What do you think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

No worry,, most folks do not understand the difference.
Ignorance can be corrected,,only stupidity is terminal. ;)

Zionism is a political ideology.. separated from Judaism. It is actually National Socialism.
The creators of Zionism were folks that rejected Judaism (and God, for that matter).
Zionism was denounced by Rabbi and scholar alike for years,,but the Zionist movement grew and was backed by some worlds powerful and wealthy.

There is an active effort to demonize any that speak against it today.
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/zionism/judaism_v_zionism.cfm
Very true. I have found that most people don't understand zionism and will not even engage the topic rationally when it comes up. The commonest thing is to bring up the "anti-semite" red herring.
 
Got Hannity on right now and he's talking about this guy. Ol' Great American Sean Hannity loves keep that war propaganda machine well-oiled. I almost hope Obama does bomb Iran just so I can hear Sean try to spin his idiot fans into believing that the war they wanted all-along is now a bad thing since it was started by a Democrat. If Romney wins, Hannity will be even more on board with the war effort than he is now.
That's one of the many, many reasons I hate Republicans, they are always pushing for war, but if a Democrat initiates the war they were pushing, all of a sudden these same Republicans are against the intervention. It's like they fear being shown up by the "wimpy" Democrat.
 
Last edited:
'The Most Dangerous Man in the World'?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan258.html

U.S. newspapers this fall will devote countless column inches and network TV will set aside endless hours to revisiting the most perilous month in the history of the republic, if not of the world.

Nikita Khrushchev's decision to secretly install nuclear-armed intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba began to form in his mind sometime earlier, perhaps in April of 1961.

Then it was that the new young U.S. President John F. Kennedy put a brigade of Cubans ashore to become the vanguard of a guerrilla army to overthrow Fidel Castro's regime.

The Bay of Pigs became a metaphor for feckless folly and failure.

Khrushchev had ordered an army of tanks into Budapest to crush the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and watched, astonished, as a U.S. president recoiled at using his power to expunge a Soviet base camp 90 miles from America's shores.

In June, Kennedy met Khrushchev in Vienna and was orally mauled. In August, Khrushchev tested Kennedy again, building a wall to sever East Berlin and seal off the Soviet sector. Berliners seeking to escape were shot.


Kennedy ordered a one-year call-up of the reserves.

Moscow then broke a moratorium on atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, exploding a 57-megaton monster bomb in the Arctic.

By mid-October 1962, Soviet missiles were in Cuba. Their 1,500-mile target radius put Washington, D.C., in range.


The Air Force chief of staff was Gen. Curtis LeMay, former head of Strategic Air Command, who boasted of his B-29 fleet in the Pacific war, "We torched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

LeMay wanted to bomb and invade Cuba, even after Khrushchev pulled his rockets out. When Mao Zedong denounced Khrushchev's climb-down, calling America "a paper tiger," Khrushchev is said to have reminded Mao, "This paper tiger has nuclear teeth."

Mao reportedly indicated a willingness to lose 300 million Chinese in a nuclear war if that war would finish off the United States.

These were grave times and dangerous men. What prompts this recitation of what our world was like 50 years ago is the latest cover story in The Weekly Standard, "The Most Dangerous Man in the World."

The cover photo is of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's "man with a mission," who is said to be seeking an atom bomb and who "loathes the United States more than Stalin, Mao, Tojo and Hitler combined." If this "supreme leader gets nuclear weapons, it will be a miracle if he does not stupidly lead his country into war."


Thrust of the 5,000-word article: Be afraid. Be very afraid of this man.

But what exactly are we to fear? And what is the imperative for war now on Iran, for which this piece beats the drum?

Khamenei has declared that nuclear weapons are immoral and Iran will never acquire them. Is Islamic Iran's supreme religious leader lying through his teeth? Where is the proof? Where is the hard evidence?


Sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies stated unanimously in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 their conviction that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. In the Standard piece, John Sawyer, head of the British Intelligence Service MI-6, "flatly stated in July that we have two years left before the Iranians can build a weapon."

And if we should fear this most dangerous man in the world, why do not the Iraqis, Turks, Azerbaijanis and Pakistanis, his neighbors, seem to fear him? The Paks, with scores of nukes, seem less nervous about Iran than democratic India, with whom they have fought several wars.

Before now it has been Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was the incarnation of Hitler. But Ahmadinejad's eight years in office are up next summer, and he is reportedly going back to teaching.

For all his bellicosity, how many wars did Ahmadinejad fight?

When was the last time Iran started any war?

On Al-Quds Day, Wednesday, an annual event since the 1979 revolution, Khamenei reportedly said he was confidant "the fake Zionist (regime) will disappear from the landscape of geography."

Yes, and Nikita Khrushchev said, "We will bury you," and, "Your grandchildren will live under communism." And we buried him, and his grandchildren saw the end to communism.

The author of the "Most Dangerous Man," Reuel Marc Gerecht, says that should Israel attack Iran, Iranians "will probably take their revenge through terrorism" or opt for "playing dead and railing against Israel in the court of world opinion."

Would Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo, pre-emptively attacked, respond with acts of reprisal untraceable to them, or denunciations of their attacker in the "court of world opinion," or by playing possum?

Our fathers crushed fascism in four years and outlasted for half a century the evil empires of Stalin and Mao that had murdered millions. And we should be fearful of an ayatollah?

What happened to the America we grew up in, the America of Truman, Ike, JFK and Reagan?
 
'The Most Dangerous Man in the World'?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan258.html

...
These were grave times and dangerous men. What prompts this recitation of what our world was like 50 years ago is the latest cover story in The Weekly Standard, "The Most Dangerous Man in the World."

The cover photo is of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's "man with a mission," who is said to be seeking an atom bomb and who "loathes the United States more than Stalin, Mao, Tojo and Hitler combined." If this "supreme leader gets nuclear weapons, it will be a miracle if he does not stupidly lead his country into war."


Thrust of the 5,000-word article: Be afraid. Be very afraid of this man.

But what exactly are we to fear? And what is the imperative for war now on Iran, for which this piece beats the drum?

Khamenei has declared that nuclear weapons are immoral and Iran will never acquire them. Is Islamic Iran's supreme religious leader lying through his teeth? Where is the proof? Where is the hard evidence?


Sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies stated unanimously in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 their conviction that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. In the Standard piece, John Sawyer, head of the British Intelligence Service MI-6, "flatly stated in July that we have two years left before the Iranians can build a weapon."

Ah. So now the MSM wants to admit what some of us have been saying for years. Ajmadinijad has never wielded real power in Iran. He's not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he can be replaced by the Supreme Leader. But here's some things they won't tell you.

1) The current supreme leader was also supreme leader when, under the moderate reformer president Mohammed Khatami, Iran sent to Bush through back channels a "grand bargain" proposal for peace.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html
A few weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a strange document arrived in Washington. It came as a fax, on plain paper, from the Swiss ambassador in Tehran.

The fax laid out the terms for a "grand bargain" -- in essence a peace treaty between the U.S. and Iran. It put everything on the table: Iran's support for terrorism, its nuclear program, even its hostility towards Israel. In exchange, Iran asked Washington for security guarantees, an end to sanctions and a promise never to push for regime change.

Iran's reformists were again trying to reach out to Washington, as they had after 9/11 (see Chapter 2 of the film). But the State Department thought Khatami's reformist government was politically weak and promising more than it could deliver. And the White House, newly victorious in Iraq, saw no need to negotiate with Iran. The fax never received a reply.


2) Iran also had been part of the U.S. led coalition to defeat the Taliban. They were the only Muslim country that actively participated.

India joins anti-Taliban coalition
By Rahul Bedi - Jane's - Intelligence Review 15 March 2001

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
...
Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.


3) While the Supreme Leader can replace the president, the Assembly of Experts can replace the Supreme Leader. Reformers made early gains int AOE elections, but the hardliners have been strengthened U.S. anti-Iranian rhetoric heats up. It's the "rally around the troops" effect.

http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/partial-iranian-election-results.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...speech-a-boost-to-moderates-in-irans-election
 
From what I can see,....... the problem is hate. He simply hates Israel. I am not going to say that Israel does not play a part in that,... as they don't want Iran to become nuclear capable. But Iran is always spouting how he is going to destroy Israel,.... so it seems they have a wee bit of a reason to be nervous.

Exactly but people in RPF honestly can't hear or refuse to listen. This is what Ahmadinejad said at a recent rally...

"The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land.... A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists" :eek:

Nope, he doesn't call for Israel to be destroyed. Are you freaking kidding me? Too many people in here are just deaf. Geez...
 
Last edited:
Exactly but people in RPF honestly can't hear or refuse to listen. This is what Ahmadinejad said at a recent rally...



Nope, he doesn't call for Israel to be destroyed. Are you freaking kidding me? Too many people in here are just deaf. Geez...

Except Amadinejad has no military power and never had any military power. The man with the power is the Supreme Leader. And he offered an olive branch to the U.S. and Israel back in 2003 and it was ignored by a power drunk Bush administration.
 
I cant find the "make fun buddy" video anymore =(

yeah they took it down. I don't have high regard for ahmadinejad, but he's not the dangerous man the media makes him out to be. I particularly like this video, where he challenges Larry King on Israel. No different to what Europeans did to the original Indians.

 
Any evidence of this? In order to actually accuse someone of being gay, you need to have 4 witnesses who saw the act of gay sex occurring. I don't think there's a lot of gay public sex going on in Iran.

The most recent case of those two gay individuals being executed in Iran was more about rape then them being gay. Even gay rights groups and human rights groups attest to this.

Sure I can give you evidence...

Iran Human Rights, an independent NGO based in Norway, said the men were charged with "lavat" – sexual intercourse between two men. It is not clear whether the three men were homosexuals or merely smeared with homosexuality accused of being gay.

Source: Iran Executes Three Men On Homosexuality Charges.

Another case:

In August 2010, an 18-year-old Iranian, Ebrahim Hamidi, a client of Mostafaei, faced execution on charges of homosexuality on the basis of "judge's knowledge" which is a legal loophole that allows for subjective judicial rulings where there is no conclusive evidence. Hamidi, who has been temporarily reprieved after his case drew widespread international attention, is not gay.
 
Can people please stop saying they like this guy? I can see the liberal media now:

"RP supporters say Iranian dictator is fine with them and since he hates Zionism he's an alright guy"
 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just as bad in his way as Obama or Romney are in theirs. He is a corrupt authoritarian. In 2009 he won re-election by fraud, lying, and ballot boc stuffing on a level never seen in the United States against Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousavi)a man popular with the youth and masses because he wanted to bring greater amounts of liberty to the people, favored equal rights between men and women, and who wanted to privatize the media and news outlets. Sound like someone you might have heard of on this site?

To sum it up Ahmadinejad is the Romney/Obama of his country, where the shadow government rules openly in the form of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad cheated Mousavi, the nearest thing Iranians have to a Ron Paul, out of an election he should have rightly won.

So no, I do not like Ahmadinejad. He is no lover of liberty.

Agree - he is an asshat first class.
 
Except Amadinejad has no military power and never had any military power. The man with the power is the Supreme Leader. And he offered an olive branch to the U.S. and Israel back in 2003 and it was ignored by a power drunk Bush administration.

Power or no power is not the argument here. The argument by many and the OP is that Ahmadinejad has never threatened Israel. The man absolutely has (see previous post with recent quote). When has Ahmadinejad told the Jews in general that they were in no serious harm or threat from Iran? When has he said, "I come in peace but I have a serious problem with the Zionist regime only?" When and where did he say such kind words to the Israelis?
 
Last edited:

You have to be a hardcore conspiracy theorist to believe he is NWO puppet. How the fuck does that work? and if he is a NWO puppet then who is not a NWO puppet? How anybody would believe any translation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is beyond me and even if he was quoted accurately? I still wouldn't believe it. Everybody cant be part of the NWO, its not how it works
 
A highly intelligent puppet with an agenda similar to but seperate from those who pull the strings in our own government. He is interesting to watch as he plays foil to our own government's agenda and theatrics. The biggest problem is for liberty minded folks who agree with his assessment of American policies then get branded as Iranian sympathizers who want to institute sharia law. Too many people cannot seem to differentiate between agreeing with the problem and yet seeking a different solution sperate from the messenger. This on the RP forum nonetheless...

attempt+at+hammer+meet+nail+logo+for+blog.png
 

So you see the words "New World Order" in the title of an Israeli news article and you assume that Ahmadinejad is part of the globalist banker conspiracy to dominate the planet? And since his remark about the "Israeli administration vanishing from the pages of time" was turned into "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map" and parroted with the most utter deceit by western media and politicians, perhaps we should not jump to the conclusion the "New World Order" is a correct translation in the body of this article? And, to the extent that we happen to trust the translation, why not analyze what he was purported to have said? Just because the anti-establishment crowd here uses the term "New World Order" to mean a corporatist and banker conspiracy, I don't believe we have a copyright on the term. In fact, it sounds like Ahmadinejad is referring to an order in the world that is quite the opposite. He objected to a small percentage of people making decisions for all of the rest. And that nuclear energy should be accessible to all nations and not prevented by a small clique of power mongers. My take on the translation was that his "New World Order" is simply the condition on the planet where bully imperialist nations run by cliques of offshore bankers simply butt out and allow the people of the world to function with more voluntary interaction and less centralization. It seems pretty clear to me that he is a real thorn in the side of western imperialists, because he will not allow western military bases in Iran, is not playing ball with central banking, is calling out Israel and the U.S. for what they are in the region, and is sitting on an ass load of oil that he seems to maybe want gold or euros for. So unless Ahmadinejad is some kind of Mossad or CIA plant that is supposed to play bad cop to the point of causing a western military invasion that can be sold to the western voters, then I am at a loss for your claim that he is a "NWO puppet."
 
Last edited:
You have to be a hardcore conspiracy theorist to believe he is NWO puppet. How the fuck does that work? and if he is a NWO puppet then who is not a NWO puppet? How anybody would believe any translation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is beyond me and even if he was quoted accurately? I still wouldn't believe it. Everybody cant be part of the NWO, its not how it works

^This. I wish I could be as clear and concise as you. Well said.
 
Power or no power is not the argument here.

It's my argument. People in other countries shouldn't get their undies in a knot when Pat Robertson threatens Hugo Chavez or John McCain threatens Iran since neither have the power TO declare or execute a war. The same is true of Amadinejad. He's not just a puppet in the "We all know Obama's just a puppet" sense. He's a puppet in that he really verifiably is a puppet. Iran tried to make peace with the U.S. I gave you just a smidgin of the evidence of that. When we made it clear we didn't want peace with Iran, Iran decided to go the strength track. The "let's make peace" puppet (Khatami) was put away and the "don't F with us" puppet was brought out. Iran isn't out to wipe out Israel or the U.S. Iran is about survival. Even Rick Santorum gets this, so I don't understand why you don't.

 
Last edited:
Right! And I'm sure the anti-human dictator never said Iran doesn't have gays in his country during his visit to the Marxist Columbia a few years back.

We all know Iran hangs anyone simply being accused of being gay.

Stop defending the prick.

He said they dont have gays like they have in the US. And as someone that have lived in a 1/2 dozen countries, I can tell you that this country has a significantly higher rate of gayness than most countries. I dont have enough information about gay hangings, so I cannot address that untill I get more information about it
 
Last edited:
Agree - he is an asshat first class.

But he calls out the other crime families publicly. Even drops whopping truth bombs on a regular basis. This is valuable rhetoric. Because in terms of international isuues, the truth is on his side. That's a lot more than I can say for the western imperialist thugs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top