PDA

View Full Version : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad



herman2
09-23-2008, 09:20 AM
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers his critical slanted speech again at the United Nations in New York City today. . With all the international pressure against Iran,and the enemies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created with the American public, the thought is: What would happen if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was assassinated on American soil today?

In the chaos and over reaction that would arise from the Iranian government, it is probable that an Iranian retaliation would occur, despite the best interests of American Secret Service protection. Iranian reaction would probably stifle into Iraq, being its closest border where American presence is. The assassination on American soil would send an unclear signal to Iran that America caused the assassination to occur and the hostility against Americans by the Iranian government would come down with a heavy hammer. It is in Americaís best interest to protect this lunatic while on American soil, at all costs.

Adrian Wainer
09-23-2008, 10:41 AM
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers his critical slanted speech again at the United Nations in New York City today. . With all the international pressure against Iran,and the enemies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created with the American public, the thought is: What would happen if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was assassinated on American soil today?

In the chaos and over reaction that would arise from the Iranian government, it is probable that an Iranian retaliation would occur, despite the best interests of American Secret Service protection. Iranian reaction would probably stifle into Iraq, being its closest border where American presence is. The assassination on American soil would send an unclear signal to Iran that America caused the assassination to occur and the hostility against Americans by the Iranian government would come down with a heavy hammer. It is in America’s best interest to protect this lunatic while on American soil, at all costs.

It would only be a question of them ie the Iranians doing sooner what they were planning to do later, the Nazis in Germany were only going for about two decades, what is happening in the Middle East has been building up for several hundred years and in that context Ahmadinejad is only a part player in the rise of Islamofascism, where as Hitler was pretty much the whole Third Reich show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM7PuX9fKFg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClzgWqyFMMQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVlHFlapPik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZQ7GOrTOqk


Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

herman2
09-26-2008, 09:00 AM
I can't believe my thread got only 1 hit. This man will be the catalyst of WW-3 and all I get is one hit?..terrible, just terrible. For all the publicity that ther Iranian president gets for being a monster, a denier of the holocaust, possible islamic twin distant relative of Hitler, and nobody has anything to say?..oh well, I will say something then. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to hang a bait in front of the nose of the new president to see who bites. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
knows George Bush but he doesn't known the new president to bee's to much I assume, thus It will be interesting to see what buttons he pushes to see how far he can get with the new president. I heard Palin say on the news the other day that talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can not occur without pre-conditions and then she stated henry Kissenger would see her way. Well the news people asked Henry Kissenger for a comment and he stated that he would have talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
without pre-conditions, thus making Plin look stupid for using Kssengers name as an example. Palin hates Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without a doubt. Palin would nuke Iran in a second if John passed away. Lets hope this never happens though cause it would be WW3. Just imagine it, a woman going down in history for escalting WW-3...and not just a woman, but a woman from Alaska.....like Puff Daddy would say...Alaska?..where the @#%#$^ is Alaska??..anyways that is my thought on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

D502
09-26-2008, 09:47 AM
This man will be the catalyst of WW-3 and all I get is one hit?..terrible, just terrible.

Don't get me wrong, but one part of this catalyst is the longstanding intervention from the West. The western states are complicit in this conflicts 'cause they never could accept that there're countries in this world which prefer another way of life. The support of the shah, the support of Saddam and so on, all this is an attest of the delusion the West is playing with.
The greed for oil and the arrogance to force the western worths on people who doesn't want them, is also an catalyst.

Adrian Wainer
09-26-2008, 11:07 AM
Palin would nuke Iran in a second if John passed away. Lets hope this never happens though cause it would be WW3. Just imagine it, a woman going down in history for escalting WW-3...and not just a woman, but a woman from Alaska.....like Puff Daddy would say...Alaska?..where the @#%#$^ is Alaska??..anyways that is my thought on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Why would she need to nuke Iran if Iran does not nuke America first, America has large conventional forces and there are lots of ways of using conventional weapons to degrade Iran's nuclear capability. Furthermore, I would remind you that many Arabs believe all Iranians should be exterminated because they are Persian ie a non Arab race and many Sunni Muslims believe all Iranians should be exterminated because they the Iranians are Shia Muslims, which is regarded is heretical sect and a perversion of Sunni Islam. So the Iranians and their President are hardly universally popular in the Arab and Islamic World. Furthermore, what's the choice, Barak Obama in the White House and appointing Revrend Wright as his special advisor on race relations, "Like you see here Mr President, we start with those Jews, than we go after the Chicanos and then the Chinks and Koreans and then when we done that, we start on old whitey himself............see how he likes being a slave for the black masta........" Well of course the Revrend Wright is a fine upstanding individual of the highest moral qualities and never could say anything like that, any more than he might imply that the murdering fascist scum that crashed the planes in to Twin Towers on 9/11 were some sort of heroes to be admired and America had deserved what it got or that Barak Obama might agree with him, if he did say that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8

Somebody in Pizza hut, must have served up this guy a dog of a Pizza he seems majorly pis8ed off with the Italians!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

herman2
09-26-2008, 11:26 AM
Don't get me wrong, but one part of this catalyst is the longstanding intervention from the West. The western states are complicit in this conflicts 'cause they never could accept that there're countries in this world which prefer another way of life. The support of the shah, the support of Saddam and so on, all this is an attest of the delusion the West is playing with.
The greed for oil and the arrogance to force the western worths on people who doesn't want them, is also an catalyst.

Now that I think of it, that makes sense...if America minded its own business then this may not have become such an issue, but maybe America makes it their business because it beleives in protecting the world at the expense of some countries...Good point you made...I like it

Adrian Wainer
09-26-2008, 11:58 AM
Don't get me wrong, but one part of this catalyst is the longstanding intervention from the West. The western states are complicit in this conflicts 'cause they never could accept that there're countries in this world which prefer another way of life. The support of the shah, the support of Saddam and so on, all this is an attest of the delusion the West is playing with.
The greed for oil and the arrogance to force the western worths on people who doesn't want them, is also an catalyst.

Yes for sure there are lots of wrong things the American have done, but there are lots of other places the Americans have got involved with and they have not turned in to the open air country wide lunatic asylums which many of the "Islamic" states resemble. As for Iraq, the biggest western player was France, which amongst other things sold Iraq a turnkey biological weapons production facility and a nuclear bomb materiel production facility, which not even the Russians were prepared to supply Iraq. As for "Western Worths" if you mean objecting to say the execution the women for adultery by the state or their husbands tieing them up pouring petrol over them and burning them to death in honour killing, whilst I am not speaking personally of you but I do think it somewhat funny that some Western women would object to likes of Benny Hill as a sexist attack on their self worth but not have a problem with Arab men seting their wives on fire.

perhaps some of the "non western worths" we should encourage?

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/leyla_161204.shtml

some western degenerate filth not suitable for children and no doubt shocking to the delicate and gentle dispositions wife burning Islamists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=810TQyT2KXI


Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
09-26-2008, 12:11 PM
Now that I think of it, that makes sense...if America minded its own business then this may not have become such an issue, but maybe America makes it their business because it beleives in protecting the world at the expense of some countries...Good point you made...I like it

America has done a lot of wrong things in its relations with the Arab and Islamic World, all that said many Arabs believe in their own racial superiority and their inherent right to exterminate non-Arabs for being subhumans and many Muslims believe that all non-Muslims should be given the choice of converting to Islam or being slaves or just simply exterminated for being non-Muslims, America has in certain instances added to these problems but if America did not exist one would have these problems anyway since for example Spain is regarded by many Muslims and Arabs as an occupied Arab Muslim land, so if e.g. America or Mexico or Turkey maintains an embassy in Madrid and recognizes the Spanish Government these states become a legitimate target for global Jihad attacks.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

herman2
09-26-2008, 12:15 PM
I work with an Iranian and he hates Arabs....I always thought the opposite....strange world we live in.

Adrian Wainer
09-26-2008, 12:46 PM
I work with an Iranian and he hates Arabs....I always thought the opposite....strange world we live in.

For Sure LOL, that's an encounter with reality and precisely not the sort of thing the supposedly liberal media is interested to discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_ Jews,_and_Flies

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

D502
09-26-2008, 12:56 PM
For one thing, I want to accent that I'm not only talking about America if I say "The West". That isn't what I wrote.

And for another thing, I'm not talking about "honour killing" or "women's rights", I'm talking about the enforcement of interests in the foretime.
We supported Reza Pahlavi in the sixties although we know about SAVAK, torment and oppression. The same applies to Saddam in the eighties. And this is what I meant. We can't play with other peoples only to represent our own interests. We make other people to a pawn in the hands of the powerful.

And btw:
No one can tell me that armies moved into a country with the aspiration to affranchise the women.

herman2
09-26-2008, 01:10 PM
D502, I like your style. You are a welcome of fresh ideology. I haven't seen such eloquent and articulated verse in awhile. Good stuff!

Adrian Wainer
09-26-2008, 01:49 PM
D502, I like your style. You are a welcome of fresh ideology. I haven't seen such eloquent and articulated verse in awhile. Good stuff!

Many Thanx, you are in a very select goup of people, my only fan on the whole internet! LOL

If you like something different, enjoy this guy, when he says what sounds like KGB, he is actually talking about the King James Bible not the Russian security organization and when he says something that sounds like anglo-sexual, I think he means Anglo-Saxon or maybe he does mean anglo-sexual!

some rude words used
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHHx1othbec&feature=user

Oh herman, you are talking about D502 I thought I had made it for a moment there.....................

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
09-26-2008, 02:25 PM
For one thing, I want to accent that I'm not only talking about America if I say "The West". That isn't what I wrote.

Yes you are right on that, you did say the West I've got so used to people attacking America, that I missed that, my aplology.



And for another thing, I'm not talking about "honour killing" or "women's rights", I'm talking about the enforcement of interests in the foretime.
We supported Reza Pahlavi in the sixties although we know about SAVAK, torment and oppression. The same applies to Saddam in the eighties. And this is what I meant. We can't play with other peoples only to represent our own interests. We make other people to a pawn in the hands of the powerful.

Yes you are right, the Shah was no knight in shining armour and the Iranians had a right to select their Government not have it imposed on them by Western oil companies. In fact the West managed to get it wrong twice over they removed Mosaddeq and replaced him with the Shah and then replaced the Shah with the Khomeini.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq



And btw:
No one can tell me that armies moved into a country with the aspiration to affranchise the women.

No of course they didn't, at the same time it does not make it legitimate either for western leftist feminists to ally themselves with wife burning Arab Muslim fanatics.

Best and Warm Regards
Hals und Beinbruch
Adrian Wainer

herman2
09-26-2008, 03:31 PM
Thanks guys/gals for making my thread last!...I thought it was going to fizzle out with only 1 hit since past 2 days. I will rest good over the weekend knowing that there are those of the intelectual capacity that have something meaninful to say.

D502
09-26-2008, 04:26 PM
Yes you are right, the Shah was no knight in shining armour and the Iranians had a right to select their Government not have it imposed on them by Western oil companies. In fact the West managed to get it wrong twice over they removed Mosaddeq and replaced him with the Shah and then replaced the Shah with the Khomeini.

Replacing one evil with another. The Shah is a red rag to me. In 1967, his SAVAK basted German demonstrators and the ****ing German Police espoused them thereby.



No of course they didn't, at the same time it does not make it legitimate either for western leftist feminists to ally themselves with wife burning Arab Muslim fanatics.

I donít know any woman who allies with wife burning Arab Muslim fanatics.
But a dimwitted judge who absolved a Muslim who beat his wife and she reasoned this absolution with the argument "islamic legitim". Thatís nearly the same for me, so youíre right.
Honor killing is present here and youíre compelled to grapple with it.



Hals und Beinbruch
:D Danke, lieber nicht^^

Greetz, Melanie

Adrian Wainer
09-26-2008, 05:07 PM
In fairness to Ahmadinejad he does have some support within the American Christian Community.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-10/9982556.jpg
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church proclaim the good news that the rightous anger of the Lord has felled the space chariot of the *** States of America.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/phelps_large.gif
the rightous anger of the Lord again.

http://boortz.com/images/god_hates_fags.jpg
Wow God angry again.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/p1010007_3.JPG
Shocking Pictures of Christ's rightous ones imprisoned in a concentration Camp by the security forces of the Jewish Bolshevik Rotarian Freemason Papist Paris Hilton MySpace Fan Club *** States of America.

http://sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2006/12/westborochristmas2.jpg
God has really got this rightous anger gig good.


http://www.godhatesfags.com/

http://www.godhatestheworld.com/


Since Revrend Fred Phelps message is an important one and people may well be interested in learning more, I have included a photo of the entrance to Revrend Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, so people who wish to visit and hear the good news of the Lord's rightous anger in person from Revrend Phelps are assisted in doing so.

http://www.allamericandouchebag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/fred-douche-church-sign.jpg

bye the way I came across this following site whilst looking for stuff for this posting [ NB mild nudity not suitable for children ]

http://www.celebnewswire.com/upskirt_shots/

I will take that as nod from the guy upstairs with the white beard that looks remarkably like Charlton Heston, that this boy is doin good in takeing the p8ss out of Phelps and his Islamofascist friendly zombie cult masquerading as christanity.


Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

D502
09-27-2008, 06:34 AM
http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/p1010007_3.JPG


I'm at a loss for words. :shock:

Religion can be so irrational and stupid. And Sweden is soooo evil :twisted:

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 07:33 AM
Well seems God does not like the Finns either, well at least according to the WBC

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080923_nine-dead-finland-shooting.pdf

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 09:03 AM
In fact the West managed to get it wrong twice over they removed Mosaddeq and replaced him with the Shah and then replaced the Shah with the Khomeini. My bold

This is a novel view of the Islamic Revolution.

When and how did the West replace the Shah with Khomeini?

Why did Khomeini turn on his alleged Western sponsors and what caused him to do it?

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 09:05 AM
Don't get me wrong, but one part of this catalyst is the longstanding intervention from the West. The western states are complicit in this conflicts 'cause they never could accept that there're countries in this world which prefer another way of life. The support of the shah, the support of Saddam and so on, all this is an attest of the delusion the West is playing with.
The greed for oil and the arrogance to force the western worths on people who doesn't want them, is also an catalyst.

Agree entirely.

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 09:07 AM
For one thing, I want to accent that I'm not only talking about America if I say "The West". That isn't what I wrote.

...........

We supported Reza Pahlavi in the sixties although we know about SAVAK, torment and oppression. The same applies to Saddam in the eighties. And this is what I meant. We can't play with other peoples only to represent our own interests. We make other people to a pawn in the hands of the powerful.

And btw:
No one can tell me that armies moved into a country with the aspiration to affranchise the women.

Agree entirely, again.

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 09:43 AM
My bold

This is a novel view of the Islamic Revolution.

When and how did the West replace the Shah with Khomeini?



try this for starters

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/ayatollah_khomeini.php



Why did Khomeini turn on his alleged Western sponsors and what caused him to do it?

Khomeini may or may not have had a formal agreement with the French, but since he would likely regard them as Christian pigs, I doubt that he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 10:16 AM
try this for starters

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857

The Voice of Conservatism in Europe?

So how did the French rig the elections which brought Khomeini to power, and create the circumstances for popular hostility to the Shah which paved the way for his rise to power?



Khomeini may or may not have had a formal agreement with the French, but since he would likely regard them as Christian pigs, I doubt that he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist.

Khomeini may or may not have had a formal or even informal agreement with the Grand Poobah of the planet Xenon and since he would likely regard them as aliens of the non-human variety, I doubt he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist (or if such an agreement existed or did not exist only in the disoriented minds of the spectral inhabitants of the planet Xenon).

Maybe it's just me, but I am getting the feeling in recent weeks that this site is progressing steadily into the realms of utter stupidity rather than any attempt at serious debate about historical matters which, according to convention, are supported by facts rather than the possibility that someone might have felt under an obligation to adhere to an agreement which might or might not exist.

Nickdfresh
09-27-2008, 09:47 PM
...those of the intelectual capacity that have something meaninful to say.

Oh, please God, do let it be true!

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 07:06 AM
The Voice of Conservatism in Europe?

So how did the French rig the elections which brought Khomeini to power, and create the circumstances for popular hostility to the Shah which paved the way for his rise to power?

The Shah's own mistakes weakened his position but it was the facility of being able to run a cassette tape distribution operation from France that allowed Khomeini to assume the prominence that he did.





Khomeini may or may not have had a formal or even informal agreement with the Grand Poobah of the planet Xenon and since he would likely regard them as aliens of the non-human variety, I doubt he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist (or if such an agreement existed or did not exist only in the disoriented minds of the spectral inhabitants of the planet Xenon).

Maybe it's just me, but I am getting the feeling in recent weeks that this site is progressing steadily into the realms of utter stupidity rather than any attempt at serious debate about historical matters which, according to convention, are supported by facts rather than the possibility that someone might have felt under an obligation to adhere to an agreement which might or might not exist.

Hi, you're the one who is talking rubbish here, in that e.g. in the United Kingdom there has been until 2005 a general Thirty Year Rule, as to the release of State documents and there is stuff dating back as far as Queen Victoria's reign which has not been released and the British are no angels but in comparison to the French they look like boy scouts on best behaviour. So unless you are about twelve years old or have been hiding under a bush somewhere in Western Australia for the last thirty years or so, you should realize that a lot of stuff is never committed to paper and where it is, it is never released to the public. I presume next that you will be arguing that the French Government could not have bombed the Rainbow Warrior and murdered one of its crew because if they had intended to sink that Ship, they would have placed an advertisement in a New Zealand paper that this ship was subject to hostile action by the French Navy once it entered International Waters and if it did so, it was liable to capture or sinking by a French Warship, rather than using secret service agents to bomb it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jan/04/freedomofinformation.politics

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer