Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
That article had no sources, do you happen to have a transcript of what the Ayatollah Khamenei said exactly? Also they're enriching Uranium which to my knowledge can also be used for energy purposes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should the US Distance Itself from Israel?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That article had no sources, do you happen to have a transcript of what the Ayatollah Khamenei said exactly? Also they're enriching Uranium which to my knowledge can also be used for energy purposes.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm, it's a very small article from FOX News, the same people who told me Ahmadinejad said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map". You cannot blame me for being skeptical, however with respect I asked for a transcript of what Ayatollah Khamenei said in Febuary 2010 which the Sodahead article was talking about.
The FOX News link you sent me was a story from 2006 regarding Ahmadinejad.
EDIT: Oh and don't forget, just like with the "wipe Israel off the map" thing, it may very well be possible that the sodahead article is another misquotation.
Last edited:
Rio Sabinas
Old Geezer
Please correct me if I'm wrong...
It's my understanding that Iran's leaders want to hasten the return of the Madhi (Messia). To do this means creating as much anarchy & havoc in the world as possible.
To me, thinking you can influence God's timetable is an "Arrogance" that knows no boundries.
It's my understanding that Iran's leaders want to hasten the return of the Madhi (Messia). To do this means creating as much anarchy & havoc in the world as possible.
To me, thinking you can influence God's timetable is an "Arrogance" that knows no boundries.
Alceste
Vagabond
I think any Western aid or strategic support for Israel should be tied to the requirement that Israel immediately begin to comply with the Geneva Conventions on human rights, dismantle their illegal West Bank settlements, dismantle or realign their wall wherever it separates Palestinian farmers from their fields and fairly negotiate the boundaries for a separate and autonomous Palestinian state.
The US has a particularly irritating policy of supporting everything Israel ever does, however unanimous the opposition from the rest of the members of the UN happens to be. If they would stop vetoing every meaningful UN resolution relating to the conflict, progress towards peace could begin.
The US has a particularly irritating policy of supporting everything Israel ever does, however unanimous the opposition from the rest of the members of the UN happens to be. If they would stop vetoing every meaningful UN resolution relating to the conflict, progress towards peace could begin.
Last edited:
croak
Trickster
I think Fundamentalist Christians believe that. In any case:
Mahdi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Mahdi or Mehdi comes before Jesus (the Messiah). There are various signs that are said to signify his return. I don't know about the leaders, but it is a belief among Shi'as. And I don't know anything about anarchy and havoc being created to hasten his arrival (although that is a belief concerning the Apocalypse among many). So... I would say you're wrong.
And I would think they don't want havoc and anarchy. But that's just me.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I agree
The US has a particularly irritating policy of supporting everything Israel ever does :yes:
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
The Iranian leader's mentor thinks war would hasten the Mahdi's return:
Ahmadinejad's messianic connections | Meir Javedanfar | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Iran: Mahdi will defeat archenemy in Jerusalem - Israel News, Ynetnews
Ahmadinejad talking about his mystical visions during his speech in the UN General Assembly:
[youtube]j2dde95hxT8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2dde95hxT8
croak
Trickster
All right, finished looking at each. Let's go link by link.
Also, no one appears to have greater direct influence on the President than Khamenei.
And the clincher:
So, since the article doesn't refer to Ahmadinejad specifically holding those views, and since it really doesn't matter, because Khamenei is the real one in power (and he does not share those beliefs), I don't see the havoc and anarchy I mentioned.
So pure and devout somehow translates to "we must wage war so the Mahdi will return"?
I was worried that you may have found things to contradict what I said, but I would have accepted being wrong. It was just an idea, anyway. Yet I have seen no evidence to counter the hypothesis that "they don't want havoc and anarchy". (Hm, started using random big words.)
Would you accept the fact that none of what you said counters what I said? If not, please enlighten me to something I may have missed.
Just because Ahmadinejad was a student of Mesbah Yazdi's does not mean he shares all his beliefs, and to the same extremes.
guardian.co.uk said:
Also, no one appears to have greater direct influence on the President than Khamenei.
guardian.co.uk said:
And the clincher:
First of all, few believe that war would hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. And even if Ahmadinejad agrees with that view (it is not mentioned explicitly), it is ultimately Ayatollah Khamenei that calls the shots.guardian.co.uk said:
So, since the article doesn't refer to Ahmadinejad specifically holding those views, and since it really doesn't matter, because Khamenei is the real one in power (and he does not share those beliefs), I don't see the havoc and anarchy I mentioned.
Looks like the website they linked to no longer exists (the page, anyway). Also, it's from 2006 (half a decade ago?) and I still see no havoc and anarchy. Finally, it only seems to refer what people believe will happen after the return of the Mahdi. If you don't believe in him, there doesn't seem to be anything to fear.
Aaand... I watched 8:57 minutes to... learn that Ahmadinejad believed he was surrounded by an aura of light? What does that have to do with havoc and anarchy? In fact:
YouTube said:
So pure and devout somehow translates to "we must wage war so the Mahdi will return"?
I was worried that you may have found things to contradict what I said, but I would have accepted being wrong. It was just an idea, anyway. Yet I have seen no evidence to counter the hypothesis that "they don't want havoc and anarchy". (Hm, started using random big words.)
Would you accept the fact that none of what you said counters what I said? If not, please enlighten me to something I may have missed.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
There are many religious opinions within Iran like in other countries, and Ahmadinejad as the article says promotes the political influence of Yazdi. Yazdi has supported Ahmadinejad in his campaign in the 2005 elections in which Ahmadinejad has won. one of the 'messianic colleagues' of Ahmadinejad mentioned by the article is secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. he is the chief nuclear negotiator of Iran.
so again, while not everyone in the Iranian elite have the same theological background, the messianic Mahdi issue is used by figures such as Ahmadinejad in politics, and in elections, because of the sway it might have on the Iranian masses. the Mahdi philosophy is also politically played in Lebanon and Iraq, militias in Iraq such as the 'Mahdi Army' have been carrying the messianic Ideologies linked to the Mahdi and the end time scenario leading to the Islamic judgment day.
Less than 4 years ago sounds more realistic than 'half a decade ago'.
before the era after the arrival of the Mahdi comes, the end of days events must take place namely an apocalyptic battle.
I think its important to understand that a world leader claims to have mystical visions while making speeches in the UN. being surrounded by white light and what not. it's not reassuring considering his personal religious beliefs.
Did you expect him to talk about the apocalyptic battle that needs to take place before the return of the Mahdi? they interviewers themselves said this part was intentionally left out.
All you have said is that they do not want havoc. but that is exactly what they have in Iran. and the trends by Iranian figures such as Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust and to make provocative gestures are certainly a source of more strife. the belief held by many about the apocalyptic events that need to take place before the arrival of the Mahdi are used as a political card to sway masses of people, or as an inspiration for insurgency in Iraq. so the phenomena exists, at least to a certain extent. how it is handled and contained by the expanded political spectrum of Iran's elite is another question.
Last edited:
croak
Trickster
And the most influential religious presence is not 'messianic'. And, like you said, there are many religious opinions. I am saying that the Iranian government, overall, is highly unlike to take a stance whereupon they would declare war to hasten his arrival. And since they'd likely need the okay from Khamenei, and he'd likely say no, I don't foresee that happening. (Of course, I'm no mind reader, and things could change.)
Ah, good point. It was published 31 December. Bad choice of words, I apologize.
That doesn't mean that wreaking havoc, causing a possible apocalyptic battle, would necessarily mean that the Mahdi would come. There have been many wars throughout history, and like other religions, everyone probably thought the war they were living was the apocalypse. And some probably welcomed war. But most people realize that starting a war won't necessarily bring the Mahdi, and most people wouldn't want a war period. Because, you know, they could get killed and all.
They might pray for it, but going out of their way to cause it?
If he thought he could burn people, I would be more concerned. I wonder how many people might have beliefs like that, but obviously don't articulate them?
The interviewers said that? I didn't hear anything about that. And even if he said that... what's the problem? Christians talk about Revelation. I don't see people getting worried all the Christian leaders will encourage strife in the hopes of starting that apocalyptic battle.
Having havoc is different than wanting it. (On a side note, did he deny the Holocaust or call for a revision of some of the historical facts? Not a rhetorical question, by the way.) The belief of the Mahdi is a very old belief. I'm not sure if all Shi'as believe it, but definitely many, if not most. And yet it looks like there hasn't been a widespread call to bring it about.
Again, all I'm saying is your average bloke does not want war, and among the Iranian elite, those beliefs (at least so far as causing war) are rare. I'm not saying the Iranians will never declare war, but I doubt they would if they didn't have to, or hadn't felt a political need to.
To quote:
I don't see Iran's agenda being to turn the whole world against it so they declare war and maybe nuke Iran off the face of the Earth. Many places may now want this, but that doesn't mean the Iranians want this to hasten the return of the Mahdi.
MY POINT: I don't think the Mahdi is a major factor in shaping Iranian foreign policy. Maybe a seperate thread could be started about how the Mahdi is to blame for Ahmadinejad's views. Personally, I don't see this going anywhere.
And I felt I was mostly repeating myself in this post. Apologies for that.
Rio Sabinas
Old Geezer
I humbly stand corrected...Thanks to all.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
I usually say, that as much as the Iranian regime orchestrates disturbing realities within Iran, promotes a dystopian state for its citizens, and runs proxy wars, it is also a *stable* regime in the sense that while it might use some propaganda which is out there, they will do what they can to use realitistic politics in order to maintain their position. so no, I would not expect them to do anything dramatically crazy.
I don't find it reassuring when world politicians believing they are part of a supernatural story. how would democrats feel if Obama would describe how he was surrounded by white light during a speech in the UN assembly. its just lunacy.
The video also says there there are Iranians who are worried about the Iranian leader who may be reorienting their nations's politics around the Mahdi's return. just like many Americans are criticizing Christian fundamentalists' apocalyptic dogma.
Semantics. I find it absurd that the Iranian leadership tries to revision WWII, what possible reason? does the fact that the same leadership calls Israel 'the little Satan' has anything to do with it? what major part did Iran play in WWII, how is it possibly involved in the scholarship of WWII? and when does real scholarship comes in instead of implying that Jews want to dominate the world.
The Mahdi is central in Shia Islam. that doesn't mean that most Shiites believe they can hasten his coming.
Doc
Space Chief
America should absolutely support Israel. America has and should continue to support those nations with similar values to our own. We support Israel for the same reason we support Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They are liberal democracies and far preferable to their thuggish opponents (Hamas, Hezbollah, North Korea, China)
Israel is a Westernized, liberal state with gender equality, equality for homosexuals, free press, and basically all the liberties of America. Should we abandon our allies simply because it makes brutal, thug regimes whine and cry? I don't think so. To abandon Israel, Poland, the Czechs, Korea, Taiwan and others, is to abandon the liberal internationalism enshrined by Harry Truman. It's to abandon the belief in democracy.
Israel is a Westernized, liberal state with gender equality, equality for homosexuals, free press, and basically all the liberties of America. Should we abandon our allies simply because it makes brutal, thug regimes whine and cry? I don't think so. To abandon Israel, Poland, the Czechs, Korea, Taiwan and others, is to abandon the liberal internationalism enshrined by Harry Truman. It's to abandon the belief in democracy.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Oh, please. Before we all get our panties in a bunch about Israel, how about the US distancing itself from Saudi Arabia, where women can't go out in public alone, or show their faces; where the government imprisons and kills gay people; where they cut off people's hands and feet for punishments, and execution can still be by beheading-- not to mention their tacit support for Muslim extremism throughout the world. How about the US distancing itself from Russia, which is half run by gangsters and half by former KGB agents, they sell arms to anyone and everyone who can pay, and they gleefully kill Chechens and Georgians by the carload lot, not to mention keeping a huge percentage of their own people in poverty. How about the US distancing itself from China, which oppresses all its citizens six ways from Sunday, to say nothing of international arms sales, or mass involuntary population shifts, ethnic cleansing, and brutal suppression of dissenters. How about the US distancing itself from pretty much every damn country in South and Central America, where drug lords and petty terrorists run the governments, people get killed on a daily basis, and the environment is getting shredded. How about the US distancing itself from Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, where the "justice systems" are positively medieval, and raped women get beaten and killed for "acting like whores." How about the US distancing itself from itself: we're killing way, way, way more Iraqi and Afghani civilians than Israel has ever killed Palestinians, and for way less reasons. Out government is greedy, corrupt, and both the government and the military are full of religious fanatics who'd love to take away everyone's rights and spread Christian imperialism throughout the world if they could.
But no...we should definitely worry about Israel first. That's not a double standard or anything. There's nothing anti-Semitic in that....
I am not concerned in this thread with whether the US should distance itself from Saudi Arabia, and to suggest that I should be is illogical. And, by the way, sir, the anti-semite card has been played -- and misplayed -- so often by mindless little twits that it has lost all meaning. Try again.
Last edited:
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
anti semitism has no relation to this thread. but an interesting point has been raised.
perhaps in a just world, it would be Israel that could ponder distancing itself from the US. the US has been involved world wide with political and military strife created for the imperialistic gains of the US. the US has been using Israel for decades as an extension for its imperialistic interests in the middle east, from the times of the cold war, where Israel was used to counter the Soviet influence in the region, and later as an instrument together with the pre-Islamic revolution Iran in what was known as the 'two pillars' in American quest for oil control from the Med in the east to the Persian gulf in the western Middle east.
so perhaps this would be a more fruitful attempt at a mental/rhetoric excercise.
dust1n
Zindīq
LOL. I think I like that idea Caladan; not for my own country's sake, but your country's sake.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Of course you're not concerned with it. And of course you don't want to hear me point out the anti-Semitism of the double standard to which Israel is held, alone of all the countries in the world.
No one, I am sure, would want to actually look inside the selfless humanism of their condemnation of the Jewish State and find something unpleasantly hateful at the heart.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Lets give it a rest, starting a thread on political issues is fair game. Levite, if you have something to say about singling out Israel than make that case, this is the place. but its completely uncalled for to imply that the thread was started with an 'antisemitic' agenda.
if you think that Sunstone is wrong about something in the OP, focus on the OP, I don't think anyone should waste Sunstone's times with labeling his OP as something it is obviously not.