Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Quotes From Piers Morgan

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Not really the kind of thing I could consider 'extremist' in a lot of cases. Pretend you aren't reading the words of the Iranian President, and then tell me if you could disagree with the following:

Source


If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? ... Or would you help the people of the United States?"



"So when we say 'to be wiped,' we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world. For war-seeking to (be) wiped off and eradicated, the killing of women and children to be eradicated. And we propose the way. We propose the path. The path is to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-governance."



"I cannot express an opinion. That is their prerogative," Ahmadinejad said. "But the people of Palestine must be allowed by everyone, and helped by everyone, to allow them, to give them the right to choose for themselves."



"Any nation has the right and will indeed defend herself."

"But my question is this: Why should the world be managed in such a way that an individual can allow himself to threaten a rich and deeply rooted historical, ancient country such as Iran? A great country, such as Iran, based on an excuse of his own fabrication. ... Another country can say, 'I am guessing that country B is doing activity X, therefore I will attack that country' ... can this be ... a successful formula for the management of the world?"



Ahmadinejad also discussed his reaction to Osama bin Laden's death last year by American Navy Seals under President Barack Obama.

"I would have been happier to see a transparent trial, a formal trial, and find out the root causes of all of the events of the last few years," the Iranian president said.


Can you say these are words of a mad man? I think Ahmadinejad is a power hungry tool for the Sha. I am not disputing the need to remove him and his entire regime from power in order for Iran to become free again.

But I think that he's more sensible and center leaning than most are willing to admit.

~Tenth




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The man thinks but his roots will always bring him back to hate and violence in the end. inevitable
One day he's moderate the next he's off the wall. Notice the pattern?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zonetripper2065
 


It is an election year in Iran.

I think a lot of his hatefull rhetoric is when he's in his own country speaking to his supporters. He becomes much softer and better spoken in front of Western/European Media outlets.

Probably a case of "know your audience'.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


The problem remains: Iran is a theocratic regime. So no matter what Ahmaginejad says, it's either a watered down version of Khamenei's rethoric - or - it's a reflection of Khamenei's rethoric. Moreover, he has no say and has to remain loyal to Khamenei, because if not, an execution awaits. I don't believe such a life(and job) coupled with daily indoctrination and profession of religious beliefs would create a person with a broad perspective in general.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
What people need to realize is that Ahmadinejad is what is know as a "Twelver". That is he firmly believes in the return of the Twelfth Imam also known as either the Hidden Imam or the Mahdi.

For that reason alone he is to be feared. Twelvers believe that to bring about the return of the Mahdi they have to create the most chaos and destruction they possibly can. Getting nuclear weapons would be high on his list no matter what he says. The Ayatollah who took over Iran after the ouster of the Shah of Iran outlawed the Twelvers as being too dangerous. Now there is one in power in Iran and he is the worst type of loose cannon there could possibly be.

So it really has nothing to do with Israel or the United States. We are just convenient targets for his insane ranting while he plans the destruction of the infidel world in order to bring back the Mahdi.

The safety of his person and his country don't even come into play because he firmly believes that when the Mahdi comes back he will wipe out all the remaining infidels and establish an Islamic Caliphate in the entire world.

This religious zealot is clearly not playing with a full deck. This is true even if he is getting his marching orders from Khamenei.
edit on 25-9-2012 by happykat39 because: Added a line



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
In my opinion, Ahmadinejad has been taken out of context for some time. In many interviews I have seen and speeches he has given, he takes the stance that they are willing to work with other nations and promote peace in the region.

But they are in no way willing to compromise their security or sovereignty and are very passionate about the Palestinian issue.

The problem is that we have a media that uses propaganda, and the language barrier, to scare white-Christians into believing that Iran wants to bomb your house and eat your children for lunch. Add the misinterpretation of Islam and you have an ill-informed nation that would rather shoot first and could care less about asking question later.

We would be much better off if we sat down and talked with Iran, instead of demonizing them from afar.
edit on 25-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


I am sorry but I have to disagree with you. If you look at the rhetoric coming out of Iran from not only Ahmadinejad but Iran's leading clerics there is no mistaking their desire to destroy both the "Little Satan" Israel and the "Great Satan" the United States. If Iran gains enough nuclear weapons the world will never be safe from nuclear war the way it was under the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario that existed in the cold war era. If the whole point of your belief is to cause the most chaos and destruction possible to bring about the return of your Mahdi then the MAD scenario is useless.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


I really don't see your point. You had Bush that talked to God and now Romney that is a Mormon ex-minister that believes, listens and fallows a living prophet (a real person that believers think speaks for God). Add to that the issues of creationism and the really low culture level of the populace of the US (this is something we should all be fearful of) and if you "squint you eyes" you almost do not see any difference...
edit on 25-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by happykat39
 


I really don't see your point. You had Bush that talked to God and now Romney that is a Mormon ex-minister that believes, listens and fallows a living prophet (a real person that believers think speaks for God). Add to that the issues of creationism and the really low culture level of the populace of the US (this is something we should all be fearful of) and if you "squint you eyes" you almost do not see any difference...
edit on 25-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


I still have to disagree with you. Neither Bush or Romney talked about destroying other nations like the MadManInADinnerJacket does. He is a Twelver and that alone makes him one of the worst threats to world peace today. A twelvers avowed goal is to bring back the Mahdi by creating the most chaos and destruction possible. Plus, you cannot believe anything he, or any other Jihadist, says since the Koran allows for lying to their enemies to pacify them until they gain enough strength to defeat them. To a radical Islamist of any stripe the term "peace" has a different meaning from what you will find in your Websters Dictionary. It means just backing down long enough to build the necessary strength to attack again and win.

And lets get one other thing straight. I am NOT defending any of our politicians since I don't trust them either. But the threat they present to us and the world is minor compared to what radical Islam offers.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


I understand your view point, and I was being partially sarcastic, even so the US has destroyed and prevented many nations to flourish, look at your fellow neighbor Mexico or the nefarious effect you have on Canada. I think it was Bush that stated that God Himself had ordered the attack on Iraq.

To me it is easier to rationalize people being idiots and behaving badly because of religious beliefs that than those that act the same but rationalize their actions as good and proper, speak of doing them for the good of all and at the same time commit unspeakable things like infecting women in South America with social diseases or use their own citizens to radiological and biological tests (among a myriad of other things)

Taking all this view points, and the notion that the UN and most media outlets are in the pocket of the Anglo-American I do not see how you can keep you opinion (as expressed below)



And lets get one other thing straight. I am NOT defending any of our politicians since I don't trust them either. But the threat they present to us and the world is minor compared to what radical Islam offers.


Europe has lived most of its history with Islam at its doors without any major issues (we even attacked them preemptively), with the "Reconquista" (Reconquest of Spain and Portugal) at the approximately the same time we allied with them to fight then Kan that was invading what is today Turkey and a Christian enclave in Constantinople.

We (you inclusive) owe much to Islam for keeping, in alliance with a very diminished enclave of the Orthodox Christian church the lights of culture and intellectuality alight during the dark ages.

What you define as radical Islam arises with the interference of the Anglo-American interests on oil, see the root of the kingdoms of the region, in particular the Saud-Arabia to see how misinformed you are about the root causes of the issues...

Israel was an imposition, part due to the guilt of Europe and an inability (even refusal) to deal with the Jewish that had been forcibly moved or "voluntarily" had relocated to escape the Nazis, but it was ultimately a Anglo-American decision. To me even a premeditated attempt to have a something between a distraction to Arab nationalist (ie. Egypt) and have a committed ally in the region.

Have you seen this video (I hope this is the correct one).
edit on 25-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


thank you, that was a very good video. I have only had time to watch a little over half of it but I am downloading it to finish watching later. The man makes a great deal of sense and has swayed me much closer to your point of view. However I still think that the religious fanatics, as the Islamic extremists definitely are, pose the biggest threat. But who is to blame at the end of the day; the religious fanatics, or the rest of the world that insists on poking them in their collective eyes at every chance they get so as to increase control and sales of arms by the military/industrial complex.

As in all things involving human nature, there is no black and white; just a million shades of grey.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 




the rest of the world that insists on poking them in their collective eyes at every chance they get so as to increase control and sales of arms by the military/industrial complex.


The issue here is "the rest of the world" is not the rest of the world, even if they attempt to make it seem like it. To me it is clear that there is some-sort of design, a plan, a multi-generational policy behind it all, be it by a coordinated and organized effort of a coming together of specific supra governmental interests that establishes and directs a larger goal for Anglo-American governmental policies, even against the interests of the majority of the citizens.

One could argue that this "force" or political guidance, in the long run protects nationalistic interests, to some point that is a valid view but the costs and damage that it does to those that do not directly benefit surpasses by large any benefits. At times it even seems myopic, like how the intervention on Afghanistan to counter the Soviet expansion seeded the events of recent history. But if we look closely we can start to observe a pattern, by looking on who benefits. That goes beyond the simpler answer of outright incompetence.

The best form to control the future is to design it, offensive and the creation of events is always a better plan that opting for a defensive position. Even when things seems spontaneous and unpredictable, taking control guarantees (or at least permits to influence) the outcome.

Btw have you seen this news: Pinochet 2.0: US economist talks Honduras' military dictator into establishing a private city owned and regulated by offshore corporations contextualize it by this protest action Pranksters crash final speech of corporate tax avoidance taxman, posh hilarity ensues and stay attentive to repetitive news about Anglo-American actions around the globe UK government spent millions arming and training Congolese and Sudanese soldiers
edit on 25-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: added 2 more links
edit on 25-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


I think if some alien force were to come to earth and eliminate every government and religious leader who was working against their people we would see a huge number of those leaders disappear. And if they were to include every one of them who was in it for the graft we would need to replace about 99.9999% of those leaders.

OK, at this point I am going to concede most, if not all, of your points. My true interest lies in two different areas, biblical eschatology and all things scientific up to and including quantum physics. It is obvious that you are much more versed in the area of world politics than I am and I am going to bow to your superior knowledge (no sarcasm intended) and follow the links you have provided as time allows.

peace and prosperity to you my friend.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


Just some ending thoughts. I'm still in the fence regarding aliens on Earth (I do believe that ETs exist and that there is something strange regarding the UFO phenomena, but think that things should be kept separated and distinct).

My view on that last remark and considering you proposition is that if an alien force does exist (I have taken alien as non human) and in face of all reports we have of events, lack of action or suppression of information. That this alien force already would have had to infiltrate a large majority of institutions of human power so that the status quo can have a rational explanation. I do not accept some facts as consequence of non-coordinated people acting in self interest or absolute incompetence.

This does not mean that the alien force must be non-human, and I do not subscribe to the reptilian or anti-masonic theories even if I can at times see some validation on the rationals that are behind them...

See also this post I made regarding Some people are leaders. Some people are followers..
edit on 25-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


I think you took the alien part of my last post a little too seriously. It was done totally tongue in cheek. And I am still not convinced that anyone really knows what the UFOs are unless there really is a government conspiracy and cover up.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 





unless there really is a government conspiracy and cover up


Isn't that an already acknowledge fact ? I think it is, disregarding the ET view on the subject, like the logic that permits us to acknowledge a strong possibility that alien life may exist elsewhere there is better evidence that governments suppress information and make it hard to properly study the phenomena, there is even the valid rationality of preserving the secrecy over exotic projects, but evidence seems to indicate that even as acting in this way not all in power have an understanding of the global picture and implications (some documented events even point to criminal action, have you seen the video of an Canadian ex-defense minister ? Or aware on the documentation and outcome of the most controversial light phenomena in Brazil (just to name a few of the most telling information regarding government cover-up).

One could even see the prevailing mentality regarding the subject on the actions and the latter full disclosure regarding the events by the then Arizona Governor Fife Symington III. See Wikinews Former Arizona Governor says he saw a UFO during the 1997 Phoenix Lights



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


That's the biggest load of garbage i've ever read. All shi's are "twelvers" they are the majority of Muslims in several countries and are very common.

It has everything to do with Israel and nothing to do with creating chaos. How much chaos do you see Iran actually creating?

Oh yeah, and the Khomeini that came in after overthrowing the Shah didn't outlaw "twelvers" he was one. What you have posted here is doom porn. It's just absolute non sense. You need to do some actual research and turn off the neoconservative news networks.
edit on 25-9-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


my problem with the whole thing is that no one has taken really good pictures of a UFO that cannot be debunked, or at least questioned.

Its not that I don't believe there is really something there and not that I don't believe in the possibility of extra terrestrial or trans-dimensional beings; it is just that I am holding my opinions in reserve until something definitive comes out to prove once and for all just what the UFO phenomenon really is.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I don't mind being challenged in a polite way but until you can do so in a civil manner I refuse to respond to this post or any others you may put up. If you continue to be so rude you can just waste your time typing for all I care.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by happykat39
 


That is a problem with every unknown, before you really understand it there are a lot of valid possibilities that are open to it. The reason why I prefer not to relate UFO with ETs/EDs is parallel to your view. But I believe that there is enough proof that validates the claim that some UFOs are artificial creation even material crafts and that governments are derelict in their obligations, to assert control and fulfill state functions that are delegated in them, in what I see as a criminal way, and to that I can only accept the reasons I stated above for what goes much further than simple lack of interests...
edit on 26-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join