.
This guy’s craziness has no bounds.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims the United States is attempting to thwart the return of mankind’s savior, according to reports from Al Arabiya, a television news station based in Dubai.
Ahmadinejad reportedly claims he has documented evidence that the U.S. is blocking the return of Mahdi, the Imam believed by Muslims to be the savior.
“We have documented proof that they believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts and he will dry the roots of all injustice in the world,” Ahmadinejad said during a speech on Monday, according to Al Arabiya.
“They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule.”
As frighteningly ridiculous as his words are, what is more frightening is that I agree with this madman on his next point.
“In Afghanistan, they are caught like an animal in a quagmire. But instead of pulling their troops out to save themselves, they are deploying more soldiers. Even if they stay in Afghanistan for another 50 years they will be forced to leave with disgrace — because this is a historical experience.”
I fear he is right.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
.
 |
He is right on both counts. The US is so corrupt that we are moving away from any savior or saving grace. And yes the Russians were smart to get out when hey did from Afghanistan. It will be worse than Vietnam.
Dang!! The secret is out. I’m sure it’s Obama’s fault the “Ultra Top Secret Plan” to block the return of the Mahdi has been revealed.
Let me check with Rush, Sean and Glenn to see if they are on to this yet!!!
And reluctantly, I might have to agree with you on part 2, given the way we conduct “war” these days.
@Ya’ll: Finally today, the New York Times did a front page story on the oppressed Iranian protesters. This has been holding my interest since the fraudeulent election took place 6 months ago. Much good has come out of this. It’s difficult to believe that out of a theorcracy, any good can come from the ashes of its own disolution. American-wise, we thought the Iranians hated us, wanting us drawn & quartered & sent straight to hell. I began a Twitter account because of the Iran election & the protesters. I began Tweeting information excessively. It was a calling so to speak. I met many people there that said they *didn’t* hate us. Some of course do, but in the states, we have people that love to hate too. It’s on both sides. I started tweeting information up to 12 hours a day, so, I feel I have a vested interest in their well being. Their passion has inspired me.
Ahmadinejad’s days are few. His own clerics & Ayatollahs have conveyed such discourse against him & the election that it’s almost impossible for him to stay in power. Some of the women that were executed were tortured & raped prior to their death. One guard in particular, forced each one into a forced marriage ceremony so that he could rape them because rape is not a crime there, IF you are married. Torture has been predominant, but it has not gone unnoticed because of their use of the Internet. I would think the Republicans would see how dangerous torture is, no matter how it’s justified. All they have to do is look & they would see, that the world is still watching Iran. Keeping torture a secret, makes it even more malignant. The last administration did nothing patriotic when they tortured people. They made us even more like the theocratic country, Iran & it’s notorious regime.
If the insane Ahmadinejad was truly spiritual, he would know that Mahdi is supposed to return with Jesus Christ, so if he believes his own insanity, he would have to think that we want to prevent our own savior’s return. That is their belief, not mine. He won’t go to any sort of heaven, of that, I am sure. Perhaps he is preventing Mahdi’s return. Unless, he wants to go to hell?
-Anomaly-
Hell? Please define hell.
ME, thirty minutes alone in a room with Frances??
Okay. Okay. Okay!!! Let me clarify. That would be my PERSONAL hell. (Probably hers too.)
I would like to see a comparison between the Iranian’s version of torture and the Republican’s version.
And anon, I commend you for your “tweeting” efforts.
“Ahmadinejad reportedly claims he has documented evidence that the U.S. is blocking the return of Mahdi, the Imam believed by Muslims to be the savior.”
I thought we elected him POTUS.
THOMAS (MIDDLE NAME) PANE!!! Oh no you did’unt!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcJyCdbC08c
Funny how Ahmadinejad can be so wrong on the first point and so right on the second one. A very strange man.
Iran is an example of a country at the extreme end of the right wing political scale. North Korea is a good example of a country at the extreme end of the left wing. Let’s just protect the middle. (I don’t know if this comment belongs here, but I do know the beer is tasting good tonight)
Tommy Pane, I’m curious why you associate a totalitarian dictatorship, where the ruler is allowing his people to literally starve to death because he uses all the country’s money to fund his personal extravagances, with leftist extremism. Can you elaborate? I mean, by definition, extremism in either direction is not a good political situation – I understand that.
When I think of leftist extremists in this country, I think Squeaky Fromme (who tried to assassinate Pres. Ford) or the Simbionese Liberation Army (the organization that kidnapped Patty Hurst). When I think of right wing extremists, I think of abortion clinic bombers and Tim McVeigh. I don’t think anyone in this country wants to lay claim to either of those extremes.
All the stuff that’s in between is pretty much assorted flavors of normal people.
@tommy pane
Can you describe exactly how you think the North Korean government is an example of extreme left wing?
If you think of the political center as a point at which individuals have the freedom to believe what they want and keep what they own, and that government’s role is to protect its citizen’s rights to enjoy those freedoms, any action taken by the government to limit either of those freedoms moves the scale to the left or the right.
For example, attempting to impose religious beliefs on its citizens is a move by a government to the right. Hence my distain for the Religious Right and my statement that Iran is an example of it in the extreme. (Saudi Arabia is a better example) They want to control what you believe.
Forming a society in which everyone shares equally is the goal of the left. The left imposes restrictions on property ownership by increasing the tax burden on its citizens, and by heavily regulating activities “for the public good”. Building codes, eminent domain laws, environmental protection regulations, smoking bans, seat-belt laws, etc., are ways in which those on the left use regulation to control behavior. Political correctness in speech is another method. Hate crimes are another. When you hear the term “leftist government”, you think of third world dictatorships. The property is owned by the state, and its citizens are not allowed to speak against the government.
The trend from the center to the right ends with a government like Saudi Arabia. The trend from the center to the left ends with a government like North Korea.
Here’s a link to a Wikipedia article on the left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Here’s another link to a report about the extreme left that was written in early 2001.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/left.pdf
Government has a necessary role in a free society. Limiting the freedoms of respectful citizens should not be one of those roles.
@Tommy Pane: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I’m not sure that you can use other governmental models to project the extreme conditions that are possible within the parameters of the US governmental framework though. In other words, the variables don’t fit into our equation.
The extremes you note are ones of total military control versus total theocratic control (a military junta and a theocracy), both of which are not possible in the US since we are protected from both the military and religion by the Constitution. A happy medium of government would be far from a blend of military and religious control. In fact, I think Iran is one such situation, and it doesn’t really work for the people.
A spectrum that could be applied to the US is the two extremes of total government control on one end and total anarchy on the other. It is the desire to not have either of those extreme situations that keeps our nation in balance.
Your thoughts?
Oh, and here are some additional thoughts on systems of government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA&feature=related
Extremes are just destinations. Any destination is reachd by taking one step at a time.
Our constitution specifically says that the powers of the federal government are limited to those described in the Constitution, and that the states retain the bulk of the power. The federal government now dictates its terms to the states.
The Bill of Rights was written to describe what the government could not do to imped the rights of individuals. That’s been subverted to imply that individuals should have rights “to” some material things, and that certain groups are entitled to rights initially intended only for individuals.
The initial form of government implemented by the Founders did not give enough power to the central government, so they replaced it with the current Constitution. They understood the tyranny possible under an overly powerful central government, hence their first effort. The final result necessarily increased the power of the central government, but was written in such a way as to specifically limit its power.
In a step by step process, the federal government is increasing it’s power and control, and that’s what worries guys like me.
@Tommy Pane: What, in your estimation, is the realistic worst-case scenario that could befall this country? I don’t believe that either a military junta, nor a theocracy are possible if you extrapolate our system of government to either extreme.
I understand your objection to taxation and distribution of revenue. You consider that to be a direct threat to your liberty, if I understand correctly. But this is why we have representation – we are not taxed without it.
I think the framers of the Constitution realized that the best way to protect government and insure its continuance was to incorporate protection of the people FROM government into its very structure .
Frances says, “A spectrum that could be applied to the US is the two extremes of total government control on one end and total anarchy on the other. It is the desire to not have either of those extreme situations that keeps our nation in balance.”
You and Glenn Beck are in complete agreement. Beck does a “Blackboard” thing featuring a graph with “No Government” on one end of a line and “Total Government” on the other. I couldn’t find a video of Beck’s Presentation. I did however find this video. I’m not sure if it is a “Beck” product or not. If it’s not, then it may well be where he got his ideas from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_uY9y8LOio&feature=player_embedded#
Frances says, “But this is why we have representation – we are not taxed without it.”
To a large degree, that is not exactly true. They are supposed to “represent” the will of the people. Rarely do they do that.
Frances – The video posted by TN is a good tutorial. Thanks TN.
In my viewpoint, citizens who are incapable of controlling themselves, are controlled by laws. They need to be told what to do. Progressives tend to think that people are not capable of controlling themselves, and need to be told what to do, so they write more laws.
As people turn over responsibility for their lives to central government, they also turn over control to change it. Every new law that’s written restricts more of our freedoms. It’s a step by step process to a fundemental, constitutional change.
“…five days from now we will fundamentally change America.”
Actually laws are typically written in response to an event. For example, there is a car accident because some one runs a stop sign. The other person dies, there is no law on the books punishing the person who ran the stop sign, so the legislature passes a law for punishing.
The bulk of humanity is not capable of controlling themselves. We have created a society of laws and morals and we currently live within that society.
In Utopian there would be no need for laws because everyone would control themselves
@Tommy Pane, is there a civil society that exists without laws? Do you view laws as things that are meant to control you or as things that are meant to protect you from those who cannot control themselves? There will always be people who cannot control themselves and there will always be people who, for whatever reason, will need protection.
I would rather talk about theories of government rather than politics. If you would like to discuss the topic of Progressives and social justice, then that would be better left to another time.
Re: the video, FYI: Hitler didn’t rise to power amidst a state of anarchy.
Janine and Frances – I don’t propose a society void of laws. I also don’t believe we need to be as regulated by our government as we have become. Bureaucratic regulations seem to be the insiped little danger of an ever growing government. Governments have the purpose of governing. As government gets larger, we become more governed.
“Post war Germany was certainly no utopia; there was famine, depression, anarchy and social upheaval. The general citizens were all desperately searching for someone to take charge of the situation, and someone did, the Nazi party.”
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Nazi-Party-Able-Gain-Power-Because/140276
“Adolf Hitler, a charismatic, Austrian-born demagogue, rose to power in Germany during the 1920s and early 1930s at a time of social, political, and economic upheaval.”
http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html
In the context of the video, where the narrator defined anarchy as the total absence of government, it is incorrect to say that Hitler came to power amidst anarchy.
Maybe. Did you learn anything new from the video?
@Tommy Pane it was generally stuff I already knew, and I agree with the abstract concepts for the most part. However, I disagree with some of the specifics – where he was able to be specific when covering “The History of World Governments” in the space of 7 minutes.
I think it was purposely produced with the our current society’s short attention span in mind.
Tommy, if you can find it, Glenn Beck explains Frances’ thoughts quite well.
Tommy Pane says: “I think it was purposely produced with the current society’s short attention span in mind.”
I consider it to be more of a launchpad – if it inspires people to learn more about the subject.
That works for me Frances