Ayatollah Khamenei urges Iran to prepare for 'new world order'

[Ars Moriendi]

Thanks, very interesting information.

Yeah my impression of them is generally OK, they do seem more restrained and sensible than some others.

That is why i sometimes get a little agitated at Europe and America's generally negative stance towards them, as they seem to me as more reliable than some others in the region. However, i assume there are supposedly good reasons for this state of affairs (although whether or not it's in the public's interest is another issue), although the people that are involved do not necessarily want to talk openly about it (not surprising).

I certainly think if the western world in general tried to use more dialogue and less bombs and threats we would all be in a better position, but i probably don't know half of what people high up the chain of command in places like the USA know, let alone whether i would act in the same way or not if i did know.

A good thing that you could research and consider regarding the Western foreign policy regarding Iran, are the interests of both Israel and the Gulf Arab States. As you know, AIPAC is the most influential advocacy group in Washington, while the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and even UKIP, have a "Friends of Israel" committee that systematically promote the Israeli vision over the topic.

Likewise, the Gulf Cooperation Council has funneled plenty of money through investments and purchases across Western Europe. They also have a definitie vision regarding the Iranian dossier, which has in turn resulted in the creation of an unoffical Saudi-Israeli Alliance.

All of these people have the means and capacity to extract specific concessions from deeply corrupt power structures, and achieve the geopolitical decisions that benefit them the most.

[Harkonnen]

The most important part of the article:

He said that Iran needs to use all of its capabilities, both inside and outside the country. Externally, he said, Iran has strategic depth and interests via Islam, language and Shiism.

I quite agree with him, as long as he doesn't have any major imperialist leanings like some other followers of Islam.

Are you blind or cannot read?

He said that Iran needs to use all of its capabilities, both inside and outside the country. Externally, he said, Iran has strategic depth and interests via Islam, language and Shiism.

He is clearly declaring a ideological war on the world. Of course he is using all of the popular catchphrases such as 'NWO' that will sink to his two digit IQ crowd like hot knife to butter. It is tactics of distorting the issue, which the OP uses himself fex in this thread http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...t=#post2939051 about muslim groom gangs in Britain. He does not want to discuss the topic, because it does not fit his ideas, so he just points that the topic starter is a jew, so it must be some NWO 'conspiracy thing.' Similarly in a more mainstream media the man in the muslim grooming gang video, would be easily silenced by the nwo(yeah lol) by calling him a racist, but he knows it does not work here, so lets pull out the good ol jewcard.

I doubt Imperialism would arise in Iran anytime soon. Simply not worth it.

There is really no doubt that Iran as a Islamic state is imperialistic to it's core. Of course it knows that it can not win a conventional war so it's automatically a no-no. But there is the war of the minds. And like Khomeini himself admitted they are going full steam after the minds of all the loonies of the West (though they dont discriminate the third world either, like was pointed out in the article.)


You know there are lot of kiddies here, and they need a saviour, so who knows maybe daddy moslem will save them (I'm laughing silently here, just so you know)

[Ars Moriendi]

The most important part of the article:

Are you blind or cannot read?

He said that Iran needs to use all of its capabilities, both inside and outside the country. Externally, he said, Iran has strategic depth and interests via Islam, language and Shiism.

He is clearly declaring a ideological war on the world.

Saying that a country needs to use all of its assets to exert influence is certainly not a declaration of war. It's just a normal part of foreign affairs.
France capitalizes on its chief position as main centre of Francophony regarding African countries (just like the UK does in the framework of the Commonwealth of Nations), or how the Vatican City capitalizes on its position as centre of Roman Catholicism, to send envoys to most Latin American countries (with a Catholic majority still).

Iran is a major Islamic country in terms of population and economy (it receives refugees and develops investment in neighbouring countries), it is the main centre of Farsi (which allows it to develop cultural ties with Afghanistan where a similar version of Farsi is the lingua franca), and it is also the most important Shia-majority country, in a context where Sunnism is much more majoritary.

If it were declaring war, the country would signal someone specific and argue that it needs to be destroyed. The statement isn't aimed at galvanizing people for an attack, it's aimed at highlighting the country's advantages for the future, which won't necessary be characterized by peace and order.

Of course he is using all of the popular catchphrases such as 'NWO' that will sink to his two digit IQ crowd like hot knife to butter. It is tactics of distorting the issue, which the OP uses himself fex in this thread http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...t=#post2939051 about muslim groom gangs in Britain. He does not want to discuss the topic, because it does not fit his ideas, so he just points that the topic starter is a jew, so it must be some NWO 'conspiracy thing.'

In that post you quoted, I didn't even use the word "jew", nor imply it tacitly. I made a comment on the person adding the thread, merely taking into account his posting history and ideological belonging. Furthermore, I was replying to a post written by Longbowman, who himself questioned the relevance of adding a street speech about an event that is self-evidently criminal and disgusting, and doesn't require much debate.

Similarly in a more mainstream media the man in the muslim grooming gang video, would be easily silenced by the nwo(yeah lol) by calling him a racist, but he knows it does not work here, so lets pull out the good ol jewcard.

I didn't use the "jewcard" seeing as I made no reference to the poster's ethnicity, nor I mentioned anywhere a supposed racism to delegitimize the thread. Once more, I replied to Longbowman, trying to explain why I think such a speech was added. Seeing as nobody is challenging the problem of grooming gangs, nor trying to defend the behaviour of these people, adding that a speech is simply a statement of support to the politician/street talker making the speech.

There is really no doubt that Iran as a Islamic state is imperialistic to it's core.

Assertions such as this one require proof.
Iran hasn't invaded a neighbouring country in centuries, and has no land claims to any territory outside of its borders. Hardly the most typical case of imperialism, seeing as it refrained from developing an aggressive foreign policy, during the same time that the Scramble of Africa was taking place.

Of course it knows that it can not win a conventional war so it's automatically a no-no. But there is the war of the minds.

That doesn't mean much.
The American politicans argue that RT is trying to subvert the opinions of people. Russian officials say the same thing regarding CNN, BBC or Fox News, affirming that they brainwash people into hating Russia.

Egypt argues Al Jazeera and Qatar are lying regarding its human right abuses, while the Saudi Al Arabiya focuses more on the newfound security in the country.
Again, all countries and all opinion-makers with any real weight in the world, will try their best to influence public opinion. It's hardly new, conspirational or terribly immoral.

And like Khomeini himself admitted they are going full steam after the minds of all the loonies of the West (though they dont discriminate the third world either, like was pointed out in the article.)

Aas I stated in the previous part, presenting an editorial line that highlights one's merits while focusing on the flaws and mistakes of one's opponents is hardly a surprise.

You know there are lot of kiddies here, and they need a saviour, so who knows maybe daddy moslem will save them (I'm laughing silently here, just so you know)

You are not a precisely mature person to have the right to deride other posters as "kiddies".
Your overall tone is hysterical, by adding visually aggressive font sizes and outlandish unsubstantiated assertions dealing with a supposed ideological war; your writing style barely follows a cohesive line, seeing as you can dedicate half of your writing to a different thread that has no relevance to the current one, while managing to slander other poster (me in this case) by pretending he said things that weren't actually said; and your premises are never once given factual backing or elaborated (Ideological war, "jewcard", Iranian imperialistic tradition) so that people can actually start to believe what you're saying.

The last part of your post is almost ununderstandable, as you seemingly pretend that the point of all of this thread was to tell people to follow Islam. If you'd care to read the whole thread and the comments made, Islam as a religion barely has any role, and furthermore, nobody has ever pretended to be representing a "saviour" figure anywhere.

This is a thread that tries to shed some light, regarding the way in which public affairs in Iran may be conducted in the future (seeing as Khamenei is the most important figure in the country), possibly highlighting the difference between their State policies and those of the West that factually pretend nothing will happen in the medium term, and deride people that question that position as lunatics or simply conspirationists.

[Incal]

Is that retard still alive?

[Ars Moriendi]

Is that retard still alive?

Did you think he had died and been replaced?

[Han Cholo]

Did you think he had died and been replaced?

He is probably confusing Khamenei for Khomeini.

[Incal]

Did you think he had died and been replaced?

Nope, I just thought he was dead for good.

[Ars Moriendi]

He is probably confusing Khamenei for Khomeini.

Noted.
It makes sense, the names are similar enough to be confused by people.

[Incal]

He is probably confusing Khamenei for Khomeini.

This.

[Harkonnen]

Saying that a country needs to use all of its assets to exert influence is certainly not a declaration of war. It's just a normal part of foreign affairs.
France capitalizes on its chief position as main centre of Francophony regarding African countries (just like the UK does in the framework of the Commonwealth of Nations), or how the Vatican City capitalizes on its position as centre of Roman Catholicism, to send envoys to most Latin American countries (with a Catholic majority still).

Iran is a major Islamic country in terms of population and economy (it receives refugees and develops investment in neighbouring countries), it is the main centre of Farsi (which allows it to develop cultural ties with Afghanistan where a similar version of Farsi is the lingua franca), and it is also the most important Shia-majority country, in a context where Sunnism is much more majoritary.

If it were declaring war, the country would signal someone specific and argue that it needs to be destroyed. The statement isn't aimed at galvanizing people for an attack, it's aimed at highlighting the country's advantages for the future, which won't necessary be characterized by peace and order.

How is it normal part of foreign affairs? I thought you were anti-NWO? Is this not just nother form of NWO,just not a western liberal one, but a moslem totalitarian one. Personally I'm against other nations trying to influence the sovereignity of a nation state, but if you think it is fine, then what can I say. Why is it ok for moslems to do it, but not for western cowboys? If nothing else, I demand a equal treatment for these two sides from you.



I specifically wrote a ideological war. Do you not understand the concept?
Anyway only a postmodern man would not take this as a declaration of war. For someone who has written on the corrupting effect of postmodernism to the western world, you do not seem to understand the concept too well. It almost looks as if you would accept anti-postmodernism only if it comes through means of Islamic ideology, but for some reason you seem to have problems with organic forms of European anti-postmodernism, ie with dudes like myself who will recognize their roots and absolutely refuse to deny them over foreign, alien and non-organic values. Indeed a postmodern man is more likely to accept Islam through his worship of the exotic, in which case, fex if you were a Islamic supremacist (which I think is possible that yo are, although it is equally possible that you are just another western loonie) you really should be thankful for postmodernism.

In that post you quoted, I didn't even use the word "jew", nor imply it tacitly. I made a comment on the person adding the thread, merely taking into account his posting history and ideological belonging. Furthermore, I was replying to a post written by Longbowman, who himself questioned the relevance of adding a street speech about an event that is self-evidently criminal and disgusting, and doesn't require much debate.

I'm sorry but if Longbowman is a loonie, it does not mean that you are not a loonie too. You can not just shift guilt.

I didn't use the "jewcard" seeing as I made no reference to the poster's ethnicity, nor I mentioned anywhere a supposed racism to delegitimize the thread. Once more, I replied to Longbowman, trying to explain why I think such a speech was added. Seeing as nobody is challenging the problem of grooming gangs, nor trying to defend the behaviour of these people, adding that a speech is simply a statement of support to the politician/street talker making the speech.

On the contrary you were attacking the man who was trying to challenge the problem and not sweep it out of sight. A disgusting act in my books.

Assertions such as this one require proof.
Iran hasn't invaded a neighbouring country in centuries, and has no land claims to any territory outside of its borders. Hardly the most typical case of imperialism, seeing as it refrained from developing an aggressive foreign policy, during the same time that the Scramble of Africa was taking place.

Iran has not attacked because it is too weak for such action.

That doesn't mean much.
The American politicans argue that RT is trying to subvert the opinions of people. Russian officials say the same thing regarding CNN, BBC or Fox News, affirming that they brainwash people into hating Russia.
Egypt argues Al Jazeera and Qatar are lying regarding its human right abuses, while the Saudi Al Arabiya focuses more on the newfound security in the country.
Again, all countries and all opinion-makers with any real weight in the world, will try their best to influence public opinion. It's hardly new, conspirational or terribly immoral.

You are not a precisely mature person to have the right to deride other posters as "kiddies".
Your overall tone is hysterical, by adding visually aggressive font sizes and outlandish unsubstantiated assertions dealing with a supposed ideological war; your writing style barely follows a cohesive line, seeing as you can dedicate half of your writing to a different thread that has no relevance to the current one, while managing to slander other poster (me in this case) by pretending he said things that weren't actually said; and your premises are never once given factual backing or elaborated (Ideological war, "jewcard", Iranian imperialistic tradition) so that people can actually start to believe what you're saying.

The last part of your post is almost ununderstandable, as you seemingly pretend that the point of all of this thread was to tell people to follow Islam. If you'd care to read the whole thread and the comments made, Islam as a religion barely has any role, and furthermore, nobody has ever pretended to be representing a "saviour" figure anywhere.

This is a thread that tries to shed some light, regarding the way in which public affairs in Iran may be conducted in the future (seeing as Khamenei is the most important figure in the country), possibly highlighting the difference between their State policies and those of the West that factually pretend nothing will happen in the medium term, and deride people that question that position as lunatics or simply conspirationists.

Please try to stay on topic. I am not the topic here.