1
   

Civilians Death Rate in Iraq Less Than in Washington, DC

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:11 am
Don't worry Set, I won't disturb the other turtledoves. But it's interesting to learn she works in the insurance industry.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 02:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

You just watched me compare them, which proves they're comparable.


Any two things can be compared, right?

For example, those who drive red automobiles have a statistically higher death rate than igneous rocks.

I just compared them, so that proves they are comprable. Right?

Cycloptichorn

Certainly any two things can be compared.

A comparison between two things may or may not result in a conclusion of similarity in the criterion of comparison. The conclusion of the comparison may be, in some cases, that the two things are nothing alike. Comparing two things certainly doesn't mean that one believes that the two things will be found to be alike in all ways. As for cars and rocks, one could conclude that red automobiles and igneous rocks are both items to be found in Texas.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 03:33 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Wilso and Setanta are right. The US never anticipated how barbaric the Iraqi people really were before liberating them. Who could have anticipated an entire population being no more mature then the average 12 year old American? So much had been written about the stoic, proud people of Iran, but it turns out that they need a disciplinarian government to keep them in line. Bush definitely got that wrong thinking that a democratic government could ever be successfull when the people being governed still want to live in the glorious middle ages when Arab culture was still a powerful force.

It's a pity really.

If the admin had looked for advice outside their PNAC circle, perhaps they would have had a clue.

Norman Schwarzkoph knew it.

Quote:
n a 1996 Frontline Special on The Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkoph spoke these prophetic words.

Gen. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: On the question of going to Baghdad_ if you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle in world public opinion. Eventually, we lost the battle at home.

In the Gulf war, we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations resolutions, every one of which said, "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait." Did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and- and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two- had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone. The coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

And, oh, by the way, I think we'd still be there. We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit. We could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying 100 percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.


If Dubya had only listened to his father.

Quote:
In his memoir, "A World Transformed," published in late 1998, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."


But he didn't.

Quote:
Asked by Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, if he had ever consulted the former president before ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush replied that "he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."


Nope, he went ahead anyway. They fired the generals that advised against invasion, or that advised for a larger invasion force to assure we could maintain the peace post invasion.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 03:57 pm
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Who could have anticipated an entire population being no more mature then the average 12 year old American?


Anyone who had had the good sense to carefully read the history of the occupation of Baghdad by the English in the 1920s.


Don't make the mistake of connecting McG with good sense.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 05:42 pm
No comment . . .
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 05:45 pm
All for the best, that.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 05:45 pm
Setanta wrote:
No comment . . .


That WAS a comment.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 05:47 pm
Uh-oh .... now we got varmints.













:wink: How ya doin' Deb - ain't bumped into you much recently.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Aug, 2006 10:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Wilso and Setanta are right. The US never anticipated how barbaric the Iraqi people really were before liberating them. Who could have anticipated an entire population being no more mature then the average 12 year old American? So much had been written about the stoic, proud people of Iran, but it turns out that they need a disciplinarian government to keep them in line. Bush definitely got that wrong thinking that a democratic government could ever be successfull when the people being governed still want to live in the glorious middle ages when Arab culture was still a powerful force.

It's a pity really.


It really is a pity. How immature are a people that don't want to accept America's gift of destroyed cities, no food, clean water or medicine, thousands dead and children dismembered by America's bombs. Yeah, it really is a pity. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Aug, 2006 11:17 pm
McGentrix is correct. Wilso, Setatta and Mesquite do not know what they are talking about.

If one references the USA's expert on Islam. Dr. Bernard Lewis, one finds that McGentrix is indeed correct. I don't think that Wilso, Mesquite and Setanta are aware of the incredible religious fanaticism which undergirds the thinking of maniacs like Ahmadminejad and the rest of the violent murderers from the fringes of Islam.


Note the quote from the Schoolbooks in Iran!!!

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

"Stand against their whole world"?

"Not cease until the ANNIHILATION of all of them"?

"We will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom"

"Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the VICTORY of Islam in the world"


These madmen must be destroyed before they wipe out the whole world and themselves in anticipation of the TWELFTH IMAM!!


The secular leader( if such a thing is possible) in Iran, Ahmadinejad, is a firm believer in the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam--He is obviously a fanatic!!

Note_quote

According to Shi'ite teaching, the Twelfth Imam will not require an introduction upon his return. His identity will be self-evident to all, or at least to those capable of recognizing him. One view states that he will rule through a deputy, or perhaps the deputy will precede the Imam's return. Perhaps the deputy's identity should also be evident to all who can see.

While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam's return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical "logic" behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi's return. The deputy would promote Iran's nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world. The deputy would also purge diplomats, dozens of deputy ministers and heads of government banks and businesses, and challenge the Iranian ruling clerical establishment. All these moves push the regime toward a "coup d'├ętat" (according to one Iranian source) or at least a constitutional crisis. But a constitutional crisis would be a mere stepping stone for a president for whom the Twelfth Imam does not require an Islamic republic to return.

Western observers need to be able to understand the ideological and religious overtones of the current situation in Iran. Ahmadinejad's peculiar references to the Twelfth Imam are no mere eccentricity to be taken lightly. Nor do they seem to be the rhetorical ploy of a politician manipulating the excitable masses (as some have interpreted Saddam Hussein's embrace of Islamism in the later part of his rule). Minimally, Ahmadinejad's speeches and actions portend a constitutional crisis for the Iranian regime. Maximally, there are times when one should take bombastic statements not as double-talk, but for what they are.
end of quote
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 12:07 am
Oh Iran, land of the crazy Ayatollahs. Yep, most assuredly bad boys there. I thought we were talking about Iraq. Wasn't much religious fanaticism going on there with Saddam in charge. In fact Saddam even helped keep Iran in check which is why Rummy was so cozy with himback then.


http://www.treasoninc.com/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 12:18 am
It is clear, Mesquite that you know NOTHING about History and/or Diplomacy.

The picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam was taken in 1983---SEVEN WHOLE YEARS BEFORE DESERT STORM.

It is clear that you do not understand that alliances change.

The madmen in Iran had held our citizens hostage and the fumbler, Jimmy Carter, could do nothing. We backed Iraq against Iran.

Is this strange? Only if you know NOTHING about History!

In 1945, FDR met at Yalta with Joe Stalin. THE SOVIETS were our allies then. FDR gave Stalin access to most of Eastern Europe in return for his pledge to help us against Japan in 1945.

ONLY THREE YEARS LATER, the cold war officially began when the Soviets blockaded Berlin.

I think you had better do some reading-Mesquite. Why don't you start by looking up - REALPOLITIK.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 03:48 pm
You are so right BernardR. History is not my strong suit.

The picture dates to 1983? Interesting. Isn't that just about the time that President Reagan authorized the sale of arms to Iran hoping it would aid in getting the release of hostages held by Hezbollah thus setting the stage for The Iran-Contra Affair[/u]? That whole arms for hostages thing though just seems too much like negotiating with terrorists to me and so not right.

And you are so right about that bungling Jimmy Carter. It was most certainly his fault that the rescue mission that he ordered ended in failure. He should have known that at that time General Boykin[/u] had not yet perfected his communication channels with God, so naturally the mission was doomed from the start.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 04:44 pm
mesquite wrote:

And you are so right about that bungling Jimmy Carter. It was most certainly his fault that the rescue mission that he ordered ended in failure. He should have known that at that time General Boykin[/u] had not yet perfected his communication channels with God, so naturally the mission was doomed from the start.


Actually,the plan failed because President Carter waited to long.
He was told that there was a "window of time" that could be used by the assault team,and after that the desert winds and sandstorms would make it very risky.

He waited to long to give the "ok" for the mission.

He was man enough to admit that and he did take the responsibility for the failure.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 01:45 am
BernardR wrote:
It is clear, Mesquite that you know NOTHING about History and/or Diplomacy.

The picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam was taken in 1983---SEVEN WHOLE YEARS BEFORE DESERT STORM.

It is clear that you do not understand that alliances change.

The madmen in Iran had held our citizens hostage and the fumbler, Jimmy Carter, could do nothing. We backed Iraq against Iran.

Is this strange? Only if you know NOTHING about History!

In 1945, FDR met at Yalta with Joe Stalin. THE SOVIETS were our allies then. FDR gave Stalin access to most of Eastern Europe in return for his pledge to help us against Japan in 1945.

ONLY THREE YEARS LATER, the cold war officially began when the Soviets blockaded Berlin.

I think you had better do some reading-Mesquite. Why don't you start by looking up - REALPOLITIK.


Good summary Bernard to try to explain something simple to liberals. It is tough to impossible to choose the leaders of other countries, and there are times we have to choose between worse and worst. We try to make the best possible choices, sometimes we do, but it is probably impossible to do it every time because we do not have a perfect crystal ball to guide foreign policy, and the best possible choice may only be less bad than the other choice. So what often happens is naysayers looking back at history will criticize the bad choice while forgetting that the other choice might have been worse.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 02:21 am
BernardR wrote:
It is clear, Mesquite that you know NOTHING about History and/or Diplomacy.



As someone who can't tell the difference between his own arsehole and a hole in the ground, you're hardly in a position to criticize.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 06:26 am
Wilso wrote:
As someone who can't tell the difference between his own arsehole and a hole in the ground.


Yes, we know.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 03:39 am
Mesquite- Are you so dense that you do not recognize the fact that the Soviets were our alllies in 1945 and our enemies in 1948?

You seem to think it is unusual for someone( Iraq) to be our friends in 1983 and our enemies in 1990.

You have no knowledge of what happens in History do you?

Did you ever hear of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 which pledged mutual non-agression? That was violated by the Nazis by 1941.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 01:17 pm
BernardR wrote:
Mesquite- Are you so dense that you do not recognize the fact that the Soviets were our alllies in 1945 and our enemies in 1948?

You seem to think it is unusual for someone( Iraq) to be our friends in 1983 and our enemies in 1990.

You have no knowledge of what happens in History do you?

Did you ever hear of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 which pledged mutual non-agression? That was violated by the Nazis by 1941.


Mr Porter,

The purpose of the picture I posted was to illustrate that during the 80s we supported Saddam because IRAN WAS A BIGGER THREAT to our national security. Saddam, as bad as he was, still served the purpose of keeping the ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS in check. His contributions to Palestinian terrorism by way of compensation to suicide bomber families was peanuts compared to IRAN.

After Saddam invaded Kuwait, which by the way probably would not have happened except for our botched diplomatic signals, the biggest threat in the region was still IRAN and ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. The biggest threat in the region NOW after we have removed Saddam is still IRAN and ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. Problem is that now without Saddam ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM is a huge problem in Iraq. Without our presence ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM aided by IRAN would soon take over power in IRAQ. It may happen anyway.

Norman Schwarzkoph in 1996 wrote:
and, oh, by the way, I think we'd still be there. We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit. We could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying 100 percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.


Keep your eye on the ball. The biggest threat to the US and the world is ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. Not far behind that is RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM of other stripes.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2006 05:21 pm
Mesquite wrote:

The purpose of the picture I posted was to illustrate that during the 80s we supported Saddam because IRAN WAS A BIGGER THREAT to our national security. Saddam, as bad as he was, still served the purpose of keeping the ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS in check. His contributions to Palestinian terrorism by way of compensation to suicide bomber families was peanuts compared to IRAN.

end of quote

So you didn't mean to poke fun at Rumsfeld for shaking hands with Saddam in 1983. That's a good start. You are well on your way to learning, Mesquite.

Some might say,using your words above.

The purpose of the picture I painted was to illustrate that during the 40's, we supported Stalin because NAZI GERMANY WAS A BIGGER THREAT TO OUR SECURITY. HITLER, AS BAD AS HE WAS SERVED THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING SOVIET RUSSIA IN CHECK.

But then you write:

After Saddam invaded Kuwait, which by the way probably would not have happened except for our botched diplomatic signals, the biggest threat in the region was still IRAN and ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. The biggest threat in the region NOW after we have removed Saddam is still IRAN and ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. Problem is that now without Saddam ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM is a huge problem in Iraq. Without our presence ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM aided by IRAN would soon take over power in IRAQ. It may happen anyway.

end of quote
In the same article you reference, Mesquite, you find the following:

James Akins, the American Saudi Ambassador at the time, offered a slightly different perspective, in a 2000 PBS interview: "[Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would not have said, "Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed." She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat.

end of quote

Your description of "botched diplomatic signals" is highly speculative.

And, as far as Iran is concerned, you group two things together- IRAN AND ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM--as the biggest threat in the region.

You really do not know what you are talking about. The biggest threat is ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. Without ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. Iran would NOT be a threat.

I hope that you are sufficiently aware of the fact that ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM does not proceed from any ONE country but is endemic to the fringe elements of ISLAM in all countries where belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam is present.---IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO IRAN!!!














Iran's President and the Politics of the Twelfth Imam
Guest Commentary
November 2005

by: John von Heyking



Observers of Iran have been puzzling over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's actions lately. A populist, but not terribly popular, president, he raised the ire of the West and some of his domestic rivals when he recently proclaimed Israel should be "wiped off the map." Iran's nuclear ambitions are well-known. However, Western observers have paid less attention to the political and religious ideology behind some of Ahmadinejad's actions, which he has expressed in recent speeches (and here) that have had messianic overtones and are deeply troublesome.

In a region known for bombastic (pardon the pun) politicians, it's unclear how to understand the direction Iran is moving. This is due in part to its closed decision-making process. Writing recently in the New York Review of Books, Timothy Garton Ash draws several comparisons between Iran and the former Communist bloc. Interpreting the intentions of the Iranian leadership resembles Kremlinology with its "reading the tea leaves" methodology of trying to interpret events with the slimmest of evidence. Understanding Iran is further complicated by the fact that it lacks a unitary structure, or sovereign, that makes decisions. Iran in fact has two governments: its formal democratic government run by Ahmadinejad and a religious-ideological command structure headed by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Mediating these two power structures is the Expediency Council, headed by former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, (whom Ahmadinejad defeated in the recent presidential election) who has also recently been in the news accusing Ahmadinejad of destroying the Iranian Revolution. Power is extremely decentralized in Iran, with a myriad of patrons and cronies vying for control over its institutions, leading Ash to conclude: "No wonder Iranian political scientists reach for terms like 'polyarchy,' 'elective oligarchy,' 'semi-democracy,' or 'neopatrimonialism.'" Ahmadinejad's bellicose speeches must be understood in light of his ambitions amidst the faultlines of Iranian domestic politics, but they may have ominous implications for the rest of us.

In a speech on November 16th, Ahmadinejad spoke of his belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam. One of the differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Islam is that the latter, who dominate Iran and form the majority in Iraq, believe that Allah shielded or hid Muhammad al-Mahdi as the Twelfth Imam until the end of time. Shi'ites expect the Twelfth Imam, which Jews and Christians would recognize as a messianic figure, to return to save the world when it had descended into chaos. Shi'ite orthodoxy has it that humans are powerless to encourage the Twelfth Imam to return. However, in Iran a group called the Hojjatieh believe that humans can stir up chaos to encourage him to return. Ayatollah Khomeini banned the group in the early 1980s because they rejected one of the primary commitments of the Iranian revolution: the concept of Vilayat-i Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). In other words, they opposed the notion of an Islamic republic because it would hinder the Twelfth Imam's return on account of it being too just and peaceful. Today, in addition to the possibility of Ahmadinejad himself being a member (or a former member), the group has connections to Qom ultraconservative cleric Mesbah Yazdi whom Iranians frequently refer to as the "crazed one" and the "crocodile." Four of the twenty-one new cabinet ministers are purportedly Hojjatieh members. Some reports state that cabinet ministers must sign a formal pledge of support for the Twelfth Imam.

The possibility of Ahmadinejad belonging to this group does not make a lot of sense, at least if one wishes to regard him as a pragmatic politician. Why would the president of the Islamic republic object to the existence of that Islamic republic? Moreover, his recent references to the Twelfth Imam have been to promote Iran as 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." Most Iranians would have interpreted this statement as typical Iranian nationalist and Islamist rhetoric aimed against the West and as a reference to his policy of using oil money to improve the plight of the poor. However, helping the poor is central to Islamic social teaching and he need not have referred to the "Imam Mahdi's return" to say this.

In terms of pragmatic politics, Ahmadinejad's actions make some a degree of sense because he is using radicalism to secure power in a fraying society whose economy is in trouble. Despots historically use this strategy to secure their power. While a populist, he is hardly popular. He was elected president because he was perceived as the least insider of the insiders who competed for the office. Iranians rejected former president Hashemi Rafsanjani for being too much part of the establishment. Ash reports: "'A stick would have won against Rafsanjani,' an Iranian politician told me." Rafsanjani, for his part, has come out with withering attacks (at least for Iran) against Ahmadinejad's nuclear anti-Israel speeches and for betraying the Iranian revolution. The conflict between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani reflects a struggle over political power but also an ideological struggle over the direction of the Iranian revolution. If Ahmadinejad's enemies are to be believed, he wishes to undermine the Iranian revolution. However, as Ash observes, double-talk is a way of life in Iran and in societies in the decadent stages of their revolution, and so readers should be skeptical of everyone's claims. Even Rafsanjani, the supposed "moderate" (at least in comparison to Ahmadinejad), supports uranium reprocessing for the country's nuclear program.

Yet, Ahmadinejad's speeches and actions cannot be understood exclusively in terms of a despotic figure who radicalizes politics for the sake of power. He has chosen to radicalize Iranian politics in a particular way, and one that issues a direct challenge to the underpinnings of the regime. This returns us to Ahmadinejad's references to the return of the Twelfth Imam. The Hojjatieh's belief in humans' power to effect his return, which, to repeat, are unorthodox for Shi'ites, should be of grave concern for everyone. This belief should remind Westerners of a long tradition in the West of millenarians dating back to medieval times, and including even Marxian notions of "immiseration of the proletariat," who believed their religious and ideological activism would inaugurate a new age for humanity. Medieval millenarians, famously documented by Norman Cohn in his The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, stirred up political chaos in the apocalyptic hope that it would effect the return of Christ. More recent expressions of this "metastatic faith" (to borrow a term from political philosopher Eric Voegelin) include the poison gas attack on the Tokyo subways by members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult and of course the 9/11 attacks that were part of al-Qaeda's "divine" politics intended to destroy the "dar al-Harb" and pave the way for a worldwide Islamist empire. Political scientist Barry Cooper has documented the apocalyptic core of their "Salafist" violence. Groups like these believe their religious and ideological violence is "altruistic" because it purports to "cleanse" the world of the impure and infidel.

According to Shi'ite teaching, the Twelfth Imam will not require an introduction upon his return. His identity will be self-evident to all, or at least to those capable of recognizing him. One view states that he will rule through a deputy, or perhaps the deputy will precede the Imam's return. Perhaps the deputy's identity should also be evident to all who can see.

While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam's return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical "logic" behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi's return. The deputy would promote Iran's nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world. The deputy would also purge diplomats, dozens of deputy ministers and heads of government banks and businesses, and challenge the Iranian ruling clerical establishment. All these moves push the regime toward a "coup d'├ętat" (according to one Iranian source) or at least a constitutional crisis. But a constitutional crisis would be a mere stepping stone for a president for whom the Twelfth Imam does not require an Islamic republic to return.

Western observers need to be able to understand the ideological and religious overtones of the current situation in Iran. Ahmadinejad's peculiar references to the Twelfth Imam are no mere eccentricity to be taken lightly. Nor do they seem to be the rhetorical ploy of a politician manipulating the excitable masses (as some have interpreted Saddam Hussein's embrace of Islamism in the later part of his rule). Minimally, Ahmadinejad's speeches and actions portend a constitutional crisis for the Iranian regime. Maximally, there are times when one should take bombastic statements not as double-talk, but for what they are.

end of quote

The fringe Islamists believe in the coming of the Twelfth Imam. That is why we have to remain in Iraq so that Democracy can spread to the rest of the Middle East. The radical fringe is NOT accepted by most Muslims--certainly not by most young Iranians. but those who do believe on the fringes are highly dangerous to ALL OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD-

Note_-

Shia sources
Twelver Shia Muslims believe that the Mahdi is the 12th and last of the Shi'a Imams.
He was born in 255 or 256 AH and is still alive.
He has been in 'occultation' since the age of five years, that is, he has been living anonymously and unknown to public but nevertheless in the physical world.
His father is the 11th Shi'a Imam, Hasan al-Askari
His mother is Narjis, a Byzantine princess
Imam mahdi is living among people but people don't know him, like the prophet Yusuf (Joseph) that remained unknown to his brothers until he introduced himself.
He looks young although he is over 1000 years old.
He has many similarities to other prophets:
- His face is like Yusuf - He has a long life like Nuh (Noah) - He is patient as was Ayyub (Job) - His birth was hidden for security like Musa (Moses)


Characteristics of the Mahdi

Sunni and Shi'a sources
His name is generally accepted to be Mohammad, Mahdi is just a title.
Some Muslims claim that his name can be an accepted variant of Muhammad such as Ahmed or Mahmoud; Supporters of this idea quote a passage from the prophet Muhammad in the Hadith which is interpreted: "If there remains only a day for the world to come to an end, Allah will prolong this day till He raises a man from my nation and my progeny. His name will be my name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity as it would have fraught with injustice and oppression." (Muntakhabul Asar by Lutfullah Safi Gulpaygani, p. 153)
His facial features are similar to those of Muhammad.
His character is like that of Muhammad, he would follow him perfectly and shall err not.

Sunni sources
He has a fair complexion.
He has a broad forehead and a prominent nose.

Signs indicating the emergence of the Mahdi

Shi'a sources
According to Shia sources no one can detemine the time of Imam Mahdi's emergence and whoever determines any specific time is a liar (Kamal ul-din, p 484, Hadith #4). Nevertheless, there are some signs for his emergence, most of which are not necessary conditions for his reappearance.
The 6th Shi'a Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, is reported to have said:
"Before the appearance of the one who will rise, peace be upon him, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa. Their blood will be shed and houses destroyed. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they shall have no rest."
There will be an insurgence by the Sufyani, a descendant of Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan is considered by Shias to have been one of Muhammad's worst enemies, along with his son, Muawiya I and Muawiya's son, Yazid. According to Shia narrations, the Sufyani's revolution will start from Palestine/Jordan, and his reign of tyranny will span the Middle East from Iraq to Egypt.
A loud call from the sky signals the Mahdi's appearance.

Emergence of the Mahdi

Sunni and Shi'a sources
He emerges during the last days of the world from Makkah
He and Isa (ie. Jesus) are two different individuals; This so accepted by consensus of earlier scholars, although it counters the prophetic tradition presented by famous Muslim historian Ibn Khuldun. He quotes Anas ibn Malik that the prophet said, "لا مهدي إلا عيسى بن مريم", literally meaning: No Mahdi but Jesus son of Mary.
He precedes the second appearance of Jesus
He establishes justice, peace and truth throughout the world (or land, the Arabic word "الأرض" pronounced al-ardh does not necessarily translates to whole world or Planet Earth only, it basically means 'land' and could thus address to some nation or part thereof.)
Jesus defeats the false Messiah or Antichrist, known as the ad-Dajjal
Once the Dajjal is defeated, Jesus and the Mahdi live on Earth to live out their natural life
According to some traditions, Jesus gets married, has a family, and dies. There is a grave reserved for him next to Muhammad's grave in Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina.
The Mahdi will correct the false or corrupted practices in Islam, and Jesus will likewise correct false practices done in his name (i.e. Christianity)
Some scholars also established Jesus could be praying behind Mahdi.
Jesus will destroy all the crucifixes and churches

Shi'a sources
Upon his emergence, the young among his followers, without any prior appointment, reach Mecca that very night
Each of his soldiers has the power of forty strong men
Sinful opposers call their own followers to fight
A large number of non-believers will convert to Islam once they see that the signs in the reports have occurred
end of quote-

DURING THE LAST DAYS OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!according to the radical fringe of Islam!!!

That is why we must remain in Iraq and get the rest of the world to sanction Iran. The fringe fundamentalists are NUTS!!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 10:01:13