I love the British sailor in this pic---and BTW: F-off Ahmadinejad you POS!

[trumad]

It wasn't long ago that the crazy fuck Ahmadinejad was saying shit like this:

Ahmadinejad: Holocaust a myth

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has again caused international outcry by repeating his view that the Holocaust was a myth.

In a speech broadcast live on state television on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southern city of Zahedan: "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves.

"If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=17019

I'm getting a kick out of some here on DU who are making this guy out to be a benevolent saint... Fuck this crazy son of a bitch.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. You'd rather he didn't release the prisoners?

:nopity:

[rockymountaindem]

2. I, for one, would rather he not have started this in the first place

Then we wouldn't have had to be in crisis mode for the past week.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Britain's admitted the troops crossed into Iranian waters.

So if you're going to be mad at somebody, be mad at Blair for sending them, then lying about it.

[trumad]

7. LOL

It's called negotiation to get their troops back.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. pff...

:rofl:

[Bucky]

120. The story seems to be that their ship didn't cross over, but the craft they launched from did

Iran is still wrong for turning it into a lengthy incident and violating the Geneva Accords in how you treat prisoners (tho it's not exactly Abu Ghraib). You're not supposed to publish pictures of prisoners or display them for propangandistic purposes. You're certainly not allowed to parade them around for coerced confessions. Iran over played its hand here; they're clearly in the wrong.

[Marrah_G]

10. When did Britain admit that? other then the fabricated "confessions"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. This morning.

as per CNN about half an hour ago.

Just like they did in 2004.

[rockymountaindem]

26. Yeah, I'm sure they're really sorry

The fact is that those waters are highly disputed, and the British have the right to operate in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate. Whether or not they were in Iranian waters is one thing, but given the fact that the boundaries are highly questionable, the Iranians could have made a point by escorting the British boats back into the high seas as opposed to taking them into custody immediately. There are different levels of response, and the Iranians seem to have immediately gone right for the most serious one.

People around here are acting as if countries routinely intern sailors who stray into their waters as a matter of course. That's not the case. The Iranians could have made their point in a much less confrontational way by turning the British around, escorting them to a 12-mile range (undisputed high seas) and then warned the British government that they wouldn't be so forgiving next time. Heck, it might even have led to some kind of clarification about where the boundary lies, just so future incidents could be avoided (not likely, but anything could happen). But no, Iran immediately snapped up the British sailors and made all kinds of bombastic pretense about puting them on trial, possibly for espionage which carries the death penalty in most countries. That's one hell of a way to make a point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Gone for the most serious one?

They could have machinegunned every one of them when they had them surrounded and outgunned in their own territorial water.

THAT would have been the most serious one.

They did nothing more this time than they did last time Brit sailors intruded into their territory.

[rockymountaindem]

43. That's not an option

That's a declaration of war. Shooting the British sailors like that would have led to serious retaliatory action, you can bet the farm on that. I don't consider that has having been on the table. While this was not, IMHO, a serious incident in the whole scheme of things that could possibly go wrong over there at this point, it was the most serious way the Iranians could have exploited this particular incident. They recieve no brownie points from me for their behavior or their threats of putting the sailors on trial. I think Britain did what it had to in order to secure the release of their sailors, nothing more.

[ronnie624]

53. The British have no right to operate in Iraqi waters,

despite a claimed "UN mandate".

Invading and occupying other countries is immoral and illegal, especially when the motive is theft.

No after-the-fact "UN mandate" will absolve the UK and the US of the crimes these two countries have committed against the Iraqi people.

[rockymountaindem]

77. Well, that's your personal opinion

The UN mandate has more weight than that.

[INDIA]

86. LOL! Zing! n/t

[ronnie624]

141. Completely irrelevant.

Arguing over whether the UK has a right to occupy Iraq is strictly an intellectual exercise. I really do not know what "The UN mandate has more weight..." means. I'm well aware of the fact that the hegemonic powers will cajole, bribe, pressure and blackmail UN member states into passing "resolutions", that will cloak US and UK activities behind a thin veil of perceived "legality", but it won't fool anyone with any sense.

According to the opinions of experts on international law throughout the world, the war against Iraq, is indeed illegal. In my opinion (which admittedly carries less "weight" than a UN resolution), if the invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal, then any activities by the US and UK proceeding from that invasion and occupation, must also be illegal.

"I think most international lawyers would say the use of force against Iraq is clearly unlawful without a second resolution," said American University law professor Robert K. Goldman. "The original resolution (in 1990) never authorized military action to remove Saddam. Bush's father (President George H. W. Bush) spoke quite clearly on that and said going to Baghdad would exceed the U.N. mandate."
<http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln27a.html>

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm>

A link to some information on the "UN mandate", if possible, would be appreciated.

[malaise]

78. Your government and the British government

invaded and bombed one sovereign Arab nation and still occupy it and surround another with war ships and weapons and you have the nerve to suggest that Iran is being confrontational when it seizes sailors found in its territorial waters.

What fugging arrogance and sense of entitlement.

delete.

[rockymountaindem]

82. Look, Iran can act as it sees fit and take responsibility for itself

I just think that given the conditions in that part of the world, they made a mistake that put everybody, themselves included, at an increased risk of general war. Considering that would not be good for Iran, I think the Iranian leadership made a decision which was against their own interests and that we should not lose sight of the fact that although they did the right thing by releasing the interned Brits, the original act of interning them was not a good one.

Iran has the right to sieze anybody operating in their territorial waters. I'm not saying the British were doing that, but if they were Iran was within their rights to sieze them. However, I just don't think it was a good idea for them to do that considering the unstable situation there. Considering that the maritime border there is in dispute, that makes their decision that much more irresponsible. Taking confrontational action is one thing, doing it in disputed territory is another. Furthermore, even if we are to believe that the UK, US or whoever was trying to bait Iran into a confrontation by operating in Iranian waters, what does it say for the Iranians that they allowed themselves to be provoked? Lastly, if Iran had just interned the British sailors and asked for a perfunctory apology and a promise from Britain to recognize whatever part of water they were captured in as Iranian water, that wouldn't have been so bad. Threatening to try them for espionage, a serious charge which could have resulted in their execution, was a foolish propaganda flourish that ratcheted up the tension even further.

Maybe the Iranians were 100% correct about Britain's intentions. I doubt that they were, but even if Iran was right, I still think they were playing a dumb game of brinksmanship that is to the benefit of nobody. I'm not going to pat them on the back.

[Marrah_G]

27. Thank you, I hadn't seen that yet.

Unfortunately I can't put alot of stock in it though, since they had to say it to get their people home safely. I am more interested in hearing the sailors stories once they are back home and not under threat. They may well say that everything they wrote was the honest truth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Oh, of course not.

You believe Britain when they say they weren't in Iranian waters, but when they admit otherwise it's all a big fib.

:crazy:

[Marrah_G]

44. This is why

They constantly said they werenot in Iranian waters and only said they were right before the hostages were released. I believe neither side at face value. Iran's credibilty in this matter went to shit when they started making hostage demands.

I am very glad to see the sailors home, hopefully not harmed.

I can't wait until our troops are out of the middle east completely, being there only makes shit like this happening even easier.

[spoony]

72. How is that different from you saying

you believe them when it goes the reverse?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Occam's razor.

[WhollyHeretic]

97. You're reaching trying to use Occam's razor in this situation

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. There are two opposing possibilites.

One, Iran, certainly in no position to be starting a war, crossed into Iranian waters, kidnapped British soldiers, took them back into Iranian waters, coerced the sailors into giving false confessions without any visible indications of coercion, tricked the Independent into writing a false story that the Brits had infiltrated Iranian waters, and then held them their until Britain falsely admitted that they were in Iranian waters to begin with.

Or two, Brits infiltrated Iranian waters, got captured, denied it until the Independent report came out, confessed, then got their troops back. Exactly like it happened back in 2004.

Occam's razor seems to apply to me.

[WhollyHeretic]

104. Self-serving false dichotomies have nothing to do with Occam's razor

:rofl: There are a hell of a lot of different factors going on here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. Uh huh.

I think we all know what's going on here.

[WhollyHeretic]

107. What is that?

Let's hear it...

[druidity33]

125. third possibility...

They were LOOKING AT DIFFERENT MAPS. The "territory" is disputed after all...


:shrug:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. Link?

I don't see it on CNN's site.

[TheBaldyMan]

65. the waters have been disputed for decades,

no-one is certain where the border lies. This issue was addressed informally during negotiations for the naval personnels' release between Iran and the UK mediated by Syria.

Neither Blair or Ahmedinejad? are admitting that openly, where the border lies is still open to interpretation.

[11 Bravo]

110. Spent a lot of time in captivity, have you?

[LSK]

6. I for one would rather that the US and UK get the fuck out of the area

And once and for all leave these countries alone.

[INDIA]

117. I second that. We need an alternative for oil NOW. n/t

[mudesi]

75. The good old U.S.A started this

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263480,00.html

From FOX news, too.

I posted this a couple of days ago, but nobody noticed.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

94. lynyrd_skynyrd, ...good find.

It's a shame how many really great posts get drowned in the volume.

[trumad]

4. Nope---didn't say that at all...

I just hope DUers remember who we're dealing with here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Obviously our mortal enemy, right?

The guy who caused 9-11 and throws babies out of incubators.

[trumad]

13. I didin't say that....

[spoony]

73. What is this? Strawman day on DU?

[here_is_to_hope]

136. seems like it.... n/t

[jackstraw45]

5. Is that what the original poster said? NO

Your post sounds like a response the White House would give.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. You think so?

Because I think the OP sounds like something the White House would say.

[trumad]

14. What--you love this guy?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. That also sounds like something the WH would say.

"Disagree with me? You must love the terrorists."

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. trumad...you know there are Mamoud supporters here on DU.

He's being picked on by the USA and Israel. He was misquoted when he said those things about wiping Israel off the map and when he gave his Holocaust denial. :eyes:

[scarletwoman]

134. No, there are TRUTH supporters on DU. Calling propaganda what it is is support for sanity and peace.

Ahmedinejad may be a nut job but he is NOT a danger to either the U.S. or Israel. He does not control Iranian foreign policy nor its military; the Supreme Council controls those.

He is allowed to spout off for domestic purposes only. He is nothing more than the ruling mullahs' front man to keep the Iranian citizens in line.

It's not "supporting" Ahmedinejad to point out that he can no more shape Iran's foreign policy than Queen Elizabeth II shapes British foreign policy.

And, yes, the "wipe off the map" remarks in his speech WERE mis-translated.

sw

[jackstraw45]

25. Wow, Iranian PR REALLY works well on some DU'ers...

Does there ALWAYS have to be a "good" guy and a "bad" guy in international relations? Too many episodes of "24"?

Is anyone the administration criticizes automatically "good" in your eyes?

Also, could you PLEASE let point out to me where the OP said that he'd "rather he didn't release the prisoners"?

Your knee-jerk, off base reaction to this post WAS something I'd expect from a White House press briefing.

And the DU sponge effect to Iranian PR makes me a little queasy.

Responding to this with statements like "You'd rather he didn't release the prisoners?" equals that feeling.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Iranian PR, or Glenn Beck?

"Does there ALWAYS have to be a "good" guy and a "bad" guy in international relations? "

Heh, I'm not the one spouting this immature "good guy vs. bad guy" crap.

"Also, could you PLEASE let point out to me where the OP said that he'd "rather he didn't release the prisoners"?"

Because he's irrationally upset that Ahmadinejad released the prisoners. Apparently he's more concerned about anti-Iranian propaganda than those Brits.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. Where in his post did he say he was upset that the prisoners were released?

Because he's irrationally upset that Ahmadinejad released the prisoners. What a crock of bullshit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Hey, it's right there in his OP.

If he's upset about the holocaust denial, fine, but I don't think that's what he's upset about.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. Here's the OP. WHERE does he say he's upset the soldiers were released?

I love the British sailor in this pic---and BTW: F-off Ahmadinejad you POS!

It wasn't long ago that the crazy fuck Ahmadinejad was saying shit like this:

Ahmadinejad: Holocaust a myth

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has again caused international outcry by repeating his view that the Holocaust was a myth.

In a speech broadcast live on state television on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southern city of Zahedan: "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves.

"If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?Ar...

I'm getting a kick out of some here on DU who are making this guy out to be a benevolent saint... Fuck this crazy son of a bitch.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Like I said, he's being irrationally upset.

"F-off Ahmadinejad you POS!"

Why? What's signficant about today? Oh yeah, he just released those prisoners.

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. NO. That wasn't the point he made. His point is the DU lovefest for Mahmoud

which IS bizarre. NOT that the soldiers were released. BUT, I think you really know what his post was meant to say and just don't want to admit it because you like Mahmoud.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. There is no love fest.

He's making it up.

"BUT, I think you really know what his post was meant to say and just don't want to admit it because you like Mahmoud."

Heh, yeah, either I'm with you or I'm with Ahmadinejad. I'm also a card carrying member of the Communist party.

:rofl:

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. Excuse me. I've read the threads myself. You must have been absent that day.

There are MANY DUers who adore Mahmoud. I've witnessed it myself.

Where did I call you a communist? I just love how you use the tactic of twisting things to fit your own agenda. First you twist trumad's OP and now my words. Nice.:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Yeah, but you just accused me of loving Ahmadinejad.

So you've got no credibility on the issue.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. neither do you. All you've done is twist everyone's words. You don't like Mahmoud?

If not, I apologize. Your posts sure sound like you support him. Do you like him?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Apology not excepted.

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. Oh dear! I'm crushed! Crushed I say! Do you like Mahmoud? You didn't answer the question.

Not that I'm surprised you didn't answer it.:eyes:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Shall we put that to a test?

Hey, all DU Amadinijad lovers, speak up!

*chirp*

A real love fest.

Just because we despise Bush, and he despises Bush, that does not make him a hero. I have NEVER seen anyone say that they LOVE THIS GUY!

If you are going to make claims like that, please back it up with a link.

[in_cog_ni_to]

74. Lucky for you the "advanced Search" is turned off. This past summer we had many threads

supporting that man. Read them myself.

[trumad]

85. I think this is the funniest post I've ever read

You're asking DUers if they love Amadinijad--- without submitting the post with the question.... How can they answer you if they can't read your question?

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. So I preemptively posted on the firm assumption that I would get

no responses. Have I been proven wrong?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Obviously you're in love with Ahmadinejad, NC.

So there, there's your proof.

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. I guess I must be, if I don't participate in the 3-minute hate.

Personally, I prefer not dehumanizing potential enemies. It reminds me that they are human, and humans are the most dangerous species on earth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Don't you understand?

We've always been at war with Irania.

[trumad]

99. You asked a question nobody could answer...

funny to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. You made a false allegation you couldn't support.

Sounds pretty pathetic to me.

[motocicleta]

129. No

There are no DUers who "adore" Ahmadenijad.

[ronnie624]

142. There are no DUers who adore Ahmadinejad.

Your tactics are deceitful.

There are those DUers however, who will not allow Ahmadinejad, to become the embodiment of the Iranian nation.

Catapulting corporatist propaganda, only serves to manufacture hatred, and move us ever closer to more violent confrontations in the Middle East.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

80. Mind reader are you...

I think the guys a piece of shit--- that's all... oh but you got to come in all Kreskin and everything for the sole purpose of shitting in this thread.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Save it for the broadcast, Glenn.

[Hieronymus]

132. If they'd been unfortunate enough to be caught by

US, they'd be in a secret prison and tortured.

[shadowknows69]

9. I'll second the "fuck that crazy son of a bitch"

I hand it to the brits more than anything i think. somebody somewhere remembered what diplomacy was at least. If George Junior had been in charge of this game we'd have 40 year olds lining up for the new draft already.

edit to add- I do personally believe the Brits and probably specifically Bush and Blair were at fault here. Things could have gone much worse. I think the "coalition" had to eat some crow on this.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. The only reason they're being released is because Ayatollah Khomeini says so.

Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with it other than getting on TEEVEE and looking like a 'good guy.' Mahmoud did only what the Ayatollah told him to do.

[trumad]

19. LOL---did he do it from his grave?

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. Grand Âyatollâh Ali Khamenei ...I spelled it wrong...at any rate..HE IS WHO RELEASED the soldiers

NOT your idol Mamoud.:eyes:

/160px-


Grand Âyatollâh Seyyed ‘Alî Hossaynî Khâmene’î (Persian pronunciation) (help·info) (Persian: آیت‌الله سید علی حسینی خامنه‌ای Āyatollāh Seyyed `Alī Ḥoseynī Khāmene'ī) (born 17 July 1939), also known as Seyyed Ali Khamene'i,<1> is the current Supreme Leader of Iran and was the president of Iran from 1981 to 1989.

Khamenei was a key figure in the Islamic revolution in Iran and a close confidant of Ayatollah Khomeini. Khamenei was appointed to the powerful post of Tehran's Friday Prayer Leader by Ayatollah Khomeini in the autumn of 1979, after the resignation of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri from the post. Also he went to battlefield as a representative of defense commission of the parliament. In June 1981, Ayatollah Khamenei narrowly escaped an assassination attempt when a bomb, concealed in a tape recorder at a press conference, exploded beside him. He was permanently injured, but the event helped affirm his reputation as a "living martyr" among his followers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. Wow. Hyperbole much? "Your idol." Give me a fucking break. -nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Well that's a neat trick.

[Lerkfish]

17. you'd prefer he turn dogs on them and force them to simulate sex acts and use drills

into their backs, electrodes on their genitals, gang-sodomize them and force them to hold stressful positions for days at a time?
You'd prefer they be waterboarded, drowned until they die and then revived?

Because if you really wanted all that, you'd have to let the US interrogate them.

[trumad]

21. Nope--- didn't say that now did I?

I just think the guy is a pos... WHY you think different?

[Marrah_G]

29. Well now we aren't really sure what was done or not done to them

It's not like they haven't tortured and killed prisoners before. We aren't the only assholes on the block, unfortunately.

[Bucky]

122. Look at those ill fitting suits! If that's not a fashion crime, what is?

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Moral ambiguity

If I may wax philosophic for a minute, moral abiguity, not original sin or anything 180 degrees from original sin, is the human condition.

Ahmadinejad is no more a saint or a demon than the you or I.

We can be thankful for his generosity today and condemn his stupidity at other times in the same breath.

[trumad]

23. Agreed--- but he's still a piece of shit

[Jack Rabbit]

28. OK, he isn't my favorite person, either

!!

[JNelson6563]

30. He played this out very cleverly

I don't think he's a good guy or anything, nope I put him in the same camp as Bush. But I do give credit where it's due and he came out the winner in this "battle of wits" and I can't help but be very, very happy on behalf of the Brit sailors who are released.

Julie

[Warpy]

33. Funny. Do you have a link for posts of DUers recommending

Ahmedinejad for sainthood? I'm just asking because I haven't seen any.

The man has very little actual power in Iran. Real power rests with the council of Mullahs. He's basically the government's spokesmodel. He doesn't command the military. He doesn't command anything without the approval of the Mullahs.

His party was thoroughly shellacked in their last election. His main support, people in rural areas, feel betrayed because he didn't deliver anything he'd promised to them.

He is a hardliner and a nutcase. His election was purely in response to Stupid's continued weenie wagging and obvious lust for another war.

I predicted the day these sailors were captured in Iran's waters that they'd be returned as soon as Britain made a few concessions. This has nothing to do with Ahmedinejad. He was just there for the photo op.

[madrchsod]

37. kind`a like bush is`t he....

[stillcool]

34. I'm getting a kick out of...

those who are desperate to highlight anything....rather than discuss the reality of who 'we' and not 'they' are. Crazy son of a bitches are in the mirror.

[tjwash]

40. Ahmadinejad and Bush are both cut from the same turd.

They completely deserve each other. I wish they would both disappear together on a little honeymoon to a quaint little island, and never return.

I swear to god, I sometimes think that Bush and Ahmadinejad are in cahoots on the whole ME destabilization debacle. Ahmadinejad always gives the chimp a ready made excuse to keep deploying more carriers, and battleships, while calling for more "surges". Have you ever noticed that since his failure to rein in Bin Laden has exposed him as the joke of a president that he really is, that the Chimp was in need of a ready made enemy to continually justify his filthy little oil war, and Middle East expansionist policies? And have you noticed how Ahmadinejad never EVER fails to supply him an excuse or a timely debacle to beat the war drum with time and time again?

I'm sure the press release regarding this from the WH will be something along the lines of "Ahmadinejad has backed down because of the American might and resolve, but we are going to stay the course regardless, and will keep the pressure on the main body of the axis of evil, and we need more money, and more troops that the liberals are determined to deny us now that it is proven that until freedom is on the march, and terrorist sympathizers like Iran will always be...blah blah blah.......".

You know that beat just is gonna keep going on...

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

41. We're So Fucking Stupid...

Just because we've got our own Crazy, Spinmaster Dictator, we're even willing to look at this LUNATIC and think he's some kind of decent guy.

He's a Dictator and an anti-semite, just like King george is a Dictator and racist, among other things.

Fuck Assholejad

[trumad]

47. How true

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. We're? Don't lump me in with that DU gang. Some here know who and what that man is.

Anyone who denies the Holocaust and holds a Holocaust denial forum isn't sane. Anyone who embraces David Duke, isn't SANE. Anyone who threatens to blow another country...ANY country, off the map, is not SANE. Some here know the difference.

[rockymountaindem]

54. Absolutely

There's some wierd shit that goes down on this website that frequently makes me embarassed to be a part of it. But, if I leave, the crazies win so here I'll stay.

[spoony]

56. Post of the day!

Bra-fucking-vo!

[piedmont]

76. My thoughts exactly. nt

[tammywammy]

84. If only we could recommend a single post

:applause:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. It's basically a given...

that the Glenn Beck types wouldn't know the difference.

[spoony]

145. You've pretty much worn that out

Maybe you could sit down for a few hours and come up with a slightly fresher lame insult.

[Codeine]

143. Not all of us.

I hate all dictators, all bullies, and nasty-minded little fascists of every stripe.

[spanone]

48. At least they didn't put them in orange jumpsuits with leather bags over their heads.

Almadinejad, although a raving lunatic, probably won this case on PR alone. Nice suits for the gents, and no naked pyramids between torture sessions.

[LeftishBrit]

60. I'm glad the sailors were released!

I agree that Ahmadinejad is a POS and far from a benevolent saint; and that if the sailors were in his territory, he should have kicked them out, not detained them (Britain and Iran are not at war). However, I'm glad that it's ended without bloodshed, and am grateful to the negotiators on all sides, including all who have worked behind the scenes.

[LeftHander]

62. That ones is Military Intel....

They are only happy when they are beating someone.....

[spoony]

63. wtf?

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. trumad's yelling and screaming about something again

cue the dramatic soundtrack...

[trumad]

79. and who are you?

really---I have no idea?

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. That's how I like it, dawg

Splad-ow.

[conscious evolution]

116. LOL! nt

[burythehatchet]

127. 10 minutesreading this thread

I believe I became less informed than when I started, and that's 10 minutes I'll never get back.

[Kingshakabobo]

137. LOL. My exact sentiments. n/t

[yurbud]

68. giving them suits was smart

[mr_hat]

69. Iran sends its oil to China,

China sends its suits to Iran.

[KansDem]

70. Are you referring to the fingers of this left hand?

Could he be giving the classic British "up yours" that was given the French by Britain's most-excellent archers?

It has long been told that the famous "two-fingers salute" and/or V sign derives from the gestures of Welsh longbowmen, conscripted into the English army to fight at the Battle of Agincourt during the Hundred Years' War. The story claims that the French cut off two fingers on the right hand of captured archers and that the gesture was a sign of defiance by those who were not mutilated. This etymology has also given rise to an alternative name for the gesture, which can also be known as flicking an "Archers Salute" or just "Archers" as in "He just flicked me an Archers!".

This is, at best, only partially true. The first definitive known reference to the V sign is in the works of Rabelais, the French satirist of the 1500s. <5> The general idea of the V sign originating among archers is supported in the work of Jean Froissart (circa 1337-circa 1404). Froissart, a historian, was the author of "The Chronicle," a primary document that is essential to an understanding of Europe in the fourteenth century and to the twists and turns taken by the Hundred Years' War. The story of the English waving their fingers at the French is told in a first-person account by Froissart; however, the description is not of an incident at the Battle of Agincourt, but rather at the siege of a castle in another incident during the Hundred Years' War. It is unclear if this is a direct reference to the V sign. Also, Froissart is known to have died before the Battle of Agincourt. It is difficult to ever know for sure where the V sign originated, but this story has become a popular belief, and the specific link to Agincourt is most likely due to British pride in its historical signficance.

Wikipedia

Similar to this story of the American POW who flipped the finger to the Viet Cong during a photo session:

Nearby, another set of photos showed the Americans receiving letters from their families, meeting with North Vietnamese journalists and attending Mass. Mr. McCain pointed out that one of the pilots photographed at Mass had placed his hand on his chin, with only his middle finger extended.

NYT

[RaleighNCDUer]

140. That looks to me like thumb and index finger, not index finger/middle

finger in a 'V'.

[HuffleClaw]

90. hate much?

wow.

[Wiley50]

91. To be honest, I kinda liked the letter he wrote to Bush last May

Maybe it was just the thought that counts

Have you ever read it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900878.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written President Bush an 18-page letter discussing religious values, history and international relations. Following is an unofficial translation from the original written in Farsi:

"Mr. George Bush, president of the United States of America

For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. Those have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the great Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,

Present liberalism as a civilization model,

Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,

Make "War on Terror" his slogan,

And finally,

work towards the establishment of an unified international community -- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,

But at the same time,

Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women -- as occupation troops -- put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course, Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

[lonestarnot]

93. Ok to dis this dude in my book, but don't forget who really wears the pants over there.

Mullahs are in charge.

[Jacobin]

95. There seems to be a lot of Anti-arabism around here lately

the US holds 5 Iranian hostages illegally. we don't know the true story of whether the British soldiers were in disputed waters or not.

Iran releases the prisoners without any Abu Graihbisms.

PNAC wants to invade Iran and change its leaders.

and some DUers start spouting Anti-arab crap.

I think its distasteful and disturbing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Britain admitted they were in Iranian waters.

But I agree with the anti-arab sentiment.

Just look on that thread about the hijabs. I wonder if it's because the war's going so badly, the arm chair warriors have to take it out on arabs, or persians as the case may be.

[trumad]

100. Anti-arabism? Ugg

OK--- so that it appears that I don't hate Arabs....the guys a peach...

Better?

[Jacobin]

103. who said he was a peach?

who said anyone was a peach?

What I'm talking about is the idea that the US would benefit strategically if it stopped acting like it was run by the fucking Likud party.

That's all.

:-)

[WhollyHeretic]

106. Gee, what a surprise

"run by the fucking Likud party"

[Jacobin]

108. lemme guess

you oppose the neo-con foreign policy positions but support the Likud party's positions?

Can you clarify the distinction?

[piedmont]

114. There's a shit-ton of ignorance here too. Iranians aren't Arab. nt

[tammywammy]

119. ...

:spank:

There you go with your facts. :evilgrin:

[Warren Stupidity]

128. technical the Iranians are mostly not arabs.

The are majority persians. But yes the willingness of many here to propagate the hatred is astounding.

[FyurFly]

109. glad they are free, but

Fuck Madmood. It is hard to believe there are people where who think this nut is a good guy :wtf:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. That Is A Great Pic. That POS Psycho Should Never Held Them To Begin With. Fuck Him Is Right.

[countryjake]

112. Perhaps he was referring to the myth of "Victimology" so often touted...

by right-wing Zionists?


taken from:

Issues of the American Council for Judaism - Summer 1998

"The New Judaism?" by Mayer Schiller

http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=104

~snips~

"Jewish proponents of the 'victim' card are aware not only of its social effectiveness but of its usefulness as a means of insuring Jewish solidarity and, hence, survival. If we were forever hated by all and are doomed to be forever hated by all, then we’d best stick together and make the best of it...

Personally, I have never found this view of the eternally-hating gentile to have any resemblance with reality. It seems a myth, pure and simple, and an ugly one at that.

Is it a good means of social control? Perhaps, but at what cost? It strips the faith and history of Jew and gentile alike of all but their months of antagonism. It wallows in evil imagery and postulates a forever morally superior Jew, victimized by the forever morally inferior 'goy'...

I have spent most of my adult life among Hasidic Jews, almost all of whom were Holocaust survivors, and I’ve heard almost nothing of the relentless harping on victimology and our need to forever memorialize it...

Victimology, on the other hand, allows Jews to bypass their own faith and offers the national allegiance of Holocaust/Israel in its place."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I doubt many, even in his own country, view Ahmadinejad as any kind of saint...certainly none here.

Perhaps you're confusing sympathy and moral outrage at the plight of real victims, today in Palestine, with giving a fig what a powerless little reactionary mouthpiece has to say?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

113. What's the reason for that man's different expression, in your opinion? -nt

[spoony]

144. He's not thrilled to have been taken prisoner by a hostile country? n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

146. So the others ARE? -nt

[cmd]

118. I'd like to discuss the outfits the captives are wearing

Compare the suits to the lovely female outfit. Guess no one told her it was a dress up event. I hate when that happens.

[Bucky]

123. And look at the guys to the right of her. OMG! Is that Martin Short and Giovani Ribisi?

[Buzz Clik]

124. Indeed! f*ck you very much, Ahmadinejad

[demgurl]

126. I do not like, or support, Ahmadabad.

I do think, though, that there is more than meets the eye here. You just have to admit that it is sort of suspicious that it would seem that * has had his eye on Iran. If we recall what happened in the lead up, to the illegal invasion, you will remember that we carpet bombed Iraq hoping to lead them into confrontation. Then we also made impossible demands for UN inspections and that Saddam still foiled them by complying with every demand. When we finally realized that the inspection would soon be finished, with no WMD's found, we ordered all inspectors out and went in full force.

When you realize how underhanded this misadministration has been, you approach everything even remotely related to them with a skeptical eye. I do not think Ahmadabad is a good guy at all but I do know Bushco have had their eye on that area for some time and it would be very convenient for them if British sailors "Accidentally" wandered into Iran waters and an international incident ensued.

This whole incident has their hand prints all over it. You have the bad fall guy. You have the bad press leading up to the incident and you have the actual incident. I believe Ahmadabad is playing Saddam's game and making a fool of the US worldwide. The way he played it makes us look foolish, not him. But the real thing we have to remember is that * has put us in a very safe position. We lost so much support when he illegally invaded Iraq. Now, even if the bogeyman is real, no one will believe us. He had his 'political currency' and he went bankrupt and that is the very saddest part of this. I hope the freepers feel safer now, I don't.

[motocicleta]

130. What is it you love about that sailor?

Could you fully explain, because I suspect I am missing several lines of your argument?

[trumad]

131. I guess as an ex-paratrooper---

I'm more inclined to appreciate a soldier that tells his captives to fuck off. It looks to me that he's not following the script.

[motocicleta]

133. Perhaps he is simply not as happy as the others right then? nt

[sniffa]

135. when ahmadinejad reads this, he's gonna be pissed

:thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

138. How mature.

:eyes:

[trumad]

139. Yeah---

why does this offend you--- ya love the guy?