Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ahmadinejad The Fanatic

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Not crazy, just a garden variety religious fanatic.

We also notice that he spoke more with codes. My Persian friend's interpretation is that he was preparing everyone for all out Nuclear war. I asked him to give me his own interpretation late this evening. My own feeling is in the next two weeks, they will do something huge, perhaps a nuclear test to divert the attention. Remember, Ahmadinejad wants to create a situation to sever that Mehdi to appear and make the world straight. At the moment, they are like wounded snakes with nothing to lose. I think the world should be prepared. He and Khameni are getting ready to a major Bing Bang: Here is Ahmadinejad way of thinking:

To understand Ahmadinejad’s mind set and behavior requires a close scrutiny of the elaborate and intricate theology of Hujetieh Shiism – perhaps the most fundamentalist of numerous Shiite sects.

For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to document the fact that Ahmadinejad is not unhinged. “Unhinged†is a derogatory term for a person who is mentally disturbed. A prominent feature of a mentally disturbed person is the display of contradictory thoughts and behavior. Ahmadinejad’s words, deeds and beliefs show a fully hinged person. He, to the perception of many, may be hinged to a dangerous and faulty hinge. Yet he is hinged.

There is a full internal consistency in Ahmadinejad. 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.

â–ª 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.

â–ª As a former mayor of Tehran, he developed elaborate detailed plans preparing the city for the arrival of the Mahdi.

â–ª 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.

â–ª He reportedly visits the well frequently and drops his written supplications into the well for the hidden Mahdi to act upon them.

â–ª He has said in private that it was him 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.

â–ª He says that the Holocaust is a myth. He is, in this respect, in good company with a number of other revisionist claimants.

â–ª He wants Israel to be wiped out of the map or transferred to Europe.

â–ª 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 and 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.

There is nothing “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 a fanatic as lunatic or unhinged rather than squarely facing the likes of Ahmadinejad and Hitler will result in great suffering. And in the age of Weapons of Mass Destruction a man with huge sums of petrodollar can indeed serve as the catalyst of total annihilation. It is by far more prudent to err on the side of being an alarmist than a complacent dismissive. Humanity cannot afford to ignore the emergence of the final thereat to its very existence on this planet.

Edited by curious american
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Do you have any idea and respect about Shia faith before you post such trash here ??..

If the guy thinks he's channeling an 1,100-year-old nine-year-old who fell into a well and imagines the end of the world, I can say one thing. I don't care what the hell his religion is, I don't want Iran getting nukes. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If the guy thinks he's channeling an 1,100-year-old nine-year-old who fell into a well and imagines the end of the world,

That is why i asked do you have any idea or info on Shiism.. Writer has no idea what he is writing.. and Ahamdinejad-phobic like you gulp all that trash..

That is why it is better to 1st verify and then accept what ever is offered..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Mousavi is actually more conservative and more to the right than Ahmadinejad is.

I have viewed them as equivalent from an American viewpoint, which is based on a judgment of their likely foreign policy. President Obama has said the same, and I agree with that. Therefore, it does puzzle me that the real power -- Khameni -- would choose Ahmadinejad at the expense of Iran's international credibility and reputation. In any case, Ahmadinejad's "end times" beliefs strike me as the Islamic equivalent of the fanatical "end times" Christian heresies that have provided so much political fuel for American intervention on behalf of Israel, especially under the George W. Bush administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I have viewed them as equivalent from an American viewpoint, which is based on a judgment of their likely foreign policy. President Obama has said the same, and I agree with that. Therefore, it does puzzle me that the real power -- Khameni -- would choose Ahmadinejad at the expense of Iran's international credibility and reputation. In any case, Ahmadinejad's "end times" beliefs strike me as the Islamic equivalent of the fanatical "end times" Christian heresies that have provided so much political fuel for American intervention on behalf of Israel, especially under the George W. Bush administration.

(salam)

:lol: How do I even begin.

You have just slagged off 99% of the people you are engaging with here as heretics. You pose yourself as a reasonable person with altruistic concern for us, yet you don't even educate yourself with the reason why this chatroom is called ShiaChat?

I can't feel angry at you, just sorry for you. Do try a bit harder to understand your audience before you make yourself look stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
If the guy thinks he's channeling an 1,100-year-old nine-year-old who fell into a well and imagines the end of the world, I can say one thing. I don't care what the hell his religion is, I don't want Iran getting nukes. :o

you sure as hell want USA to have them, the only one having used them. how can you guys even talk of responsibility,

and look at the countries trying to stop iran from acquiring nuclear technology(not weapons), the ones who stockpile them.

what has happened to your brains ca.

shall i make a prediction, in all probability the next country to use nukes will be israel.

they have already threatened.

talk of brain washing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I have viewed them as equivalent from an American viewpoint, which is based on a judgment of their likely foreign policy. President Obama has said the same, and I agree with that. Therefore, it does puzzle me that the real power -- Khameni -- would choose Ahmadinejad at the expense of Iran's international credibility and reputation. In any case, Ahmadinejad's "end times" beliefs strike me as the Islamic equivalent of the fanatical "end times" Christian heresies that have provided so much political fuel for American intervention on behalf of Israel, especially under the George W. Bush administration.

The difference is in tone, Obama is a world apart from Bush yet neither is truly able to change something as ingrained in American politic as Americas difficult relationship with Israel. Mousavi would not change Iran's policies; but the President controls important apparatus of the state and can make difference to ordinary Iranians, The tone Iran's President is just as important globally as the tone the American president is able to set. Irans people are in favor of a nuclear program. Clinton was relaced by Bush, who knows what may follow Obama, I have no wish to see Iran end up like Iraq, least of all Iranians.

If Islamic republicanism is to have a chance of success Iran must be open to better human rights, and a better relationship with the outside world including the US, the young need jobs, not anti-western slogans, opportunities for a better life, not a leadership that dismisses all aspirations as materialism, the brain drain of Iran's best and brightest is painful.

Edited by Jawanmardan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
shall i make a prediction, in all probability the next country to use nukes will be israel

My late father was a smart man, and far sighted. A long time ago, he made two predictions of interest here. He predicted that the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviets would end, and that the two countries would wind up on the same side in world events. That came to pass. He also predicted that the next nuclear war would be in the Third World between two Third World countries. Since I consider Israel a Third World nation, I would include Israel in that prediction. However, I do not think Israel will be first to use nukes in the Third World. I think it is far more likely to be a nuclear war involving one of the following:

1. Pakistan and India

2. Iran and Israel

3. Iran and Saudi Arabia (Sunni v Shia, who hate each other like crazy)

Also on the list, and contrary to my father's prediction:

4. North Korea and Japan

5. A non-state entity ("terrorists") who get hold of nuclear material either from the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan and detonate a device in the West

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
The difference is in tone, Obama is a world apart from Bush yet neither is truly able to change something as ingrained in American politic as Americas difficult relationship with Israel. Mousavi would not change Iran's policies; but the President controls important apparatus of the state and can make difference to ordinary Iranians, The tone Iran's President is just as important globally as the tone the American president is able to set. Irans people are in favor of a nuclear program. Clinton was relaced by Bush, who knows what may follow Obama, I have no wish to see Iran end up like Iraq, least of all Iranians.

If Islamic republicanism is to have a chance of success Iran must be open to better human rights, and a better relationship with the outside world including the US, the young need jobs, not anti-western slogans, opportunities for a better life, not a leadership that dismisses all aspirations as materialism, the brain drain of Iran's best and brightest is painful.

I agree with these comments. One thing I would point out is that Obama has been president for only five months. It takes much longer than that to effect real change. However, even in that time Israel has been forced to at least theoretically allow for a so-called "two-state solution" on its border. I don't mean to overstate that development, because I don't consider Israel's offer to be in good faith, but it is a change. I think if Mousavi were to be allowed to take his rightful place in the Iranian presidency, it would be simultaneously easier for the U.S. and Iran to negotiate on the nuclear issue, and harder for the West to isolate Iran as the hardliners in this hemisphere have sought to do.

That's the baffling, and maybe even tragic, element here. Just as with the outrageous blunders committed by the U.S. in Iraq, it is difficult to sit and watch utter stupidity on the part of a country's leaders. Iran is making a series of mistakes that are directly contradictory to its own best interests, just as the Bush administration made a series of mistakes that were directly contradictory to America's best interests. Frustrating to watch. I think President Obama has been acting well here, trying not to back the Iranian regime into a corner. But he is merely an intelligent man, not a miracle worker.

Edited by curious american
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If the guy thinks he's channeling an 1,100-year-old nine-year-old who fell into a well and imagines the end of the world, I can say one thing. I don't care what the hell his religion is, I don't want Iran getting nukes. :o

And yet Christian Americans are happy to pay homage to a baby who was born in a stable.

They also believe in the end of the world and the "rapture" of 144,000 people into heaven.

We are going to get nukes - you can't stop us.

Mousavi is actually more conservative and more to the right than Ahmadinejad is.

When it comes to observance of hijab, I think he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a full internal consistency in Ahmadinejad. 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.

40 million angelical christian Zionists in the USA also believe in the return of Christ and Armageddon and apocalypse. these same people are more Zionist than the Jews and they justified and supported the direct theft of a land from its rightful owners (Palestine) under the pretext of this belief and other talmudic beliefs that the non-isralites must be reduced to slaves and wood cutters to serve god's chosen people.

You have to be a blind believer that god promised them that land to be able to justify the land grab don't you ? then you can say its not a theft but gods order right?

We all believe that these days are coming but the problem is that one mans christ will be another mans anti christ. and one mans messiah will be the other man's antichrist.

The Jews don't believe that Jesus was the promised messiah so they are still waiting for him and from my guess it will be the anti-christ because they have destroyed the fundamental belief in the divine unity of god which is the logical rejection of any limited God. Because of their idolatry their mind will be prepared to accept any Idol who preforms some miracles as God.

Nostradamus highlights about the muslim leader as well. The Jews and Christians think the Muslim one will be the anti-christ

as i said one mans Christ will be another man's anti-christ and so on... but the point being made is that this belief in the savior is rampant and agreed by all Muslims, Christians and Jews, even sunnies believe that almahdi will be born.

â–ª He views himself as the vassal of Mahdi, working for him and being accountable to him.

we have not heard of this but we hope he is.

▪ 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.

its every true Muslim's task to prepare for the Mahdi because he is the god chosen leader of our time. Destruction and bloodshed is only justified in selfdefence under the Islamic law. Jihad is a defensive war just like any rightful civilization which resorts to war in selfdefence. Targgetting innocent is prohibited by Islam.

â–ª As a former mayor of Tehran, he developed elaborate detailed plans preparing the city for the arrival of the Mahdi.

good move, civil engineers for Almahdi. I am sure Almahdi will need that.

â–ª 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.

it is not believed that he is hiding there all the time but it is believed that its one of the places he hide in or disappeared in am not sure.

â–ª He reportedly visits the well frequently and drops his written supplications into the well for the hidden Mahdi to act upon them.

I don't know if that place has any significance or if imam Almahdi receives letters there but for all I know it could be a lie who knows in this age of misinformation.

â–ª He has said in private that it was him who asked the Mahdi to inflict the massive stroke on Ariel Sharon.
how by praying to god through almahdi?
▪ 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.

not only he sees that but the Quraan agrees with that the verse says: "and you will find the most hateful against the believers the Jews and the associators"

the Jews don't hide their hostility for Islam. Mohamd always called them the people of the book and tolerated them and he didn't change his policy. yes he conflicted with them in selfdefence because they allied with the pagan worshiping arabs but until today our laws allows us to marry the Jewish woman while she keeps her religion. We also can eat their foods and regard the Jews closer to Us than the atheists or the pagan worshipers or hindus or buhddists.

and Imam Ali says: If he is not your brother in religion then he is your equivalent in creation.

Presenting the concept of tolerance.

â–ª He says that the Holocaust is a myth. He is, in this respect, in good company with a number of other revisionist claimants.

the holocaust is a myth does not mean that no innocent Jew was killed by natsy Germany.

70 million people died so how come only a select group of them are mourned and their tragedy regarded a holocaust? this is the myth..... the myth is that only Jews suffered and their suffering was the greatest of all other groups and is hence a holocaust and hence whatever crime they commit later is justified because they were oppressed.

its a myth when you ignore the deaths of 70 million and only regard the death of 6 million ( if that is true) to be the holocaust.

the myth is when the holocaust is seen as a purely Jewish suffering while the Jews at most constituted 6 million out of the 70 million that died.

the debate on the holocaust is not about whether or not the event took place but about the magnitude of the event. nejad said why are people not allowed to investigate the magnitude of that event? why are people allowed to deny the existence of the holiest being namely God almighty while others who doubt a historical event are put in prison?

and he also said if that event took place as they say why does it justify for them to steal the land of the Palestinians did the Palestinians perpetrated the holocaust? why should they pay back didn't the event happen in Europe and due to European racism??

â–ª He wants Israel to be wiped out of the map or transferred to Europe.

having in mind that Palestine is wiped off the map already... i challenge you to find Palestine on the atlas.... but the world admits that there is a nation that exists there but it is wiped off the map.

if you are trying to imply that Ahmadi wants the killing of all people in Israel then your laying because the man made it very clear that he wants it wiped from the map just like the soviet Union was wiped from the map and that means to disable the evil government and install a good government.

he made it clear many times that his hostility is not with Jews but with the Zionists who believe in and justify the theft of the land.

â–ª 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.

people were shocked when he was talking but i don't know about the light it might be some angels or some thing you never know. are you surprised?

my brother in law had a bomb explode in his face , his mother behind him died instantly with tonnes of sharpnal all over her while he mysteriously found himself in another spot in the instants of the explosion with few sharpnals on his shoulder from the back.

angels interfere in our lives but only when you are close to death you will see and remember.

▪ 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 doesn't believe people who don't believe must perish as he said we want to be friends with all nations and religions.

▪ 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 and 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.

yes the concept of martyrdom is in all abrahamic religions. remember Christians regard Jesus as a martyr.

but he never said for a faithful to just kill an infidel for the hell of it... faithful kills infidel in selfdefence because the faithful is not offensive but the faithless is offensive. Throughout history the people stripped from faith and morals are the offensive ones. its not a surprise for a faithless to be offensive when they don't believe in afterlife therefore don't believe in consequences for their actions therefore they can justify any action.

If you don't believe in afterlife and equilibrium then good and bad have NO meaning.

So what if i kill or steal?? is there any negative consequence? if there is on negative consequence why is it bad and how can you prove that its bad???

what incentive do i have to stop doing them?

a faithless only believes in himself so good and bad wil be relative and his selfishness will be the frame of reference.

there will be no absolute good and bad, good will be what is good for himself and bad will be whats bad for himself.

but when you belive in god you would belive in an absolute truth. some times whats good for you is bad for others and some times even what you think is good for you is actually bad for you.

There is nothing “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 a fanatic as lunatic or unhinged rather than squarely facing the likes of Ahmadinejad and Hitler will result in great suffering. And in the age of Weapons of Mass Destruction a man with huge sums of petrodollar can indeed serve as the catalyst of total annihilation. It is by far more prudent to err on the side of being an alarmist than a complacent dismissive. Humanity cannot afford to ignore the emergence of the final thereat to its very existence on this planet.

the real danger is not the believers the real danger is the hypocrites and the nonbelievers.. because in their belief "the aim justifies the means " regardless of how bad the means are like heroshima and nakazaki.. people still justify it.

in Islam " the good Aim justifies the Rightful means" so the aim doesnt justify any means which is not sanctioned by the instruction of islam.

For example Iran is the only country in the world with its religious authority namely Ali Khaminie who prohibited the use and building of nuclear weapons...

I challenge the USA who believes that they stand in a moral high-ground while they are the only dirty power who used this dirty weapon to write in their constitution that building developing and using nuclear weapons is prohibited.

in the Islamic constitution collective punishment is haraam as god says in the quraan:

"no one should carry the burden of the other"

also Quraan rejects preemption in attacking others liek what the USA is doing now. Quran says:

" most of them follow the suspicion and the suspicion doesn't suffice from the truth"

Which means a suspect is innocent Until proven guilty. The USA wants to attack Iran over an alleged crime that Iran MIGHT commit in the future.... just look at the moral highground.

so who is the danger?

Edited by alimohamad40
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...