Landover Baptist is satire. They aren't serious.Originally Posted by Smiler_1985
Landover Baptist is satire. They aren't serious.Originally Posted by Smiler_1985
Small step off topic but do we know just what changes Mousavi would bring internally and internationally? Changing one mad tyrant for something similar?
posted this on the other thread: his record 'ain't good:Originally Posted by OldRedCap
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.a...ion=2&id=17125there is nothing in Mussavi's record , or Karrubi's for that matter, to make them more attractive than Ahmadinejad. Mussavi was prime minister during the most repressive phase of Iran's history under Khomeinism. It was under his watch that tens of thousands of political prisoners were executed, often without trial. Karrubi presided over a parliament at a time it passed some of the most repressive laws in the Islamic Republic.
maybe he's changed some?
So when Imadinnerjacket openly stated to the world's press that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth he actually meant something else? Jack Straw might be a bit of a tit but he has more tact than that.Originally Posted by gnuorder
-DC
~ Fay Ḉe Que Vouldras ~
Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap
He didn't. He just plain didn't, as has been explained here and elsewhere 1000s of times.
"However proletarian and semiliterate he may have been, the English soldier, well nourished with meat and beer, stimulated with gin, and convinced of his own racial superiority to the foreign rabble he had to face, was a magnificent combatant, as anyone who has ever seen hooligans in action at a soccer match can readily imagine."
Prof. Alessandro Barbaro, The Battle
(nicked from Mallinson, The Making of the British Army)
Mousavi is part of the establishment. By all reasonable accounts, he came a distant second in the election as Ahmadinejad romped home.Originally Posted by OldRedCap
I am concerned that the current unrest in Tehran is a cunning ploy to flush out the 'real' underground opposition, destroy it, and also implicate certain elements of the international community (UK and the US??). I sense an ambush is being laid and I doubt any of the Brownshirts in London have any clue as to how to proceed.
True. But you mustn't let a little falsehood get in the way of a good rant of pure ignorance. :DOriginally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin
Iran has already commited 2 acts of war against us, we chose to do nothing. Now that they have expelled 2 diplomats G Broon has been "quick to respond". This could be the wakeup call that Iran needs to get rid of all this theocracy nonsense.Originally Posted by ALVIN
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You see! This is why birds and CID don't mix.
You give a bloke a gun and he thinks its a dream come true
You give a girl one and she knows it doesn't go with a dress.
What? I didn't realise apprehension, detention and release of individuals who had accidentally entered Iranian sovereign territory was an act of war. In fact, The Iranians have a stronger case to claim the UK has committed 2 acts of war against them!Originally Posted by Tytus_Barnowl
Just because UK Plc seems to allow all and sundry upon our shores regardless of (lack of) right or prior permission, does not constitute an obligation upon another state to do likewise.
Is this actually the case?Originally Posted by whitecity
( Don't think so. )
Bravo Bravo sets himself a depressingly low standard which he consistently fails to achieve.
Somewhere inbetween the two:Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo
That's Wiki, but see also: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3761058.eceIn April 2008 redacted documents from the initial MoD inquiry[2] for Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup were released to The Times under Freedom of Information laws. The Times states that the British sailors captured by Iran were "in internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq’s maritime territory as Parliament was told", that the US-led coalition had drawn a boundary line between Iran and Iraq without informing the Iranians, that Iranian coastal protection vessels regularly crossed this coalition defined boundary, and that the British were first to raise their weapons in the incident before the Iranian gunboats came alongside
"However proletarian and semiliterate he may have been, the English soldier, well nourished with meat and beer, stimulated with gin, and convinced of his own racial superiority to the foreign rabble he had to face, was a magnificent combatant, as anyone who has ever seen hooligans in action at a soccer match can readily imagine."
Prof. Alessandro Barbaro, The Battle
(nicked from Mallinson, The Making of the British Army)
And I thought it was just me that thought the 'opposition' was orchestrated by the winning side, to show how 'democratic' Iran actually is? "See . we're not gunning down students and protestors , like Burma or China"..Originally Posted by whitecity
He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
I can't help wondering how representative the Iranian talking heads we see on the media are. Or more accurately, the English speaking media.
Some of them appear to me as elitist metropolitan intellectuals - the equivalent in this country would be a muesli munching Islington dwelling Guardian reader with a job in Diversity Studies with the council. The prevalence of Web 2.0 twittering blogosphere circle jerk inanities on the subject merely confirms my prejudices in this area.
And then there are the professional lobbyists - who make a living telling their sponsors what they want to hear. They didn't prove to be particularly accurate about Iraq. I see some comments that say more about how some Americans would like the world to be than about reality. The belief that dropping a few bombs will sort things out is the obvious example.
What I don't see is the average Iranian - because they don't speak English or use the new, trendy media. I strongly suspect that your average Iranian sees the woman who got shot not as a martyr but as someone from the privileged elite too stupid to run away when things kicked off. (Just look back at the debate over Ian Tomlinson's death during the demo in London for examples of differences in opinion.)
And that's why I don't think Ahmadinejad lost; he plays very well to the home crowd. That said, it does beg the question why the election was rigged in such a public manner when there was no need for it to be ? Wheels within wheels indeed, and unless you speak the language and know the human terrain inside out you, like me, are just guessing.
Feles mala! Cur cista non uteris? Stramentum novum in ea posui.
Do you also share my reservations that the young chap currently masquarading as the FM is at a significant disadvantage when talking to Iran? I mean, he is Jewish and comes from the greatest imperialist Satan of all; his father was a Jew and a Marxist; and his grandfather was a Jew, a Marxist and a Red Army volunteer from the very beginning! I'm struggling to see - from the Islamic State of Iran's perspective - any positive traits at all.Originally Posted by PartTimePongo
I stand corrected & lose a little more faith in the veracity of Western reporting.Originally Posted by whitecity
-DC
~ Fay Ḉe Que Vouldras ~
1. He has a nice smileOriginally Posted by whitecity
2. He is engagingly simian when eating a banana
3. He isn't Dennis Ross
That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
I know that there are a lot of inhumane countrys in the world (by westen standards at least) there allways have been, however, the attitude of the west these days to go in and attack them all is wrong. This attitude can and will cause a third world war. Or maybe that is what the west is hoping to happen? The world population is out of control in asian countrys, but not in the western world! There is a fear by the west of being "over run" by the asian countrys in the near future. Just think for a second how far asian countrys have advanced in the last 20 years! China is a prime example, with 1 in 3 people in the world being chinese, and is regarded to be the next world superpower. Food for thought ? (and proberbly my most sensible post to date, even by my standards)![]()
The secret of life is ..... True happiness and contentment of ones inner mind.
He never said it in the first place. Why would he use a western idiom when speaking to his own people in Persian? What he did say was something along the lines of the occupation or occupiers of Jerusalem being wiped from the pages of time. That's the Zionists he is talking about, not the Jews who were already living there. And he wasn't making a threat, he was quoting Khomeini. It would be like quoting Churchill and Roosevelt about the stopping the Nazis and German media reports claiming you wanted to kill all Germans.Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap
Bookmarks