Iran

[Cyre2067]

Ya, I agree with Icon - all this is a dog and pony show designed to illicit a very specific response from different portions of the population. Those that hate him will hate him more and those that were Liberal and "on the fence" will not take his comments re: homosexuality as an endorsement.

However, when you cut up what he says, and analyze it bit by bit he tends to spout more accurate statements and good questions then foolish rhetoric. I really liked the SOTT article Ahmadinejad Questions 9-11, Holocaust.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they're trying to associate his truthy statements and deep questions with foolish rhetoric though.

 

[NormaRegula]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they're trying to associate his truthy statements and deep questions with foolish rhetoric though.

That's always been the most effective part of the Cointelpro recipe...mix emotionally-laden garbage with the truth so that the truth is marginalized. Doesn't matter if the subject being given the platform to speak is a willing agent or dupe - the outcome is usually the same, with confusion and lies rising to the top.

 

[kageki]

I'm not sure if he is the useful idiot or whether they are trying to make him look like one. They are after all trying to start a war with Iran. He is openly questioning 9/11 and the Holocaust which I agree with.

The homosexuality comment can go either way. It's worth noting that many people in the US agree with his homophobic stance as Bush and the Christian right wing has made it known. Even Ron Paul is against homosexuals.

I think alot of his comments are taken out of context or mistranslated like the infamous "wipe off the map" quote so I would be more careful analysing his comments in the first place.

 

[Cyre2067]

I'm not sure if he is the useful idiot or whether they are trying to make him look like one.

Doesn't matter, he's being used, willingly or not. And the same affect will be had either way.

They are after all trying to start a war with Iran. He is openly questioning 9/11 and the Holocaust which I agree with.

The homosexuality comment can go either way. It's worth noting that many people in the US agree with his homophobic stance as Bush and the Christian right wing has made it known. Even Ron Paul is against homosexuals.

I disagree, citizens who are in favor of attacking Iran aren't going to change their mind because of Iran's stance on Homosexuals. They aren't going to think, "Gee this guy is tough on gays, great, lets be friends!" However, more liberal, open-minded people will view Iran in a more negative light because of how they regard gays.

And if i may - What do you mean Ron Paul is "against homosexuals" - that's awfully vague. Can you back this up with some link-action?

I think alot of his comments are taken out of context or mistranslated like the infamous "wipe off the map" quote so I would be more careful analysing his comments in the first place.

Did you happen to see Craig's response above?

 

[Saman]

Well, in regards to the subject of homosexuals and Ahmadinejad, I couldn't find any articles in relation to what I saw on TV yesterday (as I mentioned above) when he was asked for clarification of his comments by a persian reporter. Maybe I am loosing my touch in finding things or maybe there is no such article to be found on the web. I think it is the former. Moreover, in regards to his interview today, I just heard on TV that his interview with Amanpour on CNN was canceled with the exception of him having time to only answer one question. Maybe as Iconoclast suggested, his card has already reached its mark in this case, and further interviews and whatnot with him speaking his mind on the media would take away the PTB's desired affect of him being portrayed as a demonized "useful idiot" because of some of his absurd fundamental religious beliefs due to his background and childhood upbringing.

 

[kageki]

And if i may - What do you mean Ron Paul is "against homosexuals" - that's awfully vague. Can you back this up with some link-action?

_http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Ron Paul is against same sex marriage and he is also pro-life. If you're a Ron Paul supporter you might want to do a little more research about him. After reading some of his articles I've jumped ship to Kucinich.


See I'm still not sure if Ahmadnejad was put in place to play the useful idiot. I think he is a nationalist because he was one of the key conspirators in the embassy takeover which was a direct response to the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh. He is a President of a country after all so all this media exposure doesn't seem unusual for someone of his stature especially when this country and Israel is rallying hard to nuke Iran right now.

If he was put in place by the PTB why would Ahmadnejad and Saddam Hussein for that matter start trading oil for euros which would clearly upset the masters? The PTB's put the Shah in power and also steadfastedly recognize Saudia Arabia as an ally so I don't particulary find his fundamental religious beliefs to be proof of him being a useful idiot.

 

[Saman]

If he was put in place by the PTB why would Ahmadnejad and Saddam Hussein for that matter start trading oil for euros which would clearly upset the masters? The PTB's put the Shah in power and also steadfastedly recognize Saudia Arabia as an ally so I don't particulary find his fundamental religious beliefs to be proof of him being a useful idiot.

Maybe because the masters don't trade in either Euros or US dollars.

I don't see the point you are trying to explain by pointing out that the PTB put the Shah in power and they recognizes the Saudi Arabia as an ally in relation to Admadinejad's beliefs when the PTB are not exclusively the US administration or the CIA or any other known entity or organization...or am I missing something? You see, everyone in the general public is now seemingly focusing on Admadinejad's comments about homosexuals and women rights and throwing the baby out with the bath water with everything else he is saying because of his foolish comments. The media on CNN and others are making sure to repeatedly stick this spin on things and to ignore everything else he has said as simply the ravings of a liar and a lunatic. This is why I am currently thinking that he is an "useful idiot"/puppet for the PTB, because in the bigger picture, he is being used to turn people away from the Truth. Anyone else who talks about the probable truths that Admadinejad has taken upon himself to talk about, will be now put in the same class as him - a lunatic or a liar or a crazy conspirator, and this all because he made such a fool out of himself with his comment about homosexuals and women rights in Iran. If he hadn't, things might had been different I think for the 'good'. So it seems intentional that he was invited to the Columbia University and then asked these questions, since the formulator of these questions likely already knew the answers he would give based on some of his fundamental beliefs, or so I think. It's either that, or maybe he actually knows better and is intentionally making a fool out of himself because that is part of his role -- to co-op speaking the Truth to a point, and then to suddenly on cue to add a twist to 'negatively' affect a majority of people in the general public into guessing about the credibility of the Truth he was speaking about, all due to some absurd comments that are easily proven to be untrue.

 

[kageki]

Well I don't need to read into matters that much to see that his invitation was intentional. They wanted to make him look bad period to rally support for a war against Iran.

I understand your angle that it maybe a deliberate attempt to lump truthers into one bunch of lunatics, but what if he truly believes in what he says and nothing more? Honor killing is a deep rooted cultural practice amongst other things so it doesn't seem that odd that he would make those comments about homosexuals and women.

For once I don't believe in some deeper conspiracy here. They have made it clear they want Ahmadnejad out and to stop him from getting a nuclear bomb. All I see is Israel trying to prevent that from happening and nothing more.

 

[Cyre2067]

They wanted to make him look bad period to rally support for a war against Iran.

Yep. It worked.

...but what if he truly believes in what he says and nothing more?

Then by definition, he's a "useful idiot."

For once I don't believe in some deeper conspiracy here.

Then you don't see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Everything, in politics, especially that which get's publicized is done so with purpose. And I guarantee you that the purpose is nefarious, because it originates in the minds of psychological deviants; psychopaths, characteropaths, narcissists, and those whom they can influence or infect, as i like to think of it. Over the millenia they came to power because they would do anything to win.

Oh this forum, we've kinda come to that conclusion after years of study. Dig around ponerology.com for a bit. Wet your whistle, sotospeak. I'm not sure what you're aware of, and what you've missed, but you may have "walked into the wrong bar".

They have made it clear they want Ahmadnejad out and to stop him from getting a nuclear bomb. All I see is Israel trying to prevent that from happening and nothing more.

What about PNAC? Can't you see their just drooling to completely revamp the middle east? Israel's leaders are infected just like ours, and the brits, the french, and countless others. Likely the Iranian, Saudi, Pakistani and Indian elites are infected to varying degrees. All these psychopaths in key positions of power represent puppets, and if we want to cut their strings we're gonna have to learn a lot, and fast.

 

[kageki]

The main point of the theory that was presented was that Ahmadnejad was picked by the PTB to play the useful idiot and also in discrediting the "truth". That is the part I'm not so sure about.

I gave you a reason why Ahmadnejad has been given the media spotlight. What about PNAC? It just reinforces the reason that I provided for his media exposure which is to discredit him so he can be removed from power.

Did the PTB also pick him to be the key person behind the embassy takeover in Tehran? Was that all staged or was Ahmadnejad genuinely pissed at what the US did to Iran back in the 50s?

Here's another tidbit about him from Wikipedia:

He was vetoed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei when he attempted to change the law to permit women to attend sporting events,[99] and has been considered by some to be "not strict" on the issue of enforcement of Islamic dress codes.

That's interesting that he has been reprimanded for not being so strict...

Then you don't see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Everything, in politics, especially that which get's publicized is done so with purpose. And I guarantee you that the purpose is nefarious, because it originates in the minds of psychological deviants; psychopaths, characteropaths, narcissists, and those whom they can influence or infect, as i like to think of it. Over the millenia they came to power because they would do anything to win.

Oh this forum, we've kinda come to that conclusion after years of study. Dig around ponerology.com for a bit. Wet your whistle, sotospeak. I'm not sure what you're aware of, and what you've missed, but you may have "walked into the wrong bar".

I am well aware there are reasons for everything in politics and I gave you my reasoning for why he has been given media exposure so I'm not so sure why all this was necessary.

For your information I was reading the Cassiopeia website a few years ago before this current forum was even in existence. I was also one of the first members to sign up for the forum before this one and before that forum the SOTT website was more like a simple comment page. I am also aware of Laura's work on psychopaths and organic portals amongst others. This is why I know about this website. I have been following it for quite some time.

Israel's leaders are infected just like ours, and the brits, the french, and countless others. Likely the Iranian, Saudi, Pakistani and Indian elites are infected to varying degrees. All these psychopaths in key positions of power represent puppets, and if we want to cut their strings we're gonna have to learn a lot, and fast.

If all these leaders are puppets then why the need to remove Saddam Hussein and now Ahmadnejad? I'm also not sure about this generalized description of being infected by evil. My understanding is that a lot of the turmoils are caused by Zionists and basically the Hebrews stemming back to biblical time in Egypt.

If you want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes may I suggest you take a look at the Ring of Power documentary I posted in the history section? Has there been discussion here tracing history back to the ancient Egyptians and beyond?

 

[Saman]

The main point of the theory that was presented was that Ahmadnejad was picked by the PTB to play the useful idiot and also in discrediting the "truth". That is the part I'm not so sure about.

Hopefully it won't be the case. Time will tell how things will move about on the 'chessboard'.

Did the PTB also pick him to be the key person behind the embassy takeover in Tehran?

I don't see the point or the relation of why you have brought up this reputed case by Wikipedia in regards to our discussion on whether he is being used as a "useful idiot" or not in the present, which seems to be case. You also didn't mention from Wikipedia the following: "In a secret report specifically investigating this issue, the CIA declared this identification "Not proven".[24"

Here is the whole context:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad:
[...]
"Ahmadinejad was politically active as a student during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.[citation needed] Several former hostages have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the key individuals holding Americans inside the embassy.[23] In a secret report specifically investigating this issue, the CIA declared this identification "Not proven".[24]"
[...]

So this is reputed, not proven according to Wikipedia, which isn't a reliable source to begin with on such political matters.

Here's another tidbit about him from Wikipedia:

He was vetoed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei when he attempted to change the law to permit women to attend sporting events,[99] and has been considered by some to be "not strict" on the issue of enforcement of Islamic dress codes.

That's interesting that he has been reprimanded for not being so strict...

The issue we are discussing is not about whether Ahamdinejad wishes to pass or rewrite laws to improve the lives of women in Iran. The issue is about him saying that women are free and have equal rights in Iran to the media, which isn't the case by Iranian law, as far as I am aware. Why would he say this when it is not the case? He reacted with giving a answer from a cultural perspective of how mothers and women are respected and not from what it is according to laws in Iran. Again reacting like a "useful idiot".

If all these leaders are puppets then why the need to remove Saddam Hussein and now Ahmadnejad?

Firstly, in my current opinion, based on what I currently know, you can't compare Saddam Hussein to Ahmadnejad. Saddam was put into power by psychopaths to attack and punish Iran for not giving away it's resources to the European and western corporate leaders. Ahmadinejad on the other hand is being used as a "useful idiot" to give the PTB their needed ammo for an excuse to attack Iran over it's nuclear program. Likely to horde in more resources and power for themselves and to kill more of the population on both sides through their scheming and conjuring of endless wars.

Secondly, Ahmadinejad doesn't have real power in Iran. Ayathollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, and other clerical leaders do. He's more of a figure head with some power, but all the power he has can be overruled by Khamenei or the assemblage of other clerical leaders holding power in government. As long as he is good in the eyes of Khamenei and others who hold real power, he is allowed to stay in "power", and in this way, he is used by PTB through his beliefs to run the show. He seems to me to be a man who is paving the road to hell with his religiously misguided "good" intentions. Another reason why I think he is a "useful idiot" for the PTB.

Thirdly, in regards to Saddam Hussein and your question about if all these leaders are puppets, why they need to be removed, here is what I think: they are put into power to make the population suffer and for many to lose their livelihood and lives. Then they are removed from power in the name so called "democracy" and "freedom" by those very pawns who put them in power in the first place, which cause more suffering and loss of life for the general population. They are like "pawns" on a chessboard. Some get knocked out by the "king" and "queen", some get promoted into "knights", some become "rooks", "bishops", and perhaps some like Saddam go into hiding permanently, while their poor doubles are killed...

This is part of the "terror of the situation" I think.

 

[Cyre2067]

The main point of the theory that was presented was that Ahmadnejad was picked by the PTB to play the useful idiot and also in discrediting the "truth". That is the part I'm not so sure about.

And if you look @ the replies most people here can see that he is a useful idiot, again willingly or not, it doesn't matter. I'm confused as to why you're intent seems to be to argue. Am I correct is seeing your position as "he may believe what he says and takes pride in Iranian culture, therefore he's not a useful idiot"?

I gave you a reason why Ahmadnejad has been given the media spotlight. What about PNAC?

PNAC along with Naomi Kleins book "The Shock Doctrine" show you what this War in the Middle East is really all about: Economic Destablization allows the PTB to restructure any area that undergoes major catatrosphe to their financial gain. If they own stock in weapons, mercenaries, oil companies then they're guaranteed a profit whenever there's a war. Boeing, Blackwater, and Exxon have all done exceedingly well in the last 5 years.

It just reinforces the reason that I provided for his media exposure which is to discredit him so he can be removed from power.

Ah but can't you see they want sooo much more then to just "remove him from power", you said:

They have made it clear they want Ahmadnejad out and to stop him from getting a nuclear bomb. All I see is Israel trying to prevent that from happening and nothing more.

Which is the same angle that Faux News is pushing, which makes me question your intent. And you seem to be painfully unaware of how these deviants function in groups, how they can coordinate their actions and how they can use honest, truthful and ignorant individuals to get what they want (with or without their consent - which again is the topic of this particular thread).

You also took a potshot at Ron Paul, when no one else brought him up. And a careful reading of the link you providing shows that Ron Paul is a traditional conservative, ergo he endorses states rights. He has no problem with gay marriage, he just doesn't want one state or a judge to have the legal force to tell other states how they must operate. He also opposed the FMA, which most Republicons were cheering on. I know any other gay forumites are well aware of what that represented, and are thankful it died on the senate floor.

If you already "know" what all this is about - why come here? What are you looking for other then an argument?

 

[kageki]

Which is the same angle that Faux News is pushing, which makes me question your intent. And you seem to be painfully unaware of how these deviants function in groups, how they can coordinate their actions and how they can use honest, truthful and ignorant individuals to get what they want (with or without their consent - which again is the topic of this particular thread).

You also took a potshot at Ron Paul, when no one else brought him up. And a careful reading of the link you providing shows that Ron Paul is a traditional conservative, ergo he endorses states rights. He has no problem with gay marriage, he just doesn't want one state or a judge to have the legal force to tell other states how they must operate. He also opposed the FMA, which most Republicons were cheering on. I know any other gay forumites are well aware of what that represented, and are thankful it died on the senate floor.

If you already "know" what all this is about - why come here? What are you looking for other then an argument?

My main question is whether Ahmadnejad was picked by the PTB since the ruling clerics seems to oppose him. This would mean the ruling clerics are in on the plan of the PTB which is mainly the Zionists at this point and they want to be invaded?

So what if that is the same angle that Faux News is pushing? Isn't the nuclear arm race a very real issue that should be considered here? Is Iran having ambitions to create a nuclear deterent and defending themselves from US-Israel hegemony a valid point?


I didn't take a "potshot" at Ron Paul and I think you're wrong in your conclusion about him. He is a traditional conservative and simply opposes the federal or central government to have power and instead believe that the states should have it. He only opposed the FMA because it would be mandated at the federal level but he makes it clear that he is opposed to same sex marriage.

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

He also went to say he opposed gay men to be scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts.

Since YOU have picked out Ron Paul from my post I'm lead to believe you are a Ron Paul supporter which I was once. Now have you considered that maybe Ron Paul is a useful idiot? Why is he getting media time only to be belittled? Tucker Carlson even likes him. Kucinich is just as good and interestingly he is virtually never heard on the media.


My intent isn't to "look for an argument" which to imply I am some agitator and possibly some kind of disinfo agent that you almost seem to be implying. Is it wrong to disagree and have questions? Isn't the what forums are for? For discussion? If everyone just agrees and says yes then I can say that you have fallen to group think and conformity. If at least to say I am playing devil's advocate I have stimulated further discussion and prompted the original poster to further clarify his reasoning. Then to prove me wrong will further strengthen your theory and the little bit of peer review is complete. So am I right in that you are not interested in discussion, but merely to assert everything you say is right and the truth?

On that point, I very much welcomed Saman's reasoned response, but what you, Cyre, have shown nothing but being full of pride and being condescending. One of the reasons I joined this forum recently because I see that on average there is a lot of intelligent responses here and I have also enjoyed reading Laura's material. If you can't handle minor disagreements and discussions why make this forum public? Why not make it invite only and private? Again I only joined recently and still testing the waters and you sure make it hostile for any newcomers.

 

[Saman]

Which is the same angle that Faux News is pushing, which makes me question your intent. And you seem to be painfully unaware of how these deviants function in groups, how they can coordinate their actions and how they can use honest, truthful and ignorant individuals to get what they want (with or without their consent - which again is the topic of this particular thread).
[...]

My main question is whether Ahmadnejad was picked by the PTB since the ruling clerics seems to oppose him. This would mean the ruling clerics are in on the plan of the PTB which is mainly the Zionists at this point and they want to be invaded?

But that is not the crux of the matter. What is important in this thread, as reiterated above by Cyre, is how and why he is being used as an "useful idiot" with or without his consent. Moreover, I don't think the ruling clerics are on the know of the PTB's plan, except maybe one or two individuals who are not even part of the official power structure in Iran, but who really knows? Most of them are likely being used as "useful idiots" as well through their own rigid religious beliefs. Also, Ahmadinejad doesn't oppose the ruling clerics. If he did, why was he was allowed to be put into "power" in the first place? As I mentioned before, I don't think that the PTB are any known entity or organization. They have many fronts, and some of these fronts can be working together to push their agendas without even being aware that they are doing so, and this therefore gives the illusion to the people of the world that there are many governments representing their countries, rather then just one machiavellian world government within our compartmentalized hierarchal governmental systems, pushing the strings of the fronts from behind the curtain, or so I think.

So what if that is the same angle that Faux News is pushing? Isn't the nuclear arm race a very real issue that should be considered here? Is Iran having ambitions to create a nuclear deterent and defending themselves from US-Israel hegemony a valid point?

But it isn't a nuclear arms race issue. According to the IAEA, Iran does not have any nuclear weapons and is not pursuing any such weapons just like Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. What Fox News, CNN, and other major media outlets are pushing are the agendas of the machiavellian warmongers to have an excuse to attack Iran, Syria, and other parts of the world. Some with consent, some through ignorance, and in regards to Iran, Admadinejad is playing right into their hands because of playing the role of being an "useful idiot", regardless of whether he knows he is or not.

My intent isn't to "look for an argument" which to imply I am some agitator and possibly some kind of disinfo agent that you almost seem to be implying. Is it wrong to disagree and have questions?

Of course not. As far as I know, that is how a discussion works, with the common intent of the parties involved to search for the Truth as close as they probably can get to it, while checking to make sure that their original motive doesn't become the self important goal of the "predator mind" in proving itself as the one who is right, or the winner of an argument, as it is the case in a debate or a contest.

Isn't the what forums are for? For discussion? If everyone just agrees and says yes then I can say that you have fallen to group think and conformity. If at least to say I am playing devil's advocate I have stimulated further discussion and prompted the original poster to further clarify his reasoning. Then to prove me wrong will further strengthen your theory and the little bit of peer review is complete. So am I right in that you are not interested in discussion, but merely to assert everything you say is right and the truth?

Don't you think that playing the devils advocate is about the "predator mind" wishing to have a contest or a debate? I thought we didn't want to debate but to discuss our thoughts in order to perhaps come close to what the probable truth is through networking of our current levels of information, experience, and Understanding...

On that point, I very much welcomed Saman's reasoned response, but what you, Cyre, have shown nothing but being full of pride and being condescending.

Kageki, I don't think that Cyre has shown nothing but being full of pride and being condescending. I don't think that is an impartial assessment of what Cyre has said. But I do understand from my own experience how one can be fooled by their own "predator mind" into thinking that another person is being condescending when you have nothing else to go by then only reading their words through a screen. My suggestion is to step back and reread what Cyre has said sometime later. Maybe then you will be surprised to see that the condescending tone you felt is no longer there because it was something that a part of you fooled you into imagining.

One of the reasons I joined this forum recently because I see that on average there is a lot of intelligent responses here and I have also enjoyed reading Laura's material. If you can't handle minor disagreements and discussions why make this forum public? Why not make it invite only and private? Again I only joined recently and still testing the waters and you sure make it hostile for any newcomers.

I hope you keep testing the waters while you strive to impartially observe your environments both within and without.

 

[Cyre2067]

Apoligies if I was too blunt, full of pride, or condescending. I was attempting to point out what I saw as flaws in kageki's reasoning, as well as detraction, and obvious similiarities to what you were saying and those who have an agenda.

To me, it seems like K is avoiding discussing the parts of the issue that matter, and thus my responses.