Submit your comments on this article | ||
Syria-Lebanon-Iran | ||
Ahmadinejad: U.S. Ties Hurting Britain | ||
2006-08-20 | ||
"The British people should stop supporting governments that are waging war in the Middle East, such as their own government, the United States government and Israel," Ahmadinejad reportedly said.
| ||
Posted by:Steve White |
#8 "Britain's close alliance with the United States is damaging its standing in the Muslim world" That's not a bug, that's a feature. To Western governments who might be tempted to fall for this divide-and-conquer ploy, I will quote Ben Franklin: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all |
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-08-20 14:21 |
#7 It turns out that 8/22 is the day the moon starts a New Crescent phase. Also, at that time, three planets line up vertically to the right of the moon..Mercury, Venus, and Saturn form what could be called an 'I'. I'm not into astronomy, but the 7th Century thinkers might be. Maybe a sign from the moon god allan? |
Posted by: Inspector Clueso 2006-08-20 12:17 |
#6 That little piece of crap needs to die on short notice. Now that his Navy is out in target space, we need to act now. Every breath he takes injects arrogance into the Muslim enemy. As I write, Arab leaders are attacking Syria for serving as Ahmadinejed's player piano. And Iraq Shiites are talking about Partitioning Iraq on sectarian grounds. That would effectively mean delivering Basra and the south, to Iran. Ayatollah Sistani was Iranian born and raised. Iranian agents run the affairs of the oil rich river delta, while up to 20,000 Iranians pass through the Shiite controlled, Iraq border each day. |
Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-20 07:54 |
#5 A little speculation and observation... I don't consider nutjob to be diabolical, I consider him a throw-back to "pre-civilized" times. He's a surprise simply because he's so far out of the timestream. Additionally, he is "speaking" to several audiences - which we should keep in mind. What I have seen coming out of Iran is nothing more than what passed for PR and saber-rattling and bravado in ancient times. He threatens those who oppose him, bluffs about his power and the lethality of his forces, claims new and devastating weapons are at his disposal, tries to keep the allies of his antagonists neutral by threats and innuendo, etc. Blah. That most of his idiotic spew can be fisked and disproven before the MSM can even crank up the trumpets is what's different, today. As for painting himself into a corner with Aug 22nd, I think this is mostly for domestic consumption. What is likely to come out is that he's had a vision or visitation or something. It'll make his tools wild with glee - and leave us either laughing or scratching our heads - with the "serious" If he does not have a deliverable nuke, right goddamned now, then he's a clown Nazi - bluffing for all he's worth -- and he's toast. |
Posted by: flyover 2006-08-20 03:07 |
#4 Ahmadinejad - anybody having relations with you sick fucks is asking for a serious hard time. |
Posted by: 3dc 2006-08-20 02:34 |
#3 AhMad must be reading the British press...just read (Times or Telegraph) that 80 perc. wants robust terror fighting capability following the European, not the American model. |
Posted by: Captain America 2006-08-20 00:36 |
#2 saying Blair's support for Washington's foreign policy could force Britain into future Mideast conflicts As if Britain were a gofer. I don't know if that's Ahmadinahijab's wording or a Freudian slip by the journalist. |
Posted by: gorb 2006-08-20 00:35 |
#1 This guy is diabolically brilliant. He understands the social aspects of all the people he's managing into his line-up. For the Brits, it is a value to not be seen by others as "unfair" or "prejudice" or as less in the world. By saying Britain's alliance with the US "is damaing its standing in the Muslim world," he hopes to swing public opinion his way. And a lot of Brits, if not a majority, will buy it. The false promise and premise is that being "friendly" to Moslems will end these conflicts. Of course, "friendly" is never defined, and would translate "subserviant" if it was. |
Posted by: ex-lib 2006-08-20 00:19 |