Is the Iranian President a Western Agent?

If you have ever heard of a little book called the Bible(and read any of it), you would know the Jews were in the region long before the 1800's. Not to mention the fact that Israel was conquered by the ancient Egyptians 3000 years ago, then again during the Roman Empire. Its obvious theyve been there, but the real questoin shoud be exactly where. Which is what this whole conflict is about. This might help.
ancientneareast.tripod.com...
www.greek-language.com...

If you look at the history you will note that they were 'moved' before, and you will also note that the Muslims have kicked out occupiers from the land before.

I understand the history and that they have been dispaced in the past, the difference now is they are far more advanced and have the support of the US. The last two times they tried to be dispaced they not only crushed their enemies, they took some of there land. Eventually Palestinians and Israeli's will live side by side in a peaceful "shared" land. Look back at history as well, Israel is the biblical owner of the land and have been for thousands of years, long before Muslim was even a religion.

The topic of this thread is the Iranian leader and his possible role as an agent.

Let's get back to it.
.

No offense mod but the history of Israel is directly related to his comments which is one of the reasons this thread has been brought up. Outrageous comments such as the ones he has set forth are largely aimed at Israel and its prospects of being moved. The idea that someone has the "balls" to say such comments either makes him insane, an agent propped to end the Theocracy in Iran or someone who believes his convictions and is trying to put Iran on a deliberate collision course with the west. Again no offense.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Dreamz]

Originally posted by Dreamz
No offense mod but the history of Israel is directly related to his comments...

Agreed, but his comments are also being discussed in other threads.

I just don't want this thread turning into another Israel v. Palestine debate while leaving the topic of his role as an agent behind. See what I'm saying?
.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
ludaChris it’s the norm in here, everything is a conspiracy, and if you don't think so you are either a fool for not seeing the bigger picture, or you have been brainwashed by the power that be.

Yes, and it kills me sometimes. I dont believe in any of these Illuminati legends or any of the such. The one that chaps my ass the most is the stuff said about the Masons. I'm sure I'll get tagged for this post, but I'm glad to see I'm not alone here. I like the avatar by the way, old "Iron Ass". Father of the Strategic Air Command, great man, recognized what an asset air superiority really is.

Originally posted by enslaved83
1) He is trying to arouse revolutionary spirit in Iran ready for what he see's as an inevitable confrotation with the west.

He is a former Basiji and a member of IRGC, both groups, being hardliners and supporters of the Islamic Revolution. So I wouldn’t count that out.

Originally posted by enslaved83
2) He is the most stupid person on the planet, genuinly deluded and possibly insane.

I wouldn’t call him stupid or insane. His academic records are far brighter than most. He holds a PHD and received a rather high standing (I think he was in the top 300 out of tens of thousands of people) in the exam (in Persian Konkoor) necessary for the people to take in order to enter university in Iran.

Originally posted by enslaved83
3) He is a CIA agent who is saying these things to pave the way for an attack on Iran and its facilities, after all his remarks play right into the hands of both Israel and the United States?

There is nothing in his personal history to suggest a connection between him and the west. He was a member of anti-Western student organization in the late 70s. He joined the hard liner military in the early to mid-80s and became the head of the sixth army of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. He held a few minor government jobs, and then in 2003 ran for Tehran mayor and since only 12% of the population voted he got the job. The he became the mayor. So in his lifetime I cant find a place where the CIA would have got to him.

Originally posted by enslaved83
While I doubt that the CIA could pull off such a stunt, it raises an interesting possibility does it not? Prehaps someone could shed some light on other possible reasons, particularly the Iranians that post on this site, I would be very interested in their opinions!

I await with baited breath............

I don’t know what he has in his mind. Some say that he is a firm believer of the Hojatiye (I don’t know the spelling). Their doctrines may explain his actions. Another reason for his speeches might be that the Iranian government may have in its possession something others haven’t counted on (nuclear weapons from the black market or former Russian generals?).

Originally posted by ludaChris
I just dont see why everythings a damned conspiracy. I say 9/11, someone says CIA conspiracy, I say Almenjaeda, someone says Illuminati agent. I still stand by Occams Razor, being the simplist solution is the correct one.

Occams Razor is a false logic when events are so detailed that they span over decades and have a future of more decades ahead.
How can the simplest solution be the correct one each time? The world is not a simple place of yes/no, left/right, right/wrong, black/white, intelligence organisations spend billions making sure of that so they have a cover to move behind.
At what point does this logic begin then? At what point can one safetly say 'this is the begining of the event' to be able to have a base for Occams Razor to be applied?

For example on 9/11, people who use Occams Razor to 'prove' it was terrorists and not a NWO, are not starting that logic at the begining of events, they are only applying that logic to the day. Therefor, Occams Razor fails because the simplest path doesn't begin in the middle of the event and without all the knowledge of the history leading up to it and taking into account the propaganda and disinformation that spreads like wildfire, you can't even begin to apply Occams Razor.

I'm not saying this example is proof of CIA etc etc but it could be if things progress in a way which support a NWO like most events so far have and if so, then again, Occams Razor logic needs to be applied to this situation in a completely different context.

The only way for Iran to be taken out is for them to look like the worst thing on the planet. This is what happened with Iraq and this is what's carefully being planned now for Iran which is why this guy is raising flags with the conspiracy crowd.

Occams Razor can still very well apply here. Ask yourself which is more likely. That the government planned a vast conspiracy to justify a war that could have been justified by Saddams 17 violations of UN resolutions, and intelligence that said(we know its wrong now, but at the time believed it to be true) he had weapons programs up and running again. This intelligence was substantiated by the UK and Russia as well. So youre telling me that the Government killed 3000 people and destroyed the largest financial center in our nation to start a war that could have been started without it. Or was it OBL's reaction to the US having soldiers on the sacred ground as he called it in Saudi Arabia? Which sounds simpler and more logical? I think this shows that Occams Razor falls in perfectly with this logic.


[edit on 12/15/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 12/15/2005 by ludaChris]

Another possibility that has occured to me increasingly is that the Iranian government itself is trying to provoke US or (even better for this purpose) Israeli strikes on their nuclear facilities, for entirely domestic political reasons.

The mullahs are not stupid. They know they sit astride an increasingly youthful, increasingly educated population that has less enthusiasm for theocratic rule every day. Their days in power are numbered and they know it.

However there is one thing that historically has been reliably able to drive up political support for unpopular governments: attacks by outsiders. If the US, or especially Israel, attacks Iran, it's likely to stir up nationalist sentiment like nothing else, and keep the current regime in power indefinitely.

Look at the US before WW2, and how ambivalence about engaging in that war all but vanished after Pearl Harbour. Look how questions about the 2000 election seemed to disappear from the public consciousness after 9/11.

It seems to me the Iranian leadership may have taken this lesson to heart.