2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#7,426
#7,426
mrorange211 said:
Anti-Muslim rhetoric is dangerous. And there are Muslim soldiers in the US Army. She said some stupid $hit last night, and this is what upsets you?
Click to expand...

As someone who doesn't believe in God, yes. I'm so sick of people defending muslims as if their religion is based on love and peace. That's not true at all... their book tells them to kill non-believers. Their book says to lie and deceive to spread islam. You understand that people who believe in this stuff think there is another world/realm, right? I don't, so to me it's nuts. It's nuts that these people are devoted to putting the world back into the stone age over their belief that a horse flew to space to get to heaven. Is heaven past space and hell is in the center of the earth? I'd think they're totally different realms but I guess space cowboy muhammad literally flew through space on a winged horse to get to paradise. As someone who has done a ton of drugs when I was younger, how can sober people not only believe this to be true but devote their life to it.

If you've met a true christian, you'd know that they put God's law above man made law(even though the 10 commandments are man made imo)... right? So if christians think God and Jesus are more important than what happens here on earth, they're at least following a prophet that says to love and forive. Muslims who truly follow their prophet and scripture is the entire basis of the formation of isis. That's the junk they preach and that's what truly putting Allah first requires. Islam believed it's the only way, that they're the last and final religion and they're adamant on making muhammad's prophecy come true. So yeah, I'm pretty bothered that people defend this horrible ideology, let alone some liar that lets her husband cheat on her because she needs his name. She's trash and should be banned from running. Her husband was impeached after winning the right to be president. Well, she shouldn't have the right to run at all.



Forbes Welcome

Is Barack Obama the “promised warrior” coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?

The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Commanding “the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”

In a curious coincidence Obama’s first and second names–Barack Hussein–mean “the blessing of Hussein” in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means “he is with us,” the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama’s rise as another sign of the West’s decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama’s promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama’s position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a “systematic violator of human rights.”

Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is “a state sponsor of terrorism.” Instead, he uses the term “violent groups” to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.



Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.

Obama’s election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad’s entourage claim that his “steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan” was a factor in helping Obama defeat “hardliners” such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.

“President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson,” says Hassan Abbasi, a “strategic adviser” to the Iranian president. “This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran’s power.” The Iranian leader’s entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan “Yes, We Can” from Ahmadinejad’s “We Can,” used four years ago.



A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an “enemy of Islam.” A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama “a better choice for everyone.” Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic “prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House” next year.

Tehran’s penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.

Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a “sunset” (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a “sunrise” (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America–attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.

Seen from Tehran, Obama’s election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.

During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show “understanding of Muslim grievances” with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the “Iranian solution for Palestine,” which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.

Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.

Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.
Click to expand...
 
#7,427
#7,427
n_huffhines said:
Oh I missed it.

I think it's 12 and 13? I never get the numbers right, but it's the ones that allowed the federal government to turn the bill of rights on the states.

And when I say "illegally passed", I mean that the southern states were coerced to vote for it, and West Virginia was illegally recognized as a state, and it was one of the deciding votes.
Click to expand...

14th I think is what you're looking for.

Kind of an odd stance on West Virginia. The same reasons the Confederacy gave for leaving the Union was the same reasons WV gave for staying.
 
#7,428
#7,428
TOP said:
As someone who doesn't believe in God, yes. I'm so sick of people defending muslims as if their religion is based on love and peace. That's not true at all... their book tells them to kill non-believers. Their book says to lie and deceive to spread islam. You understand that people who believe in this stuff think there is another world/realm, right? I don't, so to me it's nuts. It's nuts that these people are devoted to putting the world back into the stone age over their belief that a horse flew to space to get to heaven. Is heaven past space and hell is in the center of the earth? I'd think they're totally different realms but I guess space cowboy muhammad literally flew through space on a winged horse to get to paradise. As someone who has done a ton of drugs when I was younger, how can sober people not only believe this to be true but devote their life to it.

If you've met a true christian, you'd know that they put God's law above man made law(even though the 10 commandments are man made imo)... right? So if christians think God and Jesus are more important than what happens here on earth, they're at least following a prophet that says to love and forive. Muslims who truly follow their prophet and scripture is the entire basis of the formation of isis. That's the junk they preach and that's what truly putting Allah first requires. Islam believed it's the only way, that they're the last and final religion and they're adamant on making muhammad's prophecy come true. So yeah, I'm pretty bothered that people defend this horrible ideology, let alone some liar that lets her husband cheat on her because she needs his name. She's trash and should be banned from running. Her husband was impeached after winning the right to be president. Well, she shouldn't have the right to run at all.



Forbes Welcome
Click to expand...

Famous Muslim Americans that have not blown themselves up in the name of Allah:

Ice Cube
Dave Chappelle
Mike Tyson
Dr. Oz
Cat Stevens
Muhammed Ali
Casey Kasum
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,429
#7,429
Grand Vol said:
Thanks for the in depth answer.

A follow up since we've got you on the hook. Do you think the people of Iran want a regional superpower status for their nation? I'm pretty sure that's what the government is aiming for. But do they have the people's support in that?
Click to expand...

In Iran, you have educated people who dislike the current regime, and uneducated people who are very poor and religious who like the regime. But I'm biased because I don't like the regime. I'm simply not very religious. Most of the rural Iranians are in favor of the regime, but almost all of the young liberal Iranians in the major cities have grown to detest the current regime. Urban 25 year olds want to have fun, hijabs and strict rules aren't fun. Every blue moon there is a pseudo election of a prime minister that gives the country the false belief that they have a say, but they obviously don't. The ayatollah has the last word. After the 2009 rigged election, it gave young Iranians a reason to protest and ignite change. It was on many news stations for much of the summer, but then Michael Jackson died, and coincidentally as the lack of international attention became evident, the protesting died down. But to answer your question, no. Iranian citizens don't care that much about being a superpower in their region as much as being given basic rights and a normal economy. In reality, the economic crisis because of the sanctions is much more important to them than foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,430
#7,430
Persian Vol said:
In Iran, you have educated people who dislike the current regime, and uneducated people who are very poor and religious who like the regime. But I'm biased because I don't like the regime. I'm simply not very religious. Most of the rural Iranians are in favor of the regime, but almost all of the young liberal Iranians in the major cities have grown to detest the current regime. Urban 25 year olds want to have fun, hijabs and strict rules aren't fun. Every blue moon there is a pseudo election of a prime minister that gives the country the false belief that they have a say, but they obviously don't. The ayatollah has the last word. After the 2009 rigged election, it gave young Iranians a reason to protest and ignite change. It was many news stations for much of the summer, but then Michael Jackson died, and coincidentally as the lack of international attention became evident, the protesting died down.
Click to expand...

it doesn't help that Barack Obama decided to prop up the regime
 
#7,431
#7,431
Persian Vol said:
I don't think the people of Iran cared that much about religion, but more about getting rid of the shah. Ayatollah Khomeini gathered a lot of support not because the Iran populace were in that much support of a theocracy, but that they just wanted change. It was unfortunate that he became the opposition.

I don't believe that if mossadegh were in power, that he would have been replaced with a theocracy. He was a good leader, and was well liked. And I think Iran would have been able to handle a democracy. Iran in general has always been much more internally stable than the other middle eastern countries. Iran has a very rich history and culture. A democratic Iran would have been very similar to modern day Turkey, but probably nicer.
Click to expand...

I agree with the bold part.

But I still think you're making too many assumptions. Yes, Iran is different to other countries in the region, but there are trends that permeate. One trend being that democracy is traditionally unstable or non-existent in the region (apart from Israel). It may not have been a theocracy that took control but some other quasi-dictatorship.

I will concede the a stable democracy MAY have existed in Iran if Operation Ajax never happened. There's no denying that the coup was a strategic error by the Brits and Americans.
 
Last edited:
#7,432
#7,432
Grand Vol said:
14th I think is what you're looking for.

Kind of an odd stance on West Virginia. The same reasons the Confederacy gave for leaving the Union was the same reasons WV gave for staying.
Click to expand...

But the states were supposed to be sovereign. It was a common belief that states had the power to secede. It was Virginia's property. Virginia wasn't the US government's property.
 
#7,435
#7,435
alexmanu said:
I agree with the bold part.

But I still think you're making too many assumptions. Yes, Iran is different to other countries in the region, but there are trends that permeate. One trend being that democracy is traditionally unstable or non-existent in the region (apart from Israel). It may not have been a theocracy that took control but some other quasi-dictatorship.

I will concede the a stable democracy MAY have existed in Iran if Operation Ajax never happened. There's no denying that the coup was a strategic error by the Brits and Americans.
Click to expand...

It is true that there is no way to foresee the course of how an Iranian democracy would have played out during the 50s, but I do think there is a higher probability that it would have been maintained than that another group would take over the democracy. I simply don't see any reason why Iran would undergo a revolution down the road if it had a democracy to begin with.

Like I said, I don't think Iranian revolutionaries in 79' were begging to be stripped of rights and be forced to live under shariah law when they were overthrowing the shah. They hated the Shah and were caught up in the moment, and any alternative was a better alternative. There was no reason to think mossadegh would have been overthrown other than the fact that the country resides in a region that is not very stable. But that itself should not be enough of a reason to believe that he would have been
overthrown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,438
#7,438
n_huffhines said:
But the states were supposed to be sovereign. It was a common belief that states had the power to secede. It was Virginia's property. Virginia wasn't the US government's property.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm saying the Confederate States claimed the central government wasn't looking out for their best interests. And it's the same rationale used by West Virginia to remove itself from the State thereof and stay with the Union. They felt the 25 counties involved didn't belong to Virginia and should be allowed their own destiny.

It was also a stick in the eye of the Confederacy for Lincoln to welcome them into the Union. But lest you forget, it's the same way Maine became a State in 1820.
 
#7,439
#7,439
We overthrew the Iranian democracy. Replaced it with a monarch. The CIA then helped the monarch set up a secret police to kill and harass those who didn't fall in line.

And people ask, "why don't they like us?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,440
#7,440
Vol8188 said:
We overthrew the Iranian democracy. Replaced it with a monarch. The CIA then helped the monarch set up a secret police to kill and harass those who didn't fall in line.

And people ask, "why don't they like us?"
Click to expand...

I think I'll get my Iranian history from PV. Everyone knows what happens when you start trying to state historical facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,442
#7,442
Grand Vol said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm saying the Confederate States claimed the central government wasn't looking out for their best interests. And it's the same rationale used by West Virginia to remove itself from the State thereof and stay with the Union. They felt the 25 counties involved didn't belong to Virginia and should be allowed their own destiny.

It was also a stick in the eye of the Confederacy for Lincoln to welcome them into the Union. But lest you forget, it's the same way Maine became a State in 1820.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Since we're talking constitution, I was speaking specifically from a legal standpoint.
 
#7,443
#7,443
Vol8188 said:
Ummmm, the leader we over threw had been elected
Click to expand...

He'd been elected to the Majles in a democratic vote but his nomination as Prime Minister was done by the Shah's deputies int he Majles.

There's no doubt he was a popular figure and elected to the Iranian Parliament by popular vote. But the control of who was to be Prime Minister was done in a very oligarchical way.

Then again it's hard to argue that Iran wasn't a democracy of sorts then. Many Western countries have similar systems of Prime Ministerial appointments.

Maybe my point should've been framed more clearly as the appetite for democracy to remain.
 
#7,444
#7,444
alexmanu said:
He'd been elected to the Majles in a democratic vote but his nomination as Prime Minister was done by the Shah's deputies int he Majles.

There's no doubt he was a popular figure and elected to the Iranian Parliament by popular vote. But the control of who was to be Prime Minister was done in a very oligarchical way.

Then again it's hard to argue that Iran wasn't a democracy of sorts then. Many Western countries have similar systems of Prime Ministerial appointments.

Maybe my point should've been framed more clearly as the appetite for democracy to remain.
Click to expand...

However they want to elect prime ministers can't be any dumber than delegates and the electoral college
 
#7,445
#7,445
distrovol said:
This is what I'm talking about. Even though the church might not run it, you can trust their judgement in its tacit endorsement of said group. They kinda vet the group so your fellow members can be reasonably sure the money is going to a good place.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
 
#7,446
#7,446
Vol8188 said:
However they want to elect prime ministers can't be any dumber than delegates and the electoral college
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly, Western countries have similar democratic mechanisms. But the composition of the Iranian Parliament (Majles) was many feudal landowners at the time.

I know I studied Iran in the context of 20th century British Imperialism so it's hard to get past the irony that their form of democracy was very similar to the British one.

The main reason I question the assumption that a stable democracy would've remained in Iran is because of the regional instability and history of quasi-dictatorships rising up in the region in the latter part of the 20th century.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top