Iran and the International Bankers

icon57

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
97
Iran, a nation out of the control of the International Bankers?

What the International bankers call the "miracle" of compound interest is called "usury" under Islamic law and is considered a crime. It was also a crime under Old English law until the sixteenth century, when Martin Luther redefined the offense of "usury" to mean the taking of "excess" interest. Modern Islamic thinkers are not averse to a profitable return on investment when it takes the form of "profit-sharing," with investors taking some risk and sharing in business losses; but the usurer gets his interest no matter what. In fact he does better when the borrower fails. The borrower who cannot afford to pay off his loans sinks deeper and deeper into debt, as interest compounds annually to the lender

Islamic scholars have been seeking to devise a global banking system that would serve as an alternative to the usury-based scheme now in control internationally, and Iran has led the way in devising that model. Iran's state-owned central bank issues the national currency, with the seigniorage accruing to the government rather than to private banks. The Iranian government is among the few to have very little foreign debt. It uses its state-owned banks to make loans and credits available to industrial and agricultural projects. The most unique feature of the Iranian banking system, however, is that it follows the Islamic proscription against usury. That means loans are made interest-free.

At least, that is true in principle. To make their system work with the prevailing scheme, Islamic economists have had to come up with some creative definitions of "interest." Assuming Iran can develop a workable alternative model, however, it might well threaten the usury-based banking system that now dominates international finance and trade. If governments were to start doing what banks do now – advancing "credit" created out of nothing with accounting entries – they could sidestep the hefty interest that is the principal cost of most government programs today. It has been estimated that eliminating interest charges could cut the average cost of infrastructure, sustainable energy development, and other programs in half. Third World economies might finally escape the iron grip of the international bankers, bringing a 300-year global banking empire crashing down.

A coordinated and simultaneous large scale default on international debt obligations could quite easily damage the Western monetary system, and the West knows it. There might be a war of course, or the threat of it, accompanied perhaps by lectures on financial morality from Washington, but would it matter when there is so little left to lose? In due course, every oppressed people comes to know that it is better to die with dignity than to live in slavery. Lenders everywhere should remember that lesson well.

That could explain the big guns aimed at Iran, and the tightening of economic sanctions against it. Dominoes that won't fall into the debt trap must be pushed. Like in the brutal attacks in Lebanon in July 2006, the military targets in Iran are liable to be economic ones – ports, bridges, roads, airports, refining infrastructure. The threat posed by Iran's alternative economic model will be obliterated by blasting it back into the Stone Age.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/war-with-iran.php
 
Last edited:
Luther was against Usury

It was also a crime under Old English law until the sixteenth century, when Martin Luther redefined the offense of "usury" to mean the taking of "excess" interest.

I am a Lutheran. I have read Martin Luther's work "On Trading and Usury", which encompasses his older treatise on usury. In it, he condemns the pope and his papal agents for reintroducing usury to the German financial system as an evil plot to consolidate wealth into the hands of about 100 families. Before Luther, Savonarola sold church property and gave it to the poor. Instead of following Savonarola's lead, the Catholics hired, "fake Jews"-that is, Italians that pretended to be Jews in order to be allowed to practice usury.

Luther also condemns the use of the interest-contract, which was a clever way to circumvent the usury laws and still practice something that was very similar.

I think the essence of Luther's teaching about usury was he believed that the risk undertaken in business was sacred and not for the purchase or sale thereof by men. In fact, Luther even forbid renting land at fixed rates, as he felt that rates ought to vary according to the yield.

This belief was preserved by Lutherans, who, under persecution from Union Protestants in Germany, came to America. Early Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Presidents such as C.F.W. Walther and Henry Schwan condemned usury (that is, the charging of interest) as a sin and spread their views through church publications, such as Lehr und Wehr and The Lutheran Witness. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod also spoke against insurance policies, because they transfered risk from one person to another, were based on usurious principals, and were considered an immoral gamble on the length of a person's life.

I offer to you some source documents for your perusal:

Martin Luther: On Trading and Usury:
http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_d2.htm

Martin Luther: A Treatise on Usury:
http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_d4.htm

Henry Schwan: Against the Sin of Usury:
http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/49356/47818.html

Rev. Henry Jonnges Something on Life Insurance
http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/49356/46351.html

For a summary of Luther's views on trade usury, see
Chris White: Lutheran Economics
http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/pdfs/02_12_letters-frosty.pdf
 
Is there any conspiracy we won't buy into? WTF aren't we invading the Bahrain or the UAE, then???

What's more, Islamic countries and nations are investing in western banking. See Abu Dhabi Investment, Kuwait Investment Authority, Kingdom Holding Company.


Oh, the humanity!!!!
 
The reasons we went into Afghanistan and Iraq was because they were 2 of 6 countries in the world that didn't occupy their world banking system.. They put their world central banks in those countries in 2003 and 2004 respectively to control those people, like their federal reserve they created controls american citizens.. .. They also wanted to raid their oil because these bankers own oil companies.. Rothschild owns Shell oil and Rockefeller owns Exxon oil etc etc .,,

Combined, Rothschild and Rockefeller own more than half the world's wealth at over $600 Trillion.. When you combine them with the other world bankers, they have over 80% of the world's wealth combined..

Moreover, only Iran, Cuba. North Korea and Syria do not have their banks at this moment.. And guess what, I hope you guys can figure out why these 4 countries are considered enemies of the United States.. There's been a common thread with these disputes and they all revolve around money, banks and oil for these International bankers.... It's not because of terrorism or any other reason they propagandize the media with.. Iran is targetted next because there are alot of wealthy people there and they want to control their banking system.. And Iran is the 2nd largest oil producer in the region, which also isn't a mere coincidence... There's your reasons for the threats Bush made to Iran a couple of days ago..

PS-- Remember that the US government was in negotiations with the Taliban in 1997 to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.. There are plenty of news articles on the net about that if you search for it... The deal fell through because the taliban asked for too much money for it...

The very next day, in 1997, after the taliban rejected Colin Powell's offer for the pipeline, there was frontpage headlines from the media (US and Britain) claiming that the taliban all of a sudden are terrorists and they must be stopped... What bullshit.. The US made up that terrorist story because they hoped the taliban would be pressured for a better pipeline deal.. It didn't work, hence the blame for 9/11 a few years later.. Oh, and the US has their precious little pipeline built now.. As well as control of the opium fields which all of a sudden had a 40% increase in production since 9/11

.
 
Last edited:
I just read this article on Global Research and was going to post a thread about it too. It's an interesting possibilty and makes some sense.

"Is there any conspiracy we won't buy into?" scipio337

The problem with this apparent determination to start another war in Iran is that there doesn't appear to be any logical reason given by the government in the msm so it requires people who can continue to try and follow the trail to get to the truth. While following that trail some conclusions may be accurate....or perhaps quite false but the the important thing in my opinion is that at least someone is trying to find out the truth. Just thinking out loud and certainly not an enemy combatant regarding your comment. :-D

The other problem is that we've all been fed so many lies and for so long that everything said needs to be questioned. It's the plethora of lies which create an atmosphere for conspiracy theories.

I'm curious though. Why is it that when a conspiracy is suggested people quickly jump to the conclusion it is likely something quite inane? History is filled with those in power involved in conspiracy of one form or another and since so much is kept 'classified' now it not only gives rise to all manner of conspiracy theory whether sensible or quite ridiculous, but almost demands that people work to find out what nefarious plans are being hatched.
 
I don't believe this has any thing to do with international banking. This is simply a power struggle between Jewish nationalists and the rest of the middle east. Iraq and Iran were the strongest countries in the middle east, and that is why Jewish nationalists pushed the US to destroy Saddam's regime. Now that Iraq is broken, the right wing Jewish nationalists have their sights on Iran, but it doesn't look they have the power to get any thing done against Iran except push for sanctions and I think they've accepted that they will have to live with a growing Iranian power in the middle east.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top