Iran’s Supreme Leader: Jihad Will Continue Until America is No More

a reply to: DarknStormy

Really?

Ahmadinejad stated Iran had no homosexuals residing in Iran.

He is either woefully ignorant or he managed to kill them all off before his interview.

Arab media sources are always interesting. What is displayed on their English versions are rarely the same in their native language.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This has nothing to do with the Jews...
But... Seeing as you mentioned it...
Rabbis do suck the blood of Circumcised children...
But surely that's ok or I'd be an anti-Semite!!!

Since I don't see Allah / God coming down to earth and kicking the asses of those who are of a different religion than he is I don't think religions should be trying to lay claim to something they cant possibly support.

No actually true fundamentalist Muslims know that judgement is for the Creator only...
These "faces of Islam" are nothing more than scum!!!

As for your question -
Prove he wasn't a pedophile.

It wasn't your claim, yet you're dodging the question?
Why then should I follow your request?
As I'm polite...
There is no evidence or proof that he was...
Hence that is proof he wasn't!!!

Peace X!!!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DarknStormy

Really?

Ahmadinejad stated Iran had no homosexuals residing in Iran.

He is either woefully ignorant or he managed to kill them all off before his interview.

Arab media sources are always interesting. What is displayed on their English versions are rarely the same in their native language.

Homosexuality is banned in Iran so it would make sense that if someone was caught committing that act, they would be punished with death through Sharia law. If your homosexual in Iran, it's better to pretend you are not.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You didn't ask me the question chuckles.

My response to you was based off your post to someone else.

way to obfuscate though. If its true about the Jews then its true about Mohamed being a kiddy didler..

problem solved.

a reply to: DarknStormy

Right however you missed the point. Ahmadinejad made a lot of claims that were flat out lies. Stating there are no homosexuals in Iran was one of his lies. We know this because of the public hanging videos that have come out in addition to reports put together from the UN, UNHCR, Amnesty International etc etc etc.

To be honest and direct your response almost comes across as trying to defend what Ahmadinejad stated. If its not your intent then an you please clarify?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Islam actually teaches that it should be the end of puberty...
That's roughly 18 in the West so the end of child puberty is probably not much different Worldwide!!!

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't have an opinion on homosexuality and what ever Iran says and does around that act is up to them. Obviously there are homosexuals in Iran if they are hanging them. Maybe the message is if you are homosexual, you wont be for very long.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You didn't ask me the question chuckles.

I'll repeat what I said, comprehension is important for this...
"It was not your claim...!!!"

way to obfuscate though. If its true about the Jews then its true about Mohamed being a kiddy didler..

No you see there are pictures all over the net of this ceremony with Rabbis and not a single shred of Arabic proof about Muhammad so no it doesn't work like that!!!
I will not share the photos because it's child porn and I'd be banned...
Google is helpful though!!!

Now google the claim about Muhammad and share a source that isn't clearly biased nonsense, if not let's stop this pointless drift!!!


Peace X!!!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gianfar

Natural gas, thanks to fracking and new technology, is already here in the US. The current agenda is to construct / develop the export facilities needed to sustain a reliable export flow. Europe is taking a look at their laws / environmental impact on fracking as well. They are also developing off shore storage facilities for gas.

The US imports oil from the list I provided.

not all oil goes into a world pool, as Iran discovered. India and China bought Iranian oil during the sanctions that came directly from Iran and not a world pool.

As for the Middle East absolutely. Its one of the reasons the US has been looking for replacement energy sources tor educe dependence on oil from the middle east because of how volatile it is.

Contrary to popular belief the US presence in the middle east has to do with ensuring oil exports can leave the area with out issues.

While some may argue the ME would be quieter if the US left, I think we would see an opposite effect. I think nations like Iran would be a bit more aggressive towards its neighbors as well.

If research keeps going the way it is the ME will become low on the list of exporters. Australia is a prime example where they located oil fields worth an estimated 20 trillion dollars.

As the NSA analyst said, "if we don't get the oil in Iraq, the Russian and the Chinese will and that would hurt America". I would suppose that an NSA analyst knows more about this discussion than you do. After a two front, twelve year war where millions of people died and were displaced, tell me what the goal was if it wasn't oil? And don't waste your words quoting from right wing apologetic media.

.

a reply to: Gianfar

What year was it when the analyst made that comment.

Which Government is more innocent?

America= Averages a war every 20 years, ( not including "conflicts" or bombardments and drone bombings)

Iran= Hasnt invaded another country in 200 years.


Oh my god guys did you hear the news!?!? Women in Iran cant get higher ed degrees!!!! My god those MONSTERS!!!

The US alone killed over 5 million civilians in Vietnam alone.

I can't seem to find anything on Google about Iran invading and killing millions of innocent people.

Can you?


The double think in America is mind boggling.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gianfar

What year was it when the analyst made that comment.

As I already stated, 2003, several weeks before the invasion.

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gianfar

What year was it when the analyst made that comment.

As I already stated, 2003, several weeks before the invasion.

How is the quote relevant 11 years later? By the way China walked away with the bulk of oil contracts in Iraq, not the US.

for me,, this was why,
Saddam's son, Uday Hussein, was in charge of the Iraqi Olympic Committee ...

"Nov 5, 2000 - UDAY HUSSEIN lived up to his reputation as football's worst loser last week when three Iraqi soccer stars were imprisoned and tortured as punishment for ... He once ordered that the entire national team be whipped on the ..."

abcnews.go.com...

for me anyway,,
a reply to: cavtrooper7

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gianfar

What year was it when the analyst made that comment.

As I already stated, 2003, several weeks before the invasion.

How is the quote relevant 11 years later? By the way China walked away with the bulk of oil contracts in Iraq, not the US.

China is buying about 50% of Iraqi oil and has engineers working in Iraqi oil fields for development. After we took Baghdad, representatives of the major US oil firms came with thirty year contracts in hand to develop oil extraction (and of course reap huge profits) and yet they left empty handed, due to political reasons. The White House plan was to act in concert with energy companies, capturing oil money to pay for the war. Fascism.

More recently the US pressured Iraq to open new legislation, as a sort of open biding process that would allow foreign companies (US companies) to bid for international contracts developing, extracting petroleum in Iraq. The US used the leverage of its economic and military support to force the Parliamentary issues for the bill.

Exxon Mobil now has a steak in one of the largest oil fields in Iraq.

As for your question about the NSA analyst's statement in regards to why we were really invading Iraq (as opposed to WMDs, which never existed), I was directly involved in that conversation for reasons I won't discuss here. For the record though, I was sent to a vacant apartment by my employer where I met this man who convinced me that he was a former officer in the NSA. I started by asking him how he felt about the impending war with Iraq, despite the propaganda and anti-Islamic rhetoric from the White House. He basically said, "here's how it is. If we don't jump in and get the oil, then China and Russia will, and that would be detrimental to US security". In other words, it would give our adversaries an advantage over controlling the next fifty years of untapped petroleum. We are talking about the second largest petroleum reserve in the world, located in the Middle East, and easy to extract.

So, the need for oil security and the mounting resistance toward US control over governments in that region offered a mutli-pronged approach that would establish a better military and political, economic presence in the ME, while circumventing the influences of China and Russia.

Until then I didn't understand the economic saturation of fossil fuels that we are all addicted to. Everything, even food depends on oil and fuel. Whoever controls the flow, has economic leverage on his friends, enemies, the entire global industry.

Our government sees the procurement of cheap oil as the life blood of US economy - and the envelope of foreign policy. So do the Chinese and the Russians. Due to its critical value in the broader scope of global economy, it legitimized nearly every means to secure it if the US was to maintain its 'predominance' in foreign affairs.

I told the officer that millions would die, America would pay a high toll in material and human resources and that there were other alternatives to fossil fuels if we would develop those industries. He shook his head and replied that we needed to "get a handle on it now". Why? Because China and Russia already had long term contracts and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq, to develop resources and build pipelines that they would have to protect militarily and politically through alliances.

The meeting ended on a negative note and I spent the next decade under twenty four hour surveillance as a policy dissident. That of course leads to another topic having to do with how the so-called threat of terrorism has conveniently justified the building of a security apparatus operating under such broad terms, that it is easily used against anyone whose speech is out of alignment with the status-quo.

Just as slavery became the defining issue in validating the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is the same when considering whether one should support the democratic institution of free speech, the right to protest and the issues surrounding privacy or acquiesce those rights to a corporate military complex that answers only to the White House.

Nations whose policies are based on institutionalized policing are found in communist and autocratic institutions that sponsor staged elections, like that of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, controlled by thugs.

from your quote
"Exxon Mobil now has a steak in one of the largest oil fields in Iraq. "



"Exxon Mobil" round and round we go,, bow too your partner, now too yer left, and,,

In 1932, Chevron struck oil in Bahrain and was soon operating in Saudi Arabia.

"John Davison Rockefeller (1839-1937),
, Mobil (Standard Oil New Jersey) and Exxon, previously called Esso ...
In 1932, Chevron struck oil in Bahrain and was soon operating in Saudi Arabia.

thought they were already there??


John Davison Rockefeller must be rolling in his grave.






a reply to: Gianfar

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: buster2010

If you aren't willing to take the associated press and you'll toss it at face value...where DO you get your news from??

Most sources you can find anywhere in the English speaking world to quote are taking THEIR copy from Reuters, Associated Press and a couple lesser known services? (A few actually have physical reporters on payroll in bureau offices around the globe..but precious few left)

My bad I left out the word reporter namely Matt Lee. AP journo tweaks State Department over stance on Palestinians

a reply to: BobAthome


Here is the law that was passed to open up whats called IOCs it allows forign investors to buy shares of commodities. Its standard practice in most countries including the US for example several foreign companies buy shares in gas fields in the US it help lessen the losses if nothing is found. It also opens up the way to eliminate or reduce capitol gains taxes on the company since they are seen as an investment. ExxonMobil Iraq Limited (EMIL), an affiliate of Exxon Mobil bought into a Chinese contract making them a subsidiary but this wasnt allowed until recently and China also pushed for this as well.

www.reuters.com...

"Exxon Mobil bought into a Chinese contract making them a subsidiary"

so they made sure that China won the Iraq fields deal? for a cut?
or they just
wetting there beak?


a reply to: dragonridr