down in South America courting the dictators down there. They’ve made all the friends they can…who else do they need?

The Iranian "leadership" might be in kahootz with the "West".

They might be in “kahootz” with reptilians too!

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:39 PM

July 9, 2007
Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's 'Threat'
I have been shocked to see some, including Rep. Dennis Kucinich, latch onto the
myth that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, never called for Israel to be
"wiped off the map." Iran's own news agency reports that Ahmadinejad publicly
called for the State of Israel to be "wiped off the map"

With that said, I believe that some good people are fearful that my
congressional resolution (H. Con. Res. 21), which passed the House of
Representatives 411 to 2, is a call for war with Iran. Let me state
unequivocally that it is not. The bill text clearly points to diplomatic actions
for the international community to take against Ahmadinejad. Further, I am a
longtime cosponsor of legislation (H. Con. Res. 33) introduced by Rep. Pete
DeFazio that would require the president to seek authorization from Congress
before initiating military action in Iran.

The whole purpose of the United Nations is to provide a forum for nations to
resolve their differences peacefully. To achieve this vitally important goal,
the world body has rules (the UN Charter) that prohibit one member state from
seeking or threatening the destruction of another member state. If these
essential rules for peace are to be effective, then they must be enforced.

I introduced H. Con. Res. 21 because the letter and spirit of the UN Charter and
the 1948 Genocide Convention are clear: the international community must not
only intervene to stop ongoing genocide, but also act to prevent the incitement
of genocide. The House reaffirmed America's support of this principle when 411
U.S. Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn Iran's president for trying
to incite mass killings of Israeli Jews.

Quite the opposite of instigating war with Iran, I believe the passage of H.
Con. Res. 21 is a call for peace and coexistence.
~ Congressman Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)

Arash Norouzi replies:
Why was MEMRI's vastly different translation of the alleged "wiped off the map"
quote blocked from consideration in Congress' deliberations on H. Con. Res. 21,
especially in light of the fact that Rep. Rothman has praised their work
repeatedly and knows its president, former Israeli official Yigal Carmon,

If MEMRI's work can't be trusted, then its findings should be dismissed
categorically. It can't just be selectively reliable. In fact, MEMRI's
translation of the speech also offers the accurate context of Ahmadinejad's
words as they related to other nations, including Iran, which was not "wiped off
the map" during the victory of the Islamic revolution. To obstruct such
alternate translations from going into the congressional record seems
undemocratic and un-American.

As I explained in my article "Rumor of the Century," Iran's state news agency
IRNA was responsible for putting out the wrongly worded "wiped off the map"
quote. IRIB, like IRNA, is part of the state media. Since Rep. Rothman
selectively refers to one IRIB report, we might also consider these other IRIB
reports as well:

Ahmadinejad's speech "did not mean the Jews, rather the 'illegal and
illegitimate' Zionist movement and an occupying and immoral government."
Ahmadinejad is against Zionism and not Jewish people.
Iran's parliament speaker said, "the Islamic Republic of Iran opposes any type
of anti-Semitism and Jewish killing. We pay respect to followers of all divine
religions, and history testifies that Iranians have always had peaceful
coexistence with Jews."

Iran's Jewish representative in parliament says Iranian Jews live freely in

While Rep. Rothman's resolution does not call for war explicitly, it asks the
international community to "consider stronger measures to prevent Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons, which would be a . . . potential means to the end of
carrying out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel." Such "measures"
could include military ones. We might recall that enforcement of UN resolutions
helped form the basis for war with Iraq.

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:47 PM
When people say,they don't like Hollywood it doesn't mean they don't like the actors or directors,or studios and so on...They just don't like the influence apllied over hollywood by the Zionists and Elites....Same goes for when they say they don't like America and Israel or UK or any other country that allows them as a host.(or they occupy over the time) if tomorrow they decide to use India as a host for example,, then death to India! ..Don't take it personally people. the bodies are just tools.we have to aim for the heads...We are all brothers and sisters after all.and i am sure most people like each other or at least can tolerate each other,'s just some of THEM that we hate......Peace

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:48 PM

Dennis Kucinich: Iran Had a Democracy, We Helped Destroy It (speech)

Kucinich: We Destroyed Iran's Democracy

"Iran had a democratic government under Mossadegh...The U.S. helped overthrow
it." -Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

"Iran had a democratic government which was overthrown because of oil", said
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), in a speech on the House floor on
September 19, 2006. His review of the 1953 coup against Mossadegh is one of the
most expansive ever introduced into the U.S. Congressional Record.

The speech was given during a House of Representatives debate on the recognition
of the 100 year anniversary of Iran's Constitutional Revolution [H. Res. 942,
Recognizing Centennial Anniversary of Iranian Constitution of 1906]. Kucinich
was the only representative to point out the hypocrisy of celebrating Iran's
historical efforts toward freedom and democracy, while ignoring the United
States' own role in demolishing the very freedoms Iranians had fought so long to

H. Res. 942 was just one of three Iran resolutions during a single Congressional
session, all designed, in Kucinich's view, to make the case for war. Later in
the evening, when Congress voted on H. Res. 976, (condemning the Islamic
Republic's horrible human rights record and expressing "solidarity" with
Iranians), Rep. Kucinich again raised the history of America's horrible
anti-democratic record and complete lack of solidarity with the people of Iran
beginning in 1953.

A press release from Kucinich's office noted that "the resolutions, H.Con.Res.
415, H.Res. 942 and H.Res. 976, were all brought to the House floor on the
suspension calendar allowing for only minimum debate and no amendments."

Born in 1946, Dennis Kucinich was elected Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 at the
unprecedented young age of 31. He was first elected to Congress in 1996, and was
one of the major Presidential candidiates for the Democratic party in 2004 and

House of Representatives - April 26, 2006


Rep. Kucinich opposed the controversial "Iran Freedom Support Act", citing
similar resolutions which led to the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

KUCINICH: Now, I am strongly opposed to this regime, but preventing them from
developing nuclear weapons capacity must be our first priority, not prioritizing
behavior change over regime change. We pull the rug out from underneath anybody
in the current Iranian leadership who values survival over the nuclear program,
and it clearly works to eliminate incentives for diplomatic solutions.

I have a sense of deja vu when I think back to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
which did not explicitly authorize the use of force, but certainly got the ball
rolling that led to the tragedy of this Iraq war. Knowing what they know today,
how many Members of this House would have voted differently 8 years ago?

I am very worried about where all this ends. We have heard reports from the
Pentagon of plans to attack Iran, indeed plans for a nuclear strike on Iran, the
repercussions of which should make us all recoil with horror. Now, the
administration dismisses these news reports, but the American people and this
Congress got better information about what happened in Iraq from reporters like
Seymour Hersh than it got from, sadly, the President, Secretary Rumsfeld and
Secretary Rice.

I do not pretend to imagine the horrific things that Iran would do with nuclear
weapons. We are all opposed to that. That is why we need a strong, smart,
constructive diplomatic strategy. This bill does not provide it.

For over half a century, Madam Speaker, we have made a series of mistakes
regarding Iran, starting in 1953 when the United States led the charge to
overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and replace them with a
dictatorship in the person of the Shah. Our support for that dictatorship and
its repressive policies fueled the reaction that led to the Iranian revolution.
It was part of what happened with the hostage crisis in Iran.

More recently there are very credible reports that diplomatic feelers extended
by the Iranian Government were dismissed by this administration 2 and 3 years
ago. I sincerely hope that we do not overwhelmingly and unthinkingly pass a
resolution today that makes us feel good because we all hate this regime, but
instead sets in motion a process that actually is destabilizing and makes the
peaceful future that we all seek harder.

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:48 PM
Yep same old sameo Iran apologists always play the victim card which is pathetic if Iran has the right to defend itself so does Isreal people who say different well hypocrisy can last so long til people just scoff at it.

Yep Jews live in Iran just like the live in America,Canada Europe and everywhere else in the world and so do Iranians,and every other nationality.

Have no clue why that was ever tried to be made an issue.

Why the hell do people think Iran wants the bomb eh?

To wipe off the little and great Satans.

Blah poor little old defenseless Iran who has given more than they get anyone bombing them? NO.

Unlike Israel getting rocketed for decades funded by Iran they can keep talking tough but sooner or later someone is going to call them on it.

Better them than :US.

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:50 PM
When it comes to MILLIONS OF LIVES AT STAKE we need to come at this from the Heart not the Head.

It's easier to war monger from behind your computer though.

This is craziness. Some of you are defending the lives of the people stuck in these crazy situations - while some of you are calling them "apologists".

I will not apologize for any Elite psychopath who wishes harm on anyone.

This leaves no country innocent.

Stop picking sides and realize that it is not the people - but the regimes that are corrupt.

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

You call the Persian leaders "infdels" and "apostates."
I take it from your post that you are a Sunni... Is that right?

So are you saying the real driving cause of this whole uproar is Iran's sponsoring of Hezbollah in the Lebanon?

If that is the real problem, maybe that is the one the world should tackle.
With respect to nuclear fears, are you afraid that Hezbollahists would somehow get nuclear weapons?

Would they use them?

So far I thought they wanted Palestine back from Israel.
Now what's the use of a nuclear desert for Palestinians?

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:50 PM

House of Representatives - September 19, 2006


KUCINICH: I want to thank the gentleman from California [Tom Lantos], and I
appreciate your commitment to constitutional democracies. My statement here
today, while I can certainly agree with the sentiment that was expressed and the
spirit of this resolution with respect to hoping for constitutional democracies,
I think we need to look at the letter of the resolution and put it in the
context of the Administration's policies.

First of all, this particular resolution expresses its profound hope that the
people of Iran will once again enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of
the Iranian Constitution of 1906. I would like to read from some research that
is available on the web, Recent Iranian History, from Wikipedia. It says that:
with the rise of modernization in the late 19th century, desire for change led
to the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905 to 1911. In 1921, Reza Shah
Pahlavi staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty.

During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to
September 17, 1941, to stop an axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum
infrastructure. The allies of World War II forced the Shah to abdicate, in favor
of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive.

In 1951, a pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, rose to
prominence in Iran. Now, Mossadegh was elected its first Prime Minister. As
Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of an
Anglo-Iranian oil company that was later named BP, which controlled all the
country's oil reserves.

Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of British Intelligence
Service (BIS) approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to
join them in Operation Ajax, a coup against Mossadegh. President Eisenhower
agreed and authorized the CIA to assist the BIS in overthrowing Mossadegh. The
Shah at first attempted to formally dismiss Mossadegh, but this backfired and
Mossadegh convinced the Shah to flee to Baghdad.

Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing,
conducted from the U.S. embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit
Roosevelt, Jr. Agents were hired to facilitate violence, and as a result
protests broke out across the nation, anti- and pro-monarchy. Protesters
violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was
successful in triggering a coup, and within days pro-Shah tanks stormed the
capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered and
was arrested on the 19th of August, 1953, tried for treason, and sentenced to 3
years in prison.

Now, keep in mind that on March 8 of 1951, Mossadegh submitted to the Iranian
mullahs his proposal to nationalize Iran's oil. According to the Cornell
University library, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, most of whose stock was owned
by the British Government, had been paying Iran much less than the British
Government took from the company in taxes. Mossadegh's nationalization bill
scared the company into concessions that were made too late. The Premier was
committed to nationalization. Much to the surprise of the British, he went
through with it right down to the expulsion of British technicians, without whom
the Iranians could not run the Abadan refinery. Results? The West lost the
Iranian oil supply, and the Iranian government lost the oil payments.

When we are talking about democracy in Iran, Iran had a democratic government
which was overthrown because of oil. So let's celebrate democracy and not try to
at the same time praise a process that resulted in an overthrow of democracy.

I think when we look at this particular resolution, you have to read these
resolutions to the letter to get an idea of what is going on here.

Here we are expressing the profound hope that the people of Iran will once again
enjoy a democratic government in the spirit of the Iranian Constitution of 1906.
They had a democratic government. The U.S. helped overthrow it.

One of the last resolutions, we talked about initiating an active and
consistent dialogue with other governments in the European Union, in order to
persuade the Government of Iran to rectify its human rights practices. We should
be talking to the government of Iran, if we object to their human rights

Resolution 415 says human rights will be considered a significant factor in the
foreign policy of the United States with regard to Iran, but we are not stating
that with the other countries that have violated the human rights of their

My concern is that, while these resolutions, in and of themselves, may have
elements that are salutary, at the same time you have to put them in the context
of the Administration's policy, which is a buildup to war against Iran. That is
why I am raising a note of caution here. You have to see why we have three
resolutions on the floor of the House dealing with Iran, on the same day our
President is before the United Nations making a statement which characterizes
Iran in much the same way that Iraq was characterized before the United Nations
in another visit by the President. I think we have to be very cautious about the
path this country is taking.

We can stand for democracy and human rights in Iran. We can do all of those
things without taking steps and letting our efforts -- which might be in good
faith, by the way -- without letting those efforts be used as a buildup towards
war. I am saying, look at all of this in the context in which it is occurring.

Look at Time magazine this week, and look at the stories that have been
published in The New Yorker. Watch the development of this Administration with
respect to covert activities in Iran.

Madam Speaker, you might be interested to know that in our House Subcommittee on
Government Operations, which has jurisdiction over national security and
international relations, we were supposed to have a classified briefing by the
State Department and by the Department of Defense on this issue on what is going
on in Iran. They refused to appear. They still refuse to appear. They are not
accountable to Congress. I am raising this issue, so my colleagues know that you
have to look at the context in which these resolutions are being offered.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for the opportunity to
present these observations.

[H. Res. 942 was agreed to by recorded vote: 413 - 2 in Roll No. 457. Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (L-TX) voted Nay; Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Barney
Frank (D-MA) voted Present].
edit on 6-2-2012 by casenately because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:52 PM

House of Representatives - September 19, 2006


KUCINICH: Once again, I am grateful to the gentleman from California for the
opportunity to offer a slightly different perspective. While I continue to
associate myself with my good friend Mr. Lantos in the celebration of the
imperative of human rights globally, I have specific concerns about the tenor of
this resolution and its relationship to the administration's policy of ramping
up for a war against Iran.

Again, I want to state that this is the third resolution that has been brought
before this House this evening. You have to read it in the context of
administration actions, which have been documented in published reports, that
relate to an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran by sending
elements of the Department of Defense inside of Iranian territory; number two,
by planning a bombing, targets inside Iran; number three, by planning a naval
blockade in the Strait of Hormuz where 40% of the world's oil flows through.

We have to look at this in a broader context of an administrative foreign
policy, which is really aimed at creating not stability, but instability in the
region. You can look at the July 2006 Vanity Fair article, which goes into
detail about the unfortunate administration escapade of tricking up a case for
uranium from Niger with respect to Iraq. One of the administration's key
advisers in that article basically made the case for chaos, which is an
administration, I believe, policy. Now we are looking at Iran.

Now, this resolution, 976, in the third article, expresses its unity with all
the Iranian people, shares their desire to see Iran become a free country with
transparent democratic institutions and equal rights for all.

I pointed out earlier in debates that Iran had a democratic government under
Mossadegh; that in October of 1951, under Mossadegh, Iran sought to nationalize
its oil industry. That then resulted in a draft resolution submitted to the
United Nations by the United Kingdom, and supported by the United States and
France, as depicting Iran then as a threat to international peace and security.

Then we saw a coup d'etat that was organized by the U.S. and the U.K. Yes, we
ought to stand for democracy. We ought to also stand for truth with respect to
the historical unfolding of what we say we stand for.

Where does this resolution lead? Does it lead to a continued insistence that
the Government of Iran restore human rights to everyone in Iran? If it does,
wonderful. We all ought to go along with that. But if his resolution is just
another brick on a path towards war, look out. This looks like Iraq all over
again, and that is what my concern is.

If this resolution sets us on a path to war, how many of us in the Congress are
prepared to see this administration borrow money from China and Japan to go to
war against Iran, as they have borrowed money from China and Japan to go to war
against Iraq? We have to look at what we are doing here.

While this resolution, I am sure, will pass overwhelmingly, we have to see that
circumstances are being set in order which could lead us towards a path of war
against Iran. We have to ask ourselves, is that what we really want?

I can stand here with my colleagues and say, absolutely, I support the religious
freedom of the Baha'i. I do. Absolutely. I support human rights for all people
in Iran, and I do. Absolutely. I support democratic principles in Iran and every
other country in the world, and I do.

But I am not for war against Iran. I don't believe the American people want war
against Iran. I don't think they wanted war against Iraq, but they were dragged
into it.

I am just offering these remarks as a cautionary note to make sure that we have
our eyes open as we walk in the days ahead with respect to policy and Iran. Yes,
we need to make sure that Iran has peaceful uses of its atomic energy. We have
an obligation to do that.

But, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that we should begin first with
direct negotiations with Iran. Second, we should assure Iran that we are not
going to attack it. Third, we should demand that Iran open itself up to
inspections once again by the IAEA. Fourth, we need assurances, and they are
fair, that Iran is not going to be developing nuclear weapons.

There is a way out of this, and I am hopeful that in our stand for human rights,
we are not paradoxically beginning a process that would deprive millions of
Iranians of their human right to life.

I thank the gentleman from California for his friendship and also for his
willingness to see debate in this House of the people. You have always done
that, Mr. Lantos. Whether we have agreed or not, you have always been willing to
see the debate continue.

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:52 PM

Interview- May 14, 2008
Professor Hooshang Ahmirahmadi of the American Iranian Council interviewed Rep.
Kucinich at the Congressman's Capitol Hill office about US-Iran relations [May
14, 2008].
AHMIRAHMADI: The US and Iran have been in hostile terms for almost thirty years.
Has the time come for the relations to be normalized?

KUCINICH: Yes, relations should be normalized between the US and Iran. It's
quite unfortunate that the United States has not made diplomatic initiatives or
has ignored diplomatic initiatives that were made by Iran in the last four
years. The people of Iran have had a longstanding respect for and love for the
American people.

And the people of Iran have been forgiving of America's illegal interventions in
the internal affairs of Iran going back to the days of Mossadegh when the CIA
helped overthrow his government. So people have a capacity for forgiveness even
though they don't forget it. We have to understand that we have much in common
with Iran. Our people have aspirations of freedom. Our people have a desire for
economic progress. Our people have aspirations for security and peaceful
relations with neighbors. Iran can be a very important partner with the United
States in creating a new peace in the Middle East.

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by casenately

You guys just don't get it do you...

What do you think will happen if Iran takes out the Israeli government? Do you really think Iran, who supports Hamas, is going to just allow another government for Israel to be chosen?


They are going to make sure the government that replaces them is anything but Israeli / Jewish. That means no Israel - It will be wiped off the map. The Ayatollahs words about killing Jews wherever they are would be another big red flag you guys ignore. Ahmadenijads constant threats towards Israel and removing them from the planet...

This is not a hard concept to understand and if people would take their blinders off and look at the next step after the Israeli regime is removed, you would see it.

Take all the statements made by Iran's government / Ayatollah, as well as Hamas, Hezbullah, Syria, there is no room for the country of Israel. They went on to state that there would be no room for Israelis once a Palestinian state replaces Israel.

Can you guys honestly state that if Iran were allowed to remove the Israeli government that they would then allow new elections for the Jewish people to elect their own government?

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by casenately

Yup - Feel free to check out these links for a counter to your posts.

Response #1

Response #2

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Thank you for your expert opinion, like those that bled my country in Iraq, but I say no more.

The world has not ended yet and all the boogey men you want won't change that. From Nam to Iran, it has to stop. NO MORE. WE ARE NOT ASLEEP

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra


posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by shapur

We are all brothers and sisters after all.and i am sure most people like each other or at least can tolerate each other,'s just some of THEM that we hate......Peace

Try explaining that to radical Muslims…Good luck, Infidel!!

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy and the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have resulted in a trail of blood and tears across world history.

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer

...Your Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, has been leading you guys on and you fell for it hook line and sinker. Whats worse is I am almost positive a large group in this thread hate Israel regardless, and are just jumping on the bandwagon because its a "cool" thing to do...

edit on 6-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Hey, XC,
you are talking to a bunch of Westerners here.
You say the Ayatollah is OUR leader?
Just because we don't agree with you?

Does that make all of us Shia Moslems in your eyes?

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by seabag

so what the Talmud says its ok to kill a gentile. Do you think that Talmudic Jews are going to kill you or me?

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

what does that mean, Iran in less than nine minutes of Israel is destroyed?

That almost sounds like the phrase is suggesting that Iran gets destroyed.

Add punctuation and ??

Iran, in less than nine minutes of Israel, is destroyed.

How long would Israeli rockets take to get TO Iran ?

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 03:08 PM

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by Xcathdra

Thank you for your expert opinion, like those that bled my country in Iraq, but I say no more.

I completely agree that Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis citizens. I also agree that the bloodshed continued when Bathist party members an groups trained and armed by Iran indiscriminately killed civilians for no reason at all.

Since you dont seem to acknowledge that and want to instead continually blame the US / Israel, your opinion holds about the same amount of water as mine does for you.

Originally posted by casenately
The world has not ended yet and all the boogey men you want won't change that. From Nam to Iran, it has to stop. NO MORE. WE ARE NOT ASLEEP


Interesting choice of words - The very words used after WWII and something the US took to heart that apparently other countries in the world forgot. It would certainly explain why Iran is behaving like a reincarnation of the 3rd Reich. Maybe the Ayatollah should change his name over to Reich's Chancellor?

Going to war over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in