Unfortunately, he must be stoned to death. Anybody want a beer?

I thought he would be beheaded but stoneing will work just fine

...the Society of the Militant Clergy of Tehran"... just warms your heart doesn't it. His remarks denote the insanity of some of these despot leaders.

Wait until they find out what they did in his hotel room.

What a crazy ****** -up religion the mullahs extoll. Amadinejad the reformer!

PJ-1795048

Ahmadinejad's scandalous moment with Hugo Chavez's mother

For a moment I thought I was reading an Iranian newspaper. But then I realized this was NBCNEWS headline. What sick bastards see two grieving people and put this kind of headline. Unfortunately in this case the answer is NBCNEWS.

No PJ, the headline is correct as it is in relation to the Islamic religion's strict guidelines when dealing with women. Did you read the article all the way through?

His sin — unfortunately for him captured in a photograph — transpired when he came cheek to cheek with a grieving Elena Frias, the mother of the late president, while clasping her hands. In strict Islamic societies, people are not supposed to touch others of the opposite gender unless they are related or married.

"In relation to what is allowed (halal) and what is forbidden (haram) we know that no unrelated women can be touched unless she is drowning at sea or needs (medical) treatment," said Hojat al-Islam Hossein Ibrahimi, member of the Society of Militant Clergy of Tehran, according to the Iran Pulse report.

@TrustVerify - Kudos to you for saying this loud. Unfortunately most people's opinions are driven by the TV rather than books and so we see all these ignorant comments.

@stateofawareness - the headline should reflect NBCNEWS' view. If NBCNEWS wanted to convey that this is what Iranian newspapers are reporting then NBCNEWS should've said it in those terms rather than making it sound like this is what their take on the photo is.

PJ, I'm with you on this. There's no lower level for NBC News to fall. Thanks to their "great" staff writer Kari Huus.

Oh, and by the way, if Kari Huus cannot spell English properly, don't they have someone to test read the text before publishing it? ... just take the first sentence "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have endeared himself to much of Latin...".

Ehm, English is my 3rd language, but I would be ashamed to write "to much" and publish it. Maybe the writer needs to refresh his/her English and learn to make a comparison between "to" and "too".

How stupid are these people working for NBC News? Is the level of education so low nowadays ???

Ha, who thought that crazy Amadinejad would turn out to be a reformer? Seriously, I have no love for the idiot but he's comforting the man's mother. Geez.

Hey, maybe Ahmaweinerjihad was going for it. Stop with the blocking NBC!

LM, actually, that usage by NBC News is correct. (There's a first for everything!)

"Too much" means excessive quantities, as in, "People may expect too much of NBC News' copy editing efforts." ;)

The meaning of the words "to much" as used here may be discernable from a few different examples: He endeared himself to [his dog, by giving him a bone] OR [all of his neighbors, by installing a swimming pool] OR [much - meaning most, but not all - of Latin America, by comforting Chavez' grieving mother]. I apologize, as I can't remember the grammatical term for this usage, but it's definitely correct.

@trustverify......if you do not like this countries actions, move to peace loving Iran. I'm certain they would be happy to let you in.

In relation to what is allowed (halal) and what is forbidden (haram) we know that no unrelated women can be touched unless she is drowning at sea or needs (medical) treatment

Actually there is a 3rd caveat to the touching rule:

Super Secret Special Situation (humpum) when a female is in your presence and bends over to pick up anything other than the Quran, you may mount her sek style and have at her!

Hello @C, it's because I love this country that when we break International law and are going in the wrong direction that I stand up for what our founding fathers and our constitution stood for. You have no right to tell anyone to leave this country, who are you that is above anyone else?

"unless she is drowning at sea or needs (medical) treatment"

I don't know what "(medical) treatment" is, but I'm glad the ayatollahs will allow it in Iran, whereas the Taliban do not seem to allow it at all...

Also wonder if it's ok to save a woman drowning in fresh water....

Religious fundamentalism, of any sect, is vastly amusing except to the people who suffer under the lash...

trustverify -

I have no idea who you are, but your information is loaded with propagandist lies.

You say Iran has not attacked any country since 1828? Where were you when they attacked the US embassy - a US territory - in 1979? what about their attack on USS Stark - a US Navy property? or murdering 243 US Marines in Beirut in 1982?

Then you post that the US has attacked Iran? was it before your time? remind us, some refernce please.

When we experienced the ways of the murderous theocratic dictaorship of Iran - we moved to US and we thank heavens for this country every day. If you think so bad of the US and think Iran is so wonderful, you should move there. I agree with C-104 completely and I further believe that you are an anti American radical who despises the US in disguise of "I love my country" non sense.

@TrustVerify

+1 & thank you...

c1042855

@trustverify......if you do not like this countries actions, move to peace loving Iran. I'm certain they would be happy to let you in.

I second that motion. Trustverify, you have no clue what Iran has done in Iraq, and through their surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah.

As to this story, leave it to those fun loving Iranian Clerics to criticize their puppet Ahmadinijad for hugging a grieving mother.

I thank God every day that this great Christian nation of ours doesn't have religious nuts who demand that we treat women as second-class citizens to be controlled. I say a little prayer of gratitude to the Baby Jesus Himself that we don't choose our leaders based on what is said inside the churches they attend.

Because we have the First Amendment, and our God knows good and well to stay the Hell out of our government.

/sarcasm

"In relation to what is allowed (halal) and what is forbidden (haram) we know that no unrelated women can be touched unless she is drowning at sea or needs (medical) treatment,"

ONLY religion can come up with statements as STUPID as this....and more sorry yet is people that believe this crap!!

I have little but contempt for religion, much less for one that doesn't allow a man to comfort a grieving Mother.

LM, it must be so embarrassing to have made such a smug comment about the author's use of the word "to", only to be unequivocally wrong.

And that my friends is a holier-than-thou infidel.

I wonder where Mossad was...

lol He had too much of Latin America? hmm maybe so, thanks for enlightening me LM i didnt read that right the first time through.

Trust and verify,

Damm strait!! And if any of these other @!$%#s want some they know where we are. The world is full of bad people. I don't agree with everybody we've attacked, But I would rather be the attacker than the Attacked. And believe me if some of these people see us as weak the attacks won't stop until America as a nation will be finished!!

OFF with his head...........

Hello @Farideh, let's keep this simple how many dead and displaced people has the US been responsible for and how many has Iran? That’s right, it’s not even close! The sanctions on Iran have been estimated to have caused tens of thousands of deaths already.

The Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal sanctions, and Clinton’s immoral secretary of state Madeleine Albright, a feminist hero, said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half million dead Iraqi children. See video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

My point is that we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people not even counting the bombs and bullets. If you add the other countries we have attacked we have killed millions.

In terms of the Beirut bombing they were attributed to Hezbollah. I know you are going to say they are being funded by Iran. But if you want to argue over funding terrorists, we are funding AL Qaeda in Libya and Syria which I guess makes them “good Al Qaeda” and fighting them in Afghanistan, Yemen and Mali which I guess makes them “bad Al Qaeda”. It’s at the least confusing without a program and at its worst unadulterated hypocrisy.

The USS Stark: Iran had nothing to do with it. It was 1987, an American ship, the USS Stark was patrolling the waters of the Persion Gulf, when an Iraqi air force place fired a missile into the hull of the ship, crippling it, and killing 37 servicemen. The Iraqi pilot made it home and was never punished. Reagan never bombed Iraq, or punished them for the crime. I find this odd, since such an attack would have been met with an attack by Bush or Obama. We let Iraq off the hook then, because we favored them in the Iraq/Iran war.

Do you know why the embassy in Iran was taken over? I didn't think so. We removed their leader and put in the infamous Shaw in power via a coup. The Shaw Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī was our puppet. In 1953, Iran, or Persia as it was then called, had a functioning democratic system. A successful coup by the CIA and British Intelligence overthrew the democratically elected government and replaced them with the hereditary Shah of Persia. His abuses and misrule led directly to the Islamic Revolution and the problems we have encountered with their Islamic government ever since. In the early 1980s, Iraq thus was encouraged to invade Iran, by the US in a fit of pique, and was supplied with arms in the resulting war. This assistance helped solidify Saddam Hussein's military ambitions and indirectly encouraged his invasion of Kuwait in 1991, all of which led to the mess in Iraq today.

In any event Farideh, you think because you speak out against your former country that you are accepted here by every one? Although I welcome you with open arms the mood of many in this country would have you in an Abu Ghraib style detention center regardless of a spotless criminal history. So when you hear someone speaking truth to power don’t get it confused with anti Americanism it could very well be the opposite.

trustverify -

You have no clue. I have been there, lived there, know the regime. I can tell an anti American radicalist muslim when I see one. You are giving me Clinton interference in Iraq as an example of attack on Iran? If you cannot back up your sensationalist claims - don't post them. You wrote a book of unrelated non sense to one question I had: Back up your claim on US attack on Iran? and I gave you examples of Iranian attacks on US - and you back tracked with explanations. By the way, that is spelled "Shah" and he gave people freedom of religion and secularity wad welcomed. Only a radical muslim would oppose that.

I don't talk against my former country - just its current filthy theocratic dictatorship. Can you not tell the difference? Move to Iran - ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs will love you for your dhimmi views.

@ trust & verify,

Are you R-E-A-L-L-Y an American or posting from Iran? If you are an American, you could easily fit in with the American Taliban...your criticism of this great country is disgusting...you really would be happier in Iran (for about a day).

Cheek humping.

Trustverify

You wrote:

In our short 236 year history we have bombed over 67 countries and have been at war for 217 years. We have no right to bash other countries who have shown a penchant for peace while we are clearly the biggest and most brutal warlords the planet has ever seen.

No matter what you say about how much you love the US, you are just fooling yourself. You hate this country and all that it stands for. I am not putting words in your mouth, you have said it. It doesn't matter to you which Party is in power, you don't like any of them. So while you may deny wanting to leave this country think about it. We won't change. You do actually need to leave. I don't say that to be mean or nasty. You will always hate the US. You will feel better out of here. I am really trying to give you good advice.

What poetic justice it would be to see this despot stand trial and be served punishment by the same religious freak he works for.

Mark

They will male him disappear before they put him on trial.

Hello @ Farideh, your right, I failed to answer your question regarding the attack on Iran. Here you go! Besides the Drone attack into Iranian air space the enclosed article outlines other attacks.

War on Iran has already begun. Act before it threatens all of us

Escalation of the covert US-Israeli campaign against Tehran risks a global storm. Opposition has to get more serious

طالع المقال بالعربية

• Share6423
• inShare30
• Email

• • Seumas Milne
  • The Guardian, Wednesday 7 December 2011 15.59 EST
  • Jump to comments (496)

Iranians carry honorary coffins and pictures of a Revolutionary Guards commander killed in an explosion at the Alghadir missile base. Photograph: Reuters

They don't give up. After a decade of blood-drenched failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, violent destabilisation of Pakistan and Yemen, the devastation of Lebanon and slaughter in Libya, you might hope the US and its friends had had their fill of invasion and intervention in the Muslim world.

It seems not. For months the evidence has been growing that a US-Israeli stealth war against Iran has already begun, backed by Britain and France. Covert support for armed opposition groups has spread into a campaign of assassinations of Iranian scientists, cyber warfare, attacks on military and missile installations, and the killing of an Iranian general, among others.

The attacks are not directly acknowledged, but accompanied by intelligence-steered nods and winks as the media are fed a stream of hostile tales – the most outlandish so far being an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US – and the western powers ratchet up pressure for yet more sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.

The British government's decision to take the lead in imposing sanctions on all Iranian banks and pressing for an EU boycott of Iranian oil triggered the trashing of its embassy in Tehran by demonstrators last week and subsequent expulsion of Iranian diplomats from London.

It's a taste of how the conflict can quickly escalate, as was the downing of a US spyplane over Iranian territory at the weekend. What one Israeli official has called a "new kind of war" has the potential to become a much more old-fashioned one that would threaten us all.

Last month the Guardian was told by British defence ministry officials that if the US brought forward plans to attack Iran (as they believed it might), it would "seek, and receive, UK military help", including sea and air support and permission to use the ethnically cleansed British island colony of Diego Garcia.

Whether the officials' motive was to soften up public opinion for war or warn against it, this was an extraordinary admission: the Britain military establishment fully expects to take part in an unprovoked US attack on Iran – just as it did against Iraq eight years ago.

What was dismissed by the former foreign secretary Jack Straw as "unthinkable", and for David Cameron became an option not to be taken "off the table", now turns out to be as good as a done deal if the US decides to launch a war that no one can seriously doubt would have disastrous consequences. But there has been no debate in parliament and no mainstream political challenge to what Straw's successor, David Miliband, this week called the danger of "sleepwalking into a war with Iran". That's all the more shocking because the case against Iran is so spectacularly flimsy.

There is in fact no reliable evidence that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons programme. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report once again failed to produce a smoking gun, despite the best efforts of its new director general, Yukiya Amano – described in a WikiLeaks cable as "solidly in the US court on every strategic decision".

As in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the strongest allegations are based on "secret intelligence" from western governments. But even the US national intelligence director, James Clapper, has accepted that the evidence suggests Iran suspended any weapons programme in 2003 and has not reactivated it.

The whole campaign has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it. Iran, which says it doesn't want nuclear weapons, is surrounded by nuclear-weapon states: the US – which also has forces in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as military bases across the region – Israel, Russia, Pakistan and India.

Iran is of course an authoritarian state, though not as repressive as western allies such as Saudi Arabia. But it has invaded no one in 200 years. It was itself invaded by Iraq with western support in the 1980s, while the US and Israel have attacked 10 countries or territories between them in the past decade. Britain exploited, occupied and overthrew governments in Iran for over a century. So who threatens who exactly?

As Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said recently, if he were an Iranian leader he would "probably" want nuclear weapons. Claims that Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel because President Ahmadinejad said the state "must vanish from the page of time" bear no relation to reality. Even if Iran were to achieve a nuclear threshold, as some suspect is its real ambition, it would be in no position to attack a state with upwards of 300 nuclear warheads, backed to the hilt by the world's most powerful military force.

The real challenge posed by Iran to the US and Israel has been as an independent regional power, allied to Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas movements. As US troops withdraw from Iraq, Saudi Arabia fans sectarianism, and Syrian opposition leaders promise a break with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, the threat of proxy wars is growing across the region.

A US or Israeli attack on Iran would turn that regional maelstrom into a global firestorm. Iran would certainly retaliate directly and through allies against Israel, the US and US Gulf client states, and block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. Quite apart from death and destruction, the global economic impact would be incalculable.

All reason and common sense militate against such an act of aggression. Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel's Mossad, said last week it would be a "catastrophe". Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, warned that it could "consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret".

There seems little doubt that the US administration is deeply wary of a direct attack on Iran. But in Israel, Barak has spoken of having less than a year to act; Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, has talked about making the "right decision at the right moment"; and the prospects of drawing the US in behind an Israeli attack have been widely debated in the media.

Maybe it won't happen. Maybe the war talk is more about destabilisation than a full-scale attack. But there are undoubtedly those in the US, Israel and Britain who think otherwise. And the threat of miscalculation and the logic of escalation could tip the balance decisively. Unless opposition to an attack on Iran gets serious, this could become the most devastating Middle East war of all.

LM-2418400:

... just take the first sentence "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have endeared himself to much of Latin...".

You might be more careful in your condescension of others education level. Maybe, just maybe, we can understand why English is your third language. Please see the defined use of "to" versus "too" below.

"To is a versatile preposition. A few of its many definitions are (1) toward, (2) reaching as far as, and (3) until.¹ Too is an adverb meaning (1) additionally, (2) excessively, (3) very, or (4) extremely.² Whenever you’re in doubt about whether to use to or too, see if any of those synonyms of too (i.e., additionally, extremely, etc.) would work in its place. If none fits, then to is probably the word you’re looking for."

I believe that the author was suggesting that Ahmadinejad was endearing himself toward Latin America, not additionally, excessively, very, or extremely!

trustverify:

Why don't you move to Iran? It's ironic that you criticise the US so much, when it's the country that actually allows you to criticise it. Try that in Iran and you will have your head handed to you in your hands. You should feel grateful to be living in America.

And number of wars doesn't reflect degrees of evil. Obviously America has been involved in more wars; they are the world's superpower. There are plenty of despicable governments around the world not involved in invading other countries. That being said, Iran is certainly not averse to sticking its hand in other countries' affairs.

Chavez may yet appear alongside Jesus Christ because we all know ...most white men need a 'Jose' to delegate mundane trivial tasks to.

As for the iranian mullhas going after ackhmajandidhdkawawa ....i love to watch a good dog-fight !!!

Oh Hell! He' managed to get the Mullahs all stirred up. Now he's going to have to call Secretary John Kerry and ask for political asylum. Sounds like President Ahmadinejad is about to be come EX-President Amagonnaneedajob!

It saddens me that there are people in America who actually LIKE dictators. Chavez killed many political opponents. Saying that he didn't is like saying the Holocaust isn't real or Stalin didn't kill millions of non-communists in his gulags. I'm also surprised that there are people that actually think Chavez- like Socialism works, when history has proved numerous times that it doesn't work at all.

Colombia, not Columbia.

".if you do not like this countries actions, move to peace loving Iran. I'm certain they would be happy to let you in."

Anther one of those love it or leave it idiots.

And, an illiterate one at that. "Countries" is plural; "country's" is possessive and singular. You used the wrong one.

Hey dixie girl. when Christ was on the cross, he was beside a thief on one side, and a murderer on the other. He offered them salvation and forgiveness for their sins. So tell us what sins you think Chavez committed, that Jesus will not offer him the same.

As for the muslim clerics, they should ask themselves why they are so afraid of love and sex. they want to control sex, just like republicans.

I doubt Chavez will be anywhere near Jesus Christ...he is burning in Hell.....

And according to my beliefs you are going to rot in the ground when you die and your parents and children will rot too.

@TrustVerify,

You're right on the money with the Stark incident and I note that farideh chose to ignore your related response, hoping nobody would notice I guess.

@farideh,

You've pushed the same story before and been told it's not true. Wonder why you persist with it?

Mike, what a cheeky comment !!!

As for me, I wouldn't extend my hand to a mullah if he were drowning at sea.

tackandcover: "Anther [sic] one of those love it or leave it idiots."

Word to the wise: when attacking (or counterattacking), do a simple spellcheck. It lends credibility, presuming your statement would've had any.

I'm not a big fan of either of these guys, however, Amenijad shows a moment of compassion (shock!!!) and is admonished by the leaders of his "religion"?? What's wrong with this picture??? How f***d up is a religion that doesn't allow for compassion? Or should I say, those who interpret their religion to the point compassion is not allowed at all???

Is compassion central to Islam? Many people think jihad is more central to it than compassion. At least this is the general impression of people including of course Muslims. But this is not so. Compassion is far more central to Islam than jihad. It is certain happenings in history of Islam and also in contemporary world that this impression about jihad goes round.

In fact compassion represents the true spirit of Islam and compassion is far more vital to Islamic teachings than any thing else. In fact compassion in Islam, after the concepts of unity of God (tawhid) and risalah (messengership of Muhammad) is as central to Islam as it is to Buddhism. We will throw light on compassion in Islam in the following passages.

There are certain key words in the Qur’an which are greatly stressed of which four are very often repeated i.e. rahmah, ihsan ‘adl, and hikmah (compassion, benevolence, justice and wisdom). Rahmah (compassion, mercy) and its roots abound in the Holy Qur’an. Among Allah’s own names are Rahman and Rahim (compassionate and Merciful). A Muslim begins everything by reciting Bi Ism-i- Allah al-Rahman al-Rahim (i.e. begin in the name of Allah Who is Compassionate and Merciful). Thus a Muslim is supposed to invoke Allah the Compassionate and Merciful at every step. He does not invoke Allah’s other names (Allah has 99 names according to the Islamic belief) as he invokes Him as Merciful and Compassionate.

The very first chapter of the Qur’an has the second verse as Al-Rehman al-Rahim (The Compassionate, the Merciful). The first verse too carries the sense of compassion when it describes Allah as Rabb al-‘Alamin (i.e. Sustainer of the whole world). The concept of sustenance of the whole world itself is based on His Mercy and Compassion for every thing He has created. In fact rahmah is so central to Allah’s existence that it embraces all that exists in the universe (wasi`at kulla shayin) see verse 40:7.

In fact He sent His Messenger Muhammad also as the Mercy of the World (21:107). Thus the Prophet of Islam also represents universal mercy. As the Messenger of Allah he is representative of His Mercy and hence the Prophet himself is known as rahmatal lil `alamin (mercy of the worlds). Thus a true follower of the Prophet (PBUH) has to be merciful and compassionate to the extent humanly possible. Any one who is cruel and has no sensitivity towards sufferings of others cannot be Prophet’s true follower in any sense.

This is a great pity that Muslims themselves except the sufis and their followers have forgotten the emphasis of the Holy Qur’an on the quality of compassion. The Sufis lay tremendous stress on compassion. Their very fundamental doctrine is what is called sulh-i-kul i.e. peace with all which means no violence and no aggressiveness. The majority of Muslims of course follow sufi approach. It is only some frustrated fringe groups of Muslims who keep on talking of jihad and power.

--By Asghar Ali Engineer

Good info, most Americans would never agree, as I see posted above, but hell, who's interested in the TRUTH!!
Because of that, I'll repost it!

TrustVerify

Hello folks, listen to the indoctrinated sheeple bashing a compassionate gesture for leaders who stood up to the western plutocracy.

These two leaders have the respect of their countries people as they didn't allow their natural resources to be hijacked by the western corporate and banking cartels.

These leaders have not taken their countries to war under the false flags of weapons of mass destruction or Drone striking and murdering innocent men, women and children.

Since the Russian war in 1828, Iran has never attacked another country. We on the other hand have attacked to name a few:
Libya, Iran, Nicaragua, Haiti, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Honduras, Chile, Congo, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Angola, Columbia, Peru, Panama, Yemen, Pakistan, Grenada, Mexico, Libya, Mali etc..

In our short 236 year history we have bombed over 67 countries and have been at war for 217 years. We have no right to bash other countries who have shown a penchant for peace while we are clearly the biggest and most brutal warlords the planet has ever seen.

#1.9 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:36 PM CDT

You "guys" are missing the truth here. It's not "love and sex" they are afraid of it's WOMEN ! All and any societies that work as hard as some Muslim societies do at keeping the sexes separated and keeping females poor, uneducated and under the total control of their fathers or husbands are TERRIFIED of the potential of women to change society from it's focus on war and money to one of concern for families, children and peaceful coexistance.

@LM-2418400 There is nothing wrong with the grammar as written. "To" as it was used, is a preposition and was used as such to denote the direction and the amount the Iranian president has endeared himself, as in not "to" all of Latin America, or a "to" a little of it. "Too" denotes an addition to something; that was not the context of that sentence. I do agree however, that the headline is sensationalism and misleading, but that's nothing new.

I think it is a very nice human thing to do. But they put diapers on goats because they find them to tempting. I say to Islam Merry Christmas. They say it worse than murder.

what a doosh. it makes me laugh.. oooh the mullahs are mad...

if he were a woman theyd have already killed her.

@moshuluu All you did was repost a bit of history that didn't happen. TrustVerify got his date wrong and the country wrong. There was no Iran in 1828, it was the Persian Empire back then. The date Trust used was year the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire warred with each other (Russo-Turkish War 1828-1829). The Persian Empire did war with Russia from 1804-1813 in what was known as the Russo-Persian War and Russia started that war.

Hello Tommy, enclosed is an article outlining the 1826-1828 Russian - Persian (Iran was Persia and is synonymous) war. The point I was making is that Iran hasn't attacked another country in a very long time unlike our country. In Iran's case it has been centuries, in the US case it has been what, hours or days. You make @moshuluu's point that the sheeple avoid the truth. It's also a petty argument you make.

It's sad the sheeple enable the psychopathic warmongers in our country to wreak genocide on the rest of the planet. By supporting these actions you are as complicit as those that are perpetrating the crimes against humanity.

Russo-Persian War (1826–1828)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russo-Persian War (1826-1828)

Part of Russo-Persian Wars

Date

1826-1828

Location

South Caucasus
North Iran

Result

Treaty of Turkmenchay

Territorial
changes

Russia loses and then retakes disputed areas

Belligerents

Russian Empire

Persian Empire

Commanders and leaders

Aleksey Yermolov
Valerian Madatov
Ivan Paskevich

Fath 'Ali Shah
Abbas Mirza

Strength

34,000

35,000-50,000

Russo-Persian Wars

• 1651—1653
• 1722–23
• 1796
• 1804–13
• 1826–28

The Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828 was the last major military conflict between the Russian Empire and the Persian Empire.

After the Treaty of Gulistan concluded the previous Russo-Persian War in 1813, peace reigned in the Caucasus for thirteen years. However, Fath 'Ali Shah, constantly in need of foreign subsidies, relied on the advice of British agents, who pressed him to reconquer the territories lost to Russia and pledged their support to military action. The matter was decided upon in spring 1826, when a bellicose party of Abbas Mirza prevailed in Tehran and the Russian minister, Aleksandr Sergeyevich Menshikov, was placed under house arrest.

I was incorrect on the war timeline. But referring to Iran as Persia has to do with a region and the people of their respective times, not governmental affairs. Do we refer to Iranians as Iranians or Persians? Were the wars in the early 19th century called the Russo-Iranian Wars?

In any case, exactly what was petty in my reply? I was neither supporting or against anything, I just made an incorrect timeline reference, nothing more. So, if you're going to imply political positions on those who made none whatsoever in direct reply, you should consider the pettiness and it origins.

Holy Shi-ite Batman,

A Muslim said that the Mahdi and Jesus Christ will come back to earth and bring Chavez with them? I guess Ahmadinejab intends on requesting political asylum in Venezuela. I bet he is worrying if the Ayatollah is going to put a Fatwa on him.

Wonder if he stays in Venezuela, he'll convert to Catholicism? Wouldn't that frost the Shi-ites and the Sunnis cookies!

JC, CC and Al....the three supernatural caballeros.

"So Al-Imam al-Mahdi, Jesus, and Chavez walk into a bar together... "

Dang, now THERE's a PARTY!!!

"Everybody must get stoned"-Bob Dylan

Oral sex is against Islamic Law but he still needs to get beheaded when he lands back in Tehran...............

WELL,

He should be beatin and Stoned to death by his own people just like he would have done to them under their precious laws of murder, Limb removals and moon god driven cult activities.

Ok, let's play by the book here.

What is the Islamic punishment for playing cheek-to-cheek with a woman to whom one is not related?

Will that punishment be meted out to Ahmadinejad?

If so, it's okay by me. If not, why not?

A little grab ass never hurt ... unless it's Nana grab ass, that's just disgusting.

Hey dixie girl. when Christ was on the cross, he was beside a thief on one side, and a murderer on the other. He offered them salvation and forgiveness for their sins. So tell us what sins you think Chavez committed, that Jesus will not offer him the same.

As for the muslim clerics, they should ask themselves why they are so afraid of love and sex. they want to control sex, just like republicans.

Kill the infidel!!! Hey, what's good for the goose........

Oh my,,,,, This is just too precious for words.

.

The nut job and the infidel ! ! ! ( They most certainly deserve each other. )

.

Hey,,, this could be a new hit novela ! ! !

.

.

Not supposed to touch a woman unless married to her or she is a relative. In Muslim countries men touching little boys is OK though. Those little boy toys have a horrible life and turn into horrible adults.

Wow you guys are absolutely SMEARING !!!! The author is an absolute zionist and she has actually written a very emotinal epitaph for a rabbi in israel. this woman huus is very pro jewish and zionist in nature.

Having said that, I am not suprised that the article NIT PICKS on alleged islamic customs and "rules". Can you imagine them discussing how and when WE hug each other according to christian rules ? Can you see how ridiculous this entire article is and how it is designed to RILE you against muslims?

If this isn't clear, I don't know that most americans will EVER be able to tell the truth forthemselves without zionists and jews telling us what to think.

Oh and people HUG in Iran especially when it is a tender moment. SHAME on this woman for making up half this piece of crap smear writeup.

George Pauljohn = moron. I'm not even devoutly religious anymore, and even I remember the story (yes, story) that one of the "companions" on the Crosses didn't repent so was not absolved. In trying to insult one's intelligence and "shove it back in their face", at least get your points straight, you turd. That being said, if these metaphorical teachings hold true, Chavez would actually have to be REMORSEFUL for his acts to be absolved. I highly doubt he was, so who's to say he's not strapped down on a sweltering hot steel bed right now being lashed with barbed wire? I wouldn't call what Dixie was doing "ultimate judgment" but rather a, most likely, truthful observation. So take your Christian-hating, U.S.-loathing, waste of self to another thread with your pseudo-intellectual b.s. By the way, Chavez was known to take over wealth and capital (can't think of the word that encompasses "aspects of industry" that I'm thinking of) by force and WITH a "force", ordering...and, who knows, maybe even having a hand in, himself...the "taking out" of many who got in the way and resisted. Like others have stated, go to some of the streets in some of the cities & villages in Venezuela, and witness yourself the poverty and the crime & utter decadence the people have been pushed into under Chavez's "great and merciful leadership"; and you will see where the idea that "he is burning, now" originates.

@ Conrad,

"...the article NIT PICKS on alleged islamic customs and "rules".

Yeah, its not like he drew a cartoon or made a movie! He's a homie let it slide guys!

I think they are both descent people, and most likely have at least as much of a chance as any US politician in getting to Heaven.

We have plenty of idiots in the US and around the world that call themselves Christians. Remember that the Muslim faith was started because of the evil of the so called Christians.

Remember that the Muslim faith was started because of the evil of the so called Christians.

Tom, no offense implied or intended but you may want to research that a little further. Have a great day.

Tom, you sure don't know much about Islam. Just the fact that you said it arises because of Christianity. Sorry you need to study a little more history of Islam, the Qu'ran, sura, and hadith. You don't even have a clue. But I'm sure you would like to say you do and that you are intelligent. I studied Middle East Studies and Arabic, which covered pre-islamic to present. contemporary as well as fundamentals of islam.

richardharrow: What, you just said there was no hell in your other posts!?! Your posts are very confusing. Are you confused that USAF Ret does NOT run a country and that the other two gentleman that do (or did it) do it miseribly?

<sigh> richardharrow: you'll find sarcasm is not well recognized in these forums, especially if it's for making a point.

@Richardharrow - there is a hell, Its called planet earth, when you die, now that's heaven for that no one is reading your BS. OR hell is the United States, you know for having people like you just not contributing anything positive.

Richardarrow: Do you have an idea of the difference between internet and ethernet???

Descent- a downward inclination or slope. Spot on !

USAF there is no hell.

I think the Muslim religion was started when Mohammad got hold some bad hashish!

Ayatolla is jealous because his boyfriend hugged an old lady. What a brainless religion.

Does that go for all the other world leaders that stand up to the USA?

And the camel they rode in on!

Yep.....Fa-Q Iran.....

Hey dick, it's not just in the Muslim world. Take ultra-orthodox Jews, same @!$%#.

All these stupid fundamentlist religions are so @!$%#ed up. And the more young kids get brainwashed by their idiotic parents into following the commandments of their crazy religion, the more we have wars and problems all over the world.

Religions are a huge problem for today's world. Feel free to believe in whatever makes you happy, but don't force or brainwash others to follow.

And it’s not just those... take a look at what we have here in the US... those snake handling, tent revivalist pentacostals! Not to mention those nutbags who go on TV to preach for dollars - Robertson, et al... Bunch of religious perverts.

Well then you have the Atheists who pushed their truth on Christians to the tune of hundreds of Millions unarmed civilians butchered for either being religious or simply in the way of their Totalitarian regime. Or how about the Fascists hiding under the blanket of Socialism who murdered millions of Jews homosexuals even Catholics for adhering to their truths. Finally lets not forget the Corporatocracy that has developed the all new shiny and awe inspiring death weapons to instill envy fear and anger throughout the world. Watch how they manipulate poor nations and hundreds of thousands die of starvation disease and war because they are pushing their money as god truth on them. Many truths are being pushed on the innocent who want nothing more than a decent clean place to live healthy food to eat and to live in peace with their neighbor.

Looks like this whole humanity thing really sucks wouldn't you say? Oh, sorry , you just said that.

dick78132

The easy confidence with which I know another man religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also. Mark Twain

Fight - Eat the rich.

I have known many muslim folks who are not extreme and are nothing like the comments many of you are blogging. There are very kind and loving people not at all caught up in the Jhad or Al quada mentality at all! They just want to be left alone to pray and believe within their little communities. Just as Christianity has various types like Catholic, Luthean, fundamentalist extremes, and many other versions, so does the Muslim faith. Do not put all of them in one basket... Not fair. Not nice!...and most of you don't like that being done to you, now do you?

Suzanne--I think it would be fair to say that people have no issue with Muslims such as those you describe. I know I do not, and have no malice toward those. The issue is with those men who are so ignorant and wrapped up in the mullahs' interpretation of the Quran that they refuse to see the injustices that are perpetrated upon them only because it is a means by which the mullahs have control over their minds. It all boils down to lack of education--which the mullahs simply do not want. Education opens the mind and that would bring doom on their method of mind control. As I understand it, women are supposed to be cherished and respected. And yet, in so many places in the world, they absorb the fault for everything that occurs, and they are punished, disfigured, beaten, raped and murdered regularly often after false accusations. The sale or barter of female children who are not mature enough to submit to marital demands I find abhorrent. What I find doubly abhorrent is that the "peaceful" and "moderate" Muslims remain SILENT and do nothing other than "strongly condemn," which is meaningless. Evil runs rampant when good men do nothing.

Yest, it's terrible being Muslims.

Unlike us righteous Christians, who would never imagine harming our fellow man:

(i.e. Crusades, wiping out Native American Indians, collaboration with the Nazis, etc., etc.)