AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

You make a good distinction between our purposes and what matters to the
Persians. Clearly they are not putting themselves on the line for our purposes.
They do do so because of what matters to them and it matters very much.
Something very significant (to the Persians, at least) is happening. It may come
to naught, but it may be a first step to real change.

Farmerman:

Freep?

No, I don't read the Iranian but I do know that many scholars, especially Bernard Lewis have commented on the bizarre beliefs of Ahmadminejad.

Is it not frightening to know that the man( whose beliefs are descibed below) will have his finger on the nuclear button?

AGAIN:



president paves the way for arabs' imam return
Nov 17, 20o8




His call for the destruction of Israel may have grabbed headlines abroad, but it is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's devotion to a mystical religious figure that is arousing greater interest inside Iran.

In a keynote speech on Wednesday to senior clerics, Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi'ite Muslims' "hidden" 12th Imam.

According to Shi'ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi'ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

"Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."

"Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.

Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.

This fascination has prompted wild stories to circulate.

Presidential aides have denied a popular rumor that he ordered his cabinet to write a letter to the 12th Imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom where thousands of pilgrims come each week to pray and drop messages to the Imam.

But what really has tongues wagging is the possibility that Ahmadinejad's belief in the 12th Imam's return may be linked to the supposed growing influence of a secretive society devoted to the Mahdi which was banned in the early 1980s.

Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.

**************************************************************

CHAOS ON EARTH???? Could that be Nuclear Warfare?

A popularized interpretation was that Grand Ayatollah KhOmenei had insisted that < (With the Revolution's Constitution) the Ayatollah would serve as a "Guardian" not an executive. This was defined in Khomeneis re jiggering of the twelver pronouncements of infallibility and especially, the conept of "nearness to God" (Tawassul).
Khomenei' had invested this beleief for most of his term. He did however, allow that KHAmenei could become president as he did in 1989.

Im not posing as any kind of expert , but as my old comparitive religion prof used to say, "Islam has always been the most malleable of the religions while even giving the appearnace of century old traditions".

The Supreme Leader has the overall Guardianship of Iranian culture and the components of it. The President has Executive responsibility in many of the components, including budgetary control.

Its nuanced nicely .

Freep is the FREE REPUBLIC, the propoganda sheet of the far right. One must be able to distinguish that which is true from that which you WISH to be true. Freep published much crap on science from a Conseravtive Christian viewpoint. That often puts its printed conclusions at odds with much of what real science has to say. Im merely extending what I KNOW to be true (Freeps tendency toward scientific bullshit) to that which I suspect to be true. ( interpretation of the Iranian Constitution so as to be more digestable by its readership)

Once again, i don't deny the President's domestic authority, which accounts for the passion of the people who are basically contesting which stooge they want in office. For our purposes in the west, the President is a figurehead. For the purposes of the domestic government, the President still exercises a truncated authority subject to the promulgation or approval of policy by the Supreme Leader and/or the Guardian Council.

But i continue to consider it ironic that there is this level of passion by the people, given that Moussavi was just one of four on the short list (including Ahmedinejad) distilled from more than 400 hopefuls. Probably the most important power of the office of President is the dispensation of largesse in the form of political appointment, and the distribution of whatever funds are released by Mullahs Are Us, Inc.

I did note before that in several important historical examples, revolutions of significance took place after a period of economic prosperity, and in populations relatively well off. It is extremely difficult to predict revolution, and when it might come. I have a strong sense that it is not so much whom they were allowed to elect, but that they were not allowed to elect whom they chose, which has infuriated the Persians. There is a great distinction to be made, however, between the gradualism of reform (such as was seen in Spain after the death of Franco and the restoration of the monarchy), and the abrupt nature of revolution.

I am reminded once again of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." Perhaps Iran is so cursed.

Absolutely agree. But not all Persians. There seems to be a class of better
educated, urban, and more secular citizens who are most involved in the
protests. I think the mood is different in the Boonies.

That may well be--i haven't heard or read anything which i would have considered conclusive on that. As a general rule, rural populations are more conservative--and, as a general rule, you can't rely on general rules.

I agree -- in general.

My two bits why I dont think there will be a dfull blown revolution.
1. Financial security for average Iranians is oil dependent, a revolution would , of necessity, interrupt that oil flow.

2. 60% of the population is under 30. That means that the remaining 40% still can recall the last revolution and I think they will recall that all revolutions exact a price.

3. I think that Khameini and the mullas are surprised at how these spontaneous demonstrations have caught on. They are probably now realizing that theyve opened a door that wont be easily closed without some meaningful concessions. If you look at all the chanegs that have occured since 1980, its kind of amazing how relatively peacedully these changes were made.

4Ahmedinejad is in a final term of office anyway.Hell be thinking "legacy" so he can be appointed to some committee post on retirement from office. Rhavsanjani is head of the Expediency Council and , if Ahme doesnt make something positive out of his last term, he will be more likely given a lesser post, kinda like Khatami.
Course thats all just my thinking sans links.

You got a link for all that thinking? I'm thinking some peeps post lots of links and offer no thinking while other peeps just post with neither thinking nor links and some peeps post links that contain no thinking. that's my thinking but I have no links.

I am limkless alas, I made that **** up. IS that against the TOS? will I be banned? will I ever find my fukkin crescent wrench I lost on MOnday?
Do mareseedoats?

Even our government's rhetoric carries some weight in these matters, but you're right, we do have to be careful of what we seem to promise if we have no intention on delivering.

I think what happened in the aftermath of the first Gulf War was a national disgrace, but I don't believe that Bush the Elder's rhetoric was the cause. This is not to suggest that he was not responsible for the disgrace, because unless our intelligence operators in Iraq went rogue (and I don't believe they did) he was very much responsible.

I don't believe the organized insurgency of the Shia and Kurds that followed the Gulf War was launched simply on the rhetorical urging of the US President. The Kurds have a history of being betrayed by the West, and the sort of people who are able to organize armed resistance are not usually so gullible has to risk all on a statement made by the US President. I feel certain that there were US operatives on the ground promising American military support to the Shias and Kurds if they rose up against Saddam.

At some point I think advisors like Brent Scowcroft convinced Bush that we could not re-engage militarily in Iraq at Gulf War levels, and that the best that could come from these uprisings was a fragmented Iraq with all sorts of ongoing problems. Better, I think the realpolitik argument went, a united Iraq under a weakened Saddam then a patchwork of warring regions.

Not only did the US fail to live up to its promises, some believe it signaled to Saddam that his crushing of the rebellions would not be opposed. It was not until pitiful images of Kurds clinging to mountsides while being bombed began circulating in the media that the US and Britain estbalished no-fly zones.

So the rhetorical support, of our government,for the Iranian protestors should in no way imply we will intercede militarily on their behalf, unless we actually are willing to do so. Clearly we are not.

However, the US can, clandestinely, funnel assistance to whatever organized resistance there may be in Iran, and for all we know they are doing so, although I doubt it.

Stepping up the rhetoric though can at least send the message to the protestors that countries like the US have taken notice and at least offer moral support for their efforts to see true democracy come to their country.
Should the regime's violent reaction to the protests continue or escalate, it certainly would not hurt for us to take a page for the game plan of other nations and seek condemnation from the UN.

Some may argue that the Obama administration is doing just want I am calling for, but I would disagree.

Clearly the protesters are aware that the world is watching. They carry signs
written in English. They are using any technological channel they can to get
words and imagery out. But I don't for a moment think they expect outside
intervention, nor do I think they even want it. They want to use the spotlight
of the world's (not just US's) attention to put pressure on the clerical
establishment, but they do not want to be seen as seeking US aid. That
would be the kiss of death.

Meanwhile, American capitalism forges on . . . the banner ad that i see at the bottom of the page advertises "Muslima.com," . . . "the international Muslim matrimonials site"

Finn wrote: "Hopefully, our government will once again engage in what is described by the FBI as terrorist activities."

I think Iranian agent provocateurs are orchestraing the entire opera of sorts, since it would give the Mullahs the excuse to clamp down on the citizenry, that they must already know is not favorable to their regime.

The thinking might be that someone is likely to attack the nuclear development sites, and this is preventive maintenance to quiet those voices that would then use such an attack, as a time to criticize the Mullahs and their perceived agenda.

Jesus H Kerist, the irony!

Seriously?

They could be merely hoping the world is watching.

Feedback is good.

I'm sure you are right that they don't want to be seen as seeking American intervention, and if Obama steps up his rhetoric it won't be a smoking gun that they have.

The regime is going to (if it has not done so already) either insinuate or outright accuse the protesters of being agents of foreign powers. This, with or without the rhetoric of Western political leaders.