 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
Who is Mahmoud Ahmamadjihad ?
To understand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mindset and behavior require close scrutiny of the elaborate and intricate theology of Hujetieh Shiism, perhaps the most fundamentalist of the numerous Shiite sects.
In the 1950s, a group of Islamic clergy led by Sheikh Mahmoud Halabi (a close associate of Ayatollah Khomeini) formed a society called the Anjoman-e Khayryyehye Hujjatiyyah-ye Mahdaviat (Charitable Society of the Mahdi), based in Mashhad, Iran. The Hujjatyyah membership was mostly composed by the bazaar-i businessmen and fanatical mullahs. Among many things, they were against the communists, Marxists, and atheists. Their overarching "raison d'être," however, was to prepare the world for the upcoming of the 12th Imam -- the Mehdi. However, the most important immediate agenda item on their list was to harass and persecute the Baha'is, a religious group representing a small percentage of Iran's population. In fact, the Hujjatiyyah-y's alternative name became "The anti-Baha'i Society" (Anjuman-e Zidd-e Baha'iyat). They collectively worked for a single purpose: the eradication of Baha'is. The terrible plight of the Baha'is in Iran is particularly heart-wrenching, since they are the largest non-Muslim population in the country and have been, from day one, severely brutalized by Muslims. Baha'i teachings of tolerance and openness to science are anathema to the Islamofascists on many levels, but the history of the faith includes direct challenges to the theological legitimacy of the mullahs. These slaveholders find the Baha'i faith a threat to their own version of Islam and the absolute theocratic power it puts their hands. The egomaniac President Ahmadinejad is a member of Hujjatiyyah. He sees himself as the personal vassal of the Mahdi-Messiah or Hidden Imam, with whom he has fantasized tête-à-têtes frequently. Ahmadinejad, a man driven by his religion, has a spiritual advisor in Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi (the defacto leader of the Hojatieh). The President's advisor is known for his extremist views on Islam and promotes suicide bombings and attacks on civilians in the West. There is only view of Islam for him. He once said, "...if anyone tells you their own interpretation of Islam, punch them in the mouth!" President Ahmedinejad has in a short time acquired great many descriptors at home and overseas: zealot, fascist, fanatic, anti-Semitic, lunatic and more. One prominent Western columnist called him "unhinged." But we cannot just dismiss the man as an aberration, someone who is in urgent need of psychological help, a person out of touch with reality, who represents nothing of substance. Once again the West is misreading and misjudging people and events in the Middle East, because it views things through its own prism. Looking at the man through Western spectacles, he indeed appears to be all of the above and more. Yet Ahmadinejad is far from unhinged. He is firmly hinged to a set of beliefs that dictate his views of the world, and inform him how he should deal with it from his position of power. An unhinged man has the potential of becoming once again hinged. But, there is very little that can be done to a person who is inseparably hinged, and Ahmadinejad views are firmly rooted in the most orthodox philosophy of Shiism. For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to document the fact that Ahmadinejad is not mentally disturbed; there is no display of contradictory thoughts and behavior. There is a full internal consistency in Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's words, deeds and beliefs show a fully hinged person. Below are a few examples of his sayings, beliefs and actions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with them, they all fit perfectly into a consistent pattern. ▪ He literally believes in the imminent emergence of the Mahdi - the Shiites' promised one who is expected to appear to set aright a decadent and wretched world. ▪ He views himself as the vassal of Mahdi, working for him and being accountable to him. ▪ His main task is to prepare the world so to hasten the Mahdi's coming. If this preparation requires much destruction and bloodshed, so be it. ▪ As a former mayor of Tehran, he developed elaborate detailed plans preparing the city for the arrival of the Mahdi. ▪ He allocated generous sums for extensive road improvement to a mosque at Jamkaaraan near the city of Qum where it is believed the promised Mahdi is hiding in a well since the age of nine, over 1100 years ago. ▪ He reportedly visits the well frequently and drops his written supplications into the well for the hidden Mahdi to act upon them. ▪ He has said in private that it was he who asked the Mahdi to inflict the massive stroke on Ariel Sharon. ▪ He sees the Jews as the sworn enemies of Islam. The hostility dates back to the time of Muhammad's own treatment of the Jews in Medina. At first, expediently, Muhammad called the Jews "people of the book," and accorded them a measure of tolerance until he gained enough power to unleash his devastating wrath on them. ▪ He says that the Holocaust is a myth. He is, in this respect, in good company with a number of other revisionist fanatics. ▪ He wants Israel to be wiped out of the map or transferred to Europe. ▪ In his speech at the UN general assembly, he implored the Mahdi to come and save the world. He claimed that during his speech of some twenty odd minutes, a powerful light enveloped him and all participants were held transfixed, unable to move their eyes. ▪ He believes that the earth is Allah's and all people must either become believers of his brand of Islam or must perish as infidels najis (unclean) who by their very presence defile Allah's earth. ▪ He believes that this earthly life is passing and worthless in comparison to the afterlife awaiting a devoted and faithful believer. Hence, he holds to the old belief that if a faithful kills an infidel, he goes to Allah's paradise; and, if the faithful gets killed in the process of serving the faith, again he goes to Allah's paradise. Hence, it is a win-win proposition for the faithful. Ahmadinejad is a true devoted Muslim. Being unpredictable, self-contradictory and inconsistent are major symptoms of the mentally unhinged. By these standards of insanity, Ahmadinejad emerges as completely sane. He is fully predictable, consistent and has shown no self-contradiction. He does not even pretend that he misspoke or apologize for his outrageous statements. He is not a typical politician who practices the devious art of doublespeak, deception and change of position to suit his immediate convenience. He knows who he is, what he believes, and what his own mission in life is: serving as the instrument for the revered Mahdi. Allah will make him emerge from the well as soon as the world's conditions hit absolute hopeless bottom. Ahmadinejad sees himself as a driver who can play a critical role in doing just that, driving the world to the very bottom. And he plans on having an arsenal of nuclear weapons as soon as possible. There is nothing really "unhinged" about Ahamadinejad's thinking, statements and actions. They are internally consistent. He is simply a fanatic who is wedded to an extremely dangerous exclusionary system of belief. Humanity must learn that dismissing him as alunatic will result in great suffering, as it did with Hitler. Tragically, Ahmadinejad is the embodiment of several million people who are hinged exactly like him and who are willing to give their lives, and take with them as many lives as required in the service of their belief. In this age of Weapons of Mass Destruction a man with huge sums of petrodollars can serve as the catalyst of total annihilation. Prudence would err on the side of being an alarmist than a complacent dismissive. Ahmadinejad and his ilk are not interested in any negotiation, any compromise or any live-and-let-live final solution. They are determined to be the soldiers of Mahdi come-what-may. They have no problem with the total destruction of the world. They are headed for a life of eternal bliss in Allah's paradise. They hardly care, even rejoice, if the rest of humanity is subjected to a tragic death in the nuclear, biological and chemical wasteland of planet earth. Humanity cannot afford and must not ignore the emergence of the final threat to its very existence on this planet. Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. |
||||
|
||||
|
And yet the insanity continues.
There were as many antiwar protesters as anti-Ahmadinejad demonstrators. A communist group had unfurled a big orange banner claiming: "Ahmadinejad is bad. Bush is worse. Humanity needs another way. No war on Iran."
"This is a very dangerous situation," said Joan Hirsch, the group's spokeswoman. "People have a responsibility to speak out on the crimes committed in our names." |
||||
|
||||
|
Choux
I agree, America is destroying itself economically in the area's of manufacturing, science, and engineering knowledge through outsourcing. As a result America will become more and more Fascist because people will become more and more unhappy. Edit... Or perhaps we will just become a Nation of Arms Dealers. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I think you just made my point for me. |
||||
|
||||
|
War is **very ineffective** in dealing with Jihadists, in fact, the War on Iraq by Bush has created more Jihadists than before. There is a whole contingent of AlQuaeda fighting in Iraq as well as Suni and Shiia and locals... a total mish mash of warriors WHO ALL LOOK THE SAME. NO UNIFORMS.
AT LEAST WE HAVE LEARNED THAT WAR IS INEFFECTIVE!! WAR IS INEFFECTIVE AGAINST JIHADISTS, I REPEAT, WE ALL KNOW. So, we deal with Jihadists by intelligence and police work. We all got to face the future with courage and confidence and DECENT PEOPLE WILL REJECT ALL THE FEAR YOU ARE SELLING, TEX. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Choux
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Choux
in fact, the War on Iraq by Bush has created more Jihadists than before.
AT LEAST WE HAVE LEARNED THAT WAR IS INEFFECTIVE!! WAR IS INEFFECTIVE AGAINST JIHADISTS, I REPEAT, WE ALL KNOW.
So, we deal with Jihadists by intelligence and police work.
We all got to face the future with courage and confidence and DECENT PEOPLE WILL REJECT ALL THE FEAR YOU ARE SELLING, TEX.
|
||||
|
||||
|
I got to love it . I post about the Mahdi Hatter to illustrate how dangerous he would be ,especially with his hands on nukes. We are fighting a global war against jihadists because they are engaged in a global jihad against infidels.It is not something we can opt out of and in many cases we cannot chose our battle ground. It is not about police and intel alone because in too many cases there is state sponsorship . The Mahdi Hatter is a President of a state sponsor and so was Saddam Hussein .
What I am reading here in some replies is a false moral equivalence.Such is the art of rhetoric I guess . Here is a Kossack posting that would fit in well in this string.
I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...
Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that's not all…... I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can't help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding. I'd say this diary entry by Sallykohn represents BDS on steroids . Perhaps she missed the part of Ahmamadjihad's rants at Columbia where he said there were no homosexuals in Iran . AFP: 'No homosexuals in Iran': Ahmadinejad Wonder why ? Perhaps Judea Pearl;father of the slain Daniel Pearl said it best when making comments concerning a movie of Daniel Pearl called "A Mighty Heart "
At the same time, I am worried that A Mighty Heart falls into a trap Bertrand Russell would have recognized: the paradox of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see traces of this logic in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction with Guantánamo—it opens with pictures from the prison—and its comparison of Al Qaeda militants with CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote on The Washington Post's website that A Mighty Heart and his previous film The Road to Guantánamo "are very similar. Both are stories about people who are victims of increasing violence on both sides. There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."
Drawing a comparison between Danny's murder and the detainment of suspects in Guantánamo is precisely what the killers wanted, as expressed in both their e-mails and the murder video. Obviously Winterbottom did not mean to echo their sentiments, and certainly not to justify their demands or actions. Still, I am concerned that aspects of his movie will play into the hands of professional obscurers of moral clarity. Indeed, following an advance screening of A Mighty Heart, a panelist representing the Council on American-Islamic Relations reportedly said, "We need to end the culture of bombs, torture, occupation, and violence. This is the message to take from the film." The message that angry youngsters are hearing is unfortunate: All forms of violence are equally evil; therefore, as long as one persists, others should not be ruled out. This is precisely the logic used by Mohammed Siddiqui Khan, one of the London suicide bombers, in his videotape on Al Jazeera. "Your democratically elected government," he told his British countrymen, "continues to perpetrate atrocities against my people.. . [W]e will not stop." Danny's tragedy demands an end to this logic. There can be no comparison between those who take pride in the killing of an unarmed journalist and those who vow to end such acts—no ifs, ands, or buts. Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, on January 31, 2002. The key point he makes later is one that would most apply here
There was a time when drawing moral symmetries between two sides of every conflict was a mark of original thinking. Today, with Western intellectuals overextending two-sidedness to reckless absurdities, it reflects nothing but lazy conformity. What is needed now is for intellectuals, filmmakers, and the rest of us to resist this dangerous trend and draw legitimate distinctions where such distinctions are warranted.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Politics is essentially a practice not a theory, and in this sense, democracy is the only possible practice of politics, because it is not a system, it ought not resort to any metaphysics. To deny freedom of speech is not unnatural in relation to a hypothetical human nature, it simply is not practical; free speech is immanent, no system should deny it, it's a denial of reality. |
||||
|
||||
|
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's resume'
Domestic crticisim of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad In June 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was criticized by some Iranian parliament members over his remark about Christianity and Judaism. According to Aftab News Agency, President Ahmadinejad stated: "In the world, there are deviations from the right path: Christianity and Judaism. Dollars have been devoted to the propagation of these deviations. There are also false claims that these [religions] will save mankind. But Islam is the only religion that save mankind." Some members of Iranian parliament criticized these remarks as being fuels to religious war. Anti-Israel statements Main article: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel See also: Iran-Israel relations On October 26, 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "World Without Zionism". According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that must be "wiped off the map." [10] Ahmadinejad's comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.[121] Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark.[122] Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, “this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore.”[123] The translation of his statement has been disputed. Iran's foreign minister stated that Ahmadinejad had been "misunderstood": "He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime."[124] Some experts state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map".[125] Reviewing the controversy over the translation, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner observed that "all official translations" of the comments, including the foreign ministry and president's office, "refer to wiping Israel away".[126] Ahmadinejad has compared Israel's actions in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to Adolf Hitler's actions during World War II saying that "Just like Hitler, the Zionist regime is just looking for a pretext for launching military attacks" and "is now acting just like him."[127] On August 8, 2006, he gave a television interview to Mike Wallace, a correspondent for 60 Minutes, in which he questioned American support of Israel's "murderous regime" and the moral grounds for Israel's invasion of Lebanon.[11] On December 2, 2006, Ahmadinejad met with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah in Doha, Qatar. At that meeting, he said that Israel "was created to establish dominion of arrogant states over the region and to enable the enemy to penetrate the heart Muslim land." He called Israel a "threat" and said it was created to create tensions in and impose US and UK policies upon the region.[128] On December 12, 2006, Ahmadinejad addressed the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, and made comments about the future of Israel. He said, "Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations." He continued, "Everyone must know that just as the U.S.S.R. disappeared, this will also be the fate of the Zionist regime, and humanity will be free."[129] According to Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, "the fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies" and that "Rhetoric aside, most analysts agree that the Islamic Republic and the Jewish state are not likely to engage in a military confrontation against each other." [130] Holocaust denial and accusations of antisemitism Main article: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad See also: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel In December 2005 Ahmadinejad made several controversial statements about the Holocaust, calling it "a myth", and criticizing European laws against Holocaust denial.[131] In a May 30, 2006 interview with Der Spiegel Ahmadinejad again questioned the Holocaust several times, insisting there were "two opinions" on it. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it".[132] In response to these statements and actions, a variety of sources, including the U.S. Senate,[133] have accused Ahmadinejad of antisemitism. On December 11, 2006 the "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" opened, to widespread condemnation.[134] The conference, called for by and held at the behest of Ahmadinejad,[135] was widely described as a "Holocaust denial conference" or a "meeting of Holocaust deniers",[136] though Iran maintained that it is not a Holocaust denial conference.[137] Human rights Main article: Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran Some human rights organizations and many Western governments say the current human rights situation in Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is poor; for example, the Canadian government listed Iran as one of the thirteen worst abusers of human rights in 2006.[138] According to Amnesty International, dissidents who oppose the government non-violently face harassment, torture and execution and the election of Ahmadinejad signaled the defeat of "pro-reform" supporters[139]. According to Human Rights Watch, "[r]espect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement." Human Rights Watch described the source of human rights violations in contemporary Iran as coming from on the one hand the Judiciary, accountable to Ali Khamenei, and on the other to members directly appointed by Ahmadinejad. Again according to Human Rights Watch, "[s]ince President Ahmadinejad came to power, treatment of detainees has worsened in Evin prison as well as in detention centers operated clandestinely by the Judiciary, the Ministry of Information, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps."[140] Tolerance of public protest varies under Ahmadinejad. Human Rights Watch writes that "[t]he Ahmadinejad government, in a pronounced shift from the policy under former president Mohammed Khatami, has shown no tolerance for peaceful protests and gatherings." In January 2006 security forces attacked striking bus drivers in Tehran and detained hundreds. The government refused to recognize the drivers' independent union or engage in collective bargaining with them. In February government forces attacked a peaceful gathering of Sufi devotees in front of their religious building in Qum to prevent its destruction by the authorities, using tear gas and water cannons to disperse them. In March police and plainclothes agents charged a peaceful assembly of women's rights activists in Tehran and beat hundreds of women and men who had gathered to commemorate International Women's Day. In June as women's rights defenders assembled again in Tehran, security forces beat them with batons, sprayed them with pepper gas, marked the demonstrators with sprayed dye, and took 70 people into custody. [26] Responses to dissent vary. In December 2006, Ahmadinejad advised officials not to disturb students who engaged in a rowdy protest during a speech of his at the Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran.[141], although speakers at other protests have included among their complaints that there had been a crackdown on dissent at universities since Ahmadinejad was elected.[142][143] Source:Wikipedia ____________________________________ Bobby |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Choux
However, to stand any chance whatsoever against the onslaught of the radical jihadist, we must tackle the battle on all three fronts: the intelligence, the law enforcement, AND the military front. Good intelligence is as critical as it is difficult to obtain. We had much better luck against the Soviets, the Germans, the Italians, etc. in the past, mostly because their structure was so similar to our own. Now, however, the enemy is much, much more "fluid," for lack of a better term. They have very few, if any, permanent structures such as a Kremlin, a Pentagon, a KGB building, or a Reichstag that can be successfully infiltrated. Their assets are constantly on the move. Second, their culture is not a Western culture, and it is extremely difficult to successfully insert human agents (still the #1 source of intel) into a Middle Eastern or Asian culture. Law enforcement is great, and I wish them much success. However, they are limited by their domestic jurisdiction, and so much of the planning and organization occurs overseas. Couple that with the hamstringing they often endure at the claws of the courts, and you have prize fighters trying to fight with one hand tied behind their back and a blindfold on. In addition, fighting terrorists isn't their only duty to the citizens. While larger organizations such as the FBI have entire cells devoted to such, other equally (or more) capable organizations such as the Marshals, Customs, DEA, ATF, and so on do not have that luxury, and have to allocate time and resources appropriately. That leaves the military. All the intelligence is great. But what good is it without a strong arm to strike with? Law enforcement is great, but they generally can't operate overseas, and don't have sufficient manpower to in any event. Besides, national security IS the military's sole function, and one at which they excel. Let 'em do their jobs. It's exactly what they volunteered to do. |
||||
|
||||
|
DC,
I will strike as much terror as I am able into the hearts of ANY who would harm my family and friends. Guess I ain't all that PC, but then again, I never claimed to be. Just a husband and father who loves his family dearly, and would stand against all the forces of hell to keep them safe. DK |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
View more questions Search
|
