184 votes

Ahmadinejad Embraces Jews, Rejects Zionism

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

have you heard the term third world?

first world? second world? that's the basic world order. Obviously there's a lot more to it but that's often the kind of thing people are talking about when they talk about the order of the world. Rearranging that is bringing in a new world order. That could mean turning 3rd world countries into 2nd/1st world countries.

If Iran wanted to have a bigger say in the world, more respect, or if they became a huge trading power then the order of the world would be rearranged. They'd be more important. You could say countries with nukes (or big armies) move up the order automatically but size of economy and various other factors come into play too, like influence on others.

It's not always 'The New World Order' as a lot of people think. That's not to say there's no vast conspiracy for world government and so on. Just that the order of the world is a thing that exists even if every country was completely independent and globalisation didn't exist. Also his New World Order could mean sharia law everywhere just like the new world order the russians wanted would be communism everywhere.

Thank you for posting!

This video is heart warming and so hopeful. Beautiful!


Thank you for sharing.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

ecorob's picture


you won't see this on your national TV

if this man is a demon then so am I...and I am NOT!

joe biden is a self proclaimed zionist!

100 years?

thats telling, isn't it?

coincides with the banking cartel's uprising!


its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.


you wont

He always gets a bad rap.

He always gets a bad rap. I've always, from what I can tell, found him to be an honest man.

Blessings )o(

He's a politician

But certainly seems better than ours. People can say what they want about him, and on a lot of things they may be right, but re: war (arguably the single most important issue in politics) he is doing everything he can to avoid a fight, while our politicians are doing everything they can to get one.

I wouldn't go so

far as to call him honest...

"Neda Agha Soltan, killed 20.06.2009, Presidential Election Protest, Tehran, IRAN"


Then watch the president's comments about believing in people's right to protest and democracy in a recent Piers Morgan interview:


(Part 1 of interview, starting 9:00)

The thing is, we really don't

The thing is, we really don't know who really won that election. I have seen evidence that he really did win and that the uprising was largely centered in the more liberal urban areas. Across the nation, he is loved by the "common people" of his land. But it fit the neocon agenda to insist that Iran is no real democracy.

First of all

how can you see "evidence" that he won any election? Did you see a fair election process in which voting with a paper trail was used, and that there was never a chance the paper recorded votes was tampered with? And all that was accurately counted?

Admittedly, I'm no expert on Iran. I'm an outsider. However, it seems to me what you refer to as the "common people" of Iran are those that are highly religious and want a theocracy. More "modern" thinking Iranians, I believe, like Neda, the girl who was murdered for protesting, believe in more freedom of expression.

Regardless... the girl was murdered, and he was in power. What does that say?

Notice I didn't say I knew

Notice I didn't say I knew for a fact he really won. I said we really don't know. I do know the neocon media wanted to make it look like they knew he really lost.

It doesn't matter how modern Neda was. If the majority of her nation thinks differently, they had a free election.

And Obama and Bush have killed innocents. What is your point?

You said

"I have seen evidence that he really did win"

You are saying that you know he truly won based on evidence you were an eye-witness to. In other words, you know he really won.

How else is anyone supposed to interpret that statement?

What I said is that anything you may have seen surely can't be reliable evidence of an election result one way or another because of ways that evidence or vote process itself could have been compromised.

I think we really need some critical thinking courses in this country. It's no wonder our people got duped into the Federal Reserve system.

What is my point?

I was addressing this quote from the original poster:

"He always gets a bad rap. I've always, from what I can tell, found him to be an honest man."

An honest man?!? How the hell can you tell that based on what someone is saying? The man is a politician. You're telling me his country is fair and open to democracy?

I'll tell you what I think. I think Ahmadinejad has certain convictions. I think he bases his worldview on these convictions, and his convictions are deeply religious. I think he believes fundamentally in respect for all people, without racial bias. It's sad this seems to be more than I can say for America's history.

I think Ahmadinejad has a virtuous way of thinking, on that particular view. At the same time I believe his fervent adherence to his religious beliefs causes a restrictive view of what rights people have. This leads him, for example, to make statements like there are no gay people in Iran, and people are not born gay.

I believe he holds his religious views so dear he is willing to kill his own people to protect that way of thinking. I think that is why Neda was killed in cold blood for protesting.

As for Bush and Obama killing "innocents" these have all been done under the pretext of war with an enemy, and collateral damage. I'm not saying that I personally believe the killing can be justified that way, but it does allow the politician to be consistent with what he says his policy is, which people vote on, and what he does.

Killing a peaceful protester, and then saying you believe in people's right to protest, is not the same thing.