| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Iran leader's words 'sickening' |
| 2005-10-27 |
| EUROPEAN leaders have condemned statements by the Iranian President calling for Israel to be destroyed. Speaking in the Iranian capital Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped off the map", the official IRNA news agency reported. Support for the Palestinian cause is a central pillar of the Islamic Republic which officially refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist. "Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad told a conference called "The World without Zionism", attended by some 3,000 conservative students who chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America". Under reformist President Mohammad Khatami, whose eight-year tenure ended earlier this year, Iran had shown signs of easing its implacable hostility towards Israel. Officials said Tehran might not object to a two-state solution if that was what the Palestinians wanted. But Ahmadinejad, a former member of the hardline Revolutionary Guards and traditional religious conservative, said there could be no let-up in its hostility to Israel. "The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland," he said. White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said Washington took such remarks seriously. "It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," he said. The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear arms, but Tehran says it needs atomic fuel only for power stations. Iran has developed ballistic missiles able to hit Israel. France, Spain, Britain and Canada condemned the President's remarks and the European trio said their foreign ministries would summon Iranian envoys and demand an explanation. "(These) comments are deeply disturbing and sickening," a British Foreign Office spokesman said. "We have seen in Israel today the horrible reality of the violence he is praising," he said, referring to a Palestinian suicide bombing in the Israeli town of Hadera that killed five people and wounded 30. "Saying Iran wants to wipe Israel from the map will only heighten concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions ... We will be protesting to the Iranian charge d'affaires," he said. "If these (reported) comments are true, they are unacceptable. I condemn them with the greatest firmness," French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy said. "...Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has expressed his rejection in the most emphatic terms and has decided to urgently call in the Iranian ambassador to ask him for an explanation," the Spanish foreign ministry said. Tehran denies accusations it trains and arms Palestinian militant groups, saying it offers only moral support. Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew said: "We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. And these comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions." |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #58 Didn't we sell Israel some bunker buster missiles a while back? They could use those to make the underground facilities inescapable for the habituants, surely (I'm sorry, my memory is a bit fuzzy tonight -- the trailing daughters have been taking turns with over exhaustion following the TaeKwanDo tournament last Saturday, and a plethora of assignments due before the end of the quarter tomorrow.) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-27 23:32 |
| #57 The thing I am most annoyed about is that that I like the Persian/Iranian people, but I really hate their government, Mad Mullahs, Inc. Nuking Iran in general will kill many decent, Mad Mullah, Inc.-hating Iranians, AND it will make the Arab world Very Happy. Don't forget, they hate the Persians/Iranians. It is easy for the EUnichs to make stern-sounding noises; no one will hold them accountable. I have no hope for the UN to act decently. None at all. I do not believe that we are so tied down in Iraq that we are without options there. Pakistan institutionally hates Iran, so don't hold out for much help from the Mad Mullahs, Inc. crowd from that vector. Want to change the internal situation in Iraq in one split second? Have US go after Iran, now, on the ground, no nukes. Include a couple of decent Iraqi infantry battalions. Watch the 'insurgency' in Iraq switch sides/ collapse in a heartbeat. Al Queda is/will be still problematic, but is a much smaller problem; let the Iraqi tribes deal with them. Counter to that; watch the reaction in Basra et al to such a move. Make sure the Brits get a BIG heads up before we cross the FEBA. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2005-10-27 20:48 |
| #56 Oh, Bush gets it too. But since he's just been hamstrung by the hard right over Miers, and with Fitzpatrick about to do whatever he is about to do, his hands are tied. Which is one reason I'm pissed as hell about the right's pissing contest re: Miers. (not to say I liked her but the way the opposition was done has been poison to bush's ability to act in the WOT) |
| Posted by: anon 2005-10-27 19:34 |
| #55 Tony Blair said today [from the BBC (sorry!)]: "If they continue down this path, then people are going to believe that they are a real threat to our world security and stability. "They may believe... the eyes of the world will be elsewhere, but I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks." "Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?" He added that Iran, suspected of having a nuclear weapons programme, could soon be considered a "real threat". BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Blair's comments carried the "implicit threat of military action". Well at least someone gets it. |
| Posted by: Jake-the-Peg 2005-10-27 18:28 |
| #54 Darrell, I'm asking about a non-nuclear Israeli first strike. Any takers? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-27 18:22 |
| #53 Don't be too sure that an Israeli first strike is out of the question. Pakistan would be foolish to get involved -- Israel can probably set Iran back for a century or two and still have plenty of nukes leftover to subdue Pakistan if necessary. See the end of Appendix A at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-27 16:14 |
| #52 First things first: "Sounds like he is talking about a appendectomy, but asking for an enema." flash91, that one's a keeper. I'll be using it regularly. Here's a question for all of you: How can Israel dismantle the Iranian nuclear facilities? A first strike with atomic weapons is out of the question. It would invite nuclear retaliation by Pakistan or whatever other Islamic nation took umbrage. If Israel has cruise missile technology, that might be a way. Do they have the quantity necessary? They certainly cannot do it with boots on the ground. Airborne ordnance delivery is hampered by flightpath and refueling considerations. Due to these questions, I still maintain that it is incumbent upon the United States to take Iran to task. As already noted, Russia and China will forever strangle any UN sanctions in the cradle. Plus, sanctions will do jacksh!t as usual. Therefore, it is up to America to act unilaterally against Iran. If anyone can clarify upon this, I would welcome it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-27 15:52 |
| #51 OTOH he could just be crazy. A little of both, I think |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-10-27 15:48 |
| #50 RJ - go see Dan Drezner. Theyve eliminated subsidies on gasoline - OTOH theyve done antifreemarket things that have sent the local stock exchange down, like banning cement exports to keep cement for local use (world cement prices have gone up with Chinese demand) lots of economic ferment, which the govt doesnt seem to be handling well. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-10-27 15:48 |
| #49 EoZ, in no way am I advocating waiting for iran to get nukes. I just believe that the 'rulers' of iran are the ones with the death wish, not your average citizen. My hope would be to bring more pressure on the people to overthrow the government of Iran. I think if they knew beyond doubt that they would be vaporized if their "leaders" attacked israel, it might raise the internal pressure a notch or three. I am of the camp that the only resolution to this problem is going to be internal...or nuclear. Sucks. A lot of innocent people will die either way. Hopefully Israel's intel is good and they can move at an opportune time. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2005-10-27 15:22 |
| #48 Question. I think we all agree that its not a very bright thing for the Iranians to make this sort of annoucement to the world, So why did they do it? Are they farther along on their nuclear program than expected, or are they distracting their people from something else. Has anything happened internally in Iran lately? |
| Posted by: rjschwarz (no T!) 2005-10-27 15:22 |
| #47 "didn't they just cut our legs out on anything like real action in the SC on Syria?" No, I dont think they did. They want to take things slowly. Another resolution calling on Syria to cooperate with Mehlis, and only go to sanctions IF Syria doesnt cooperate. I dont think they'll bail on a next resolution like on Iraq. Partly cause of French interests in Lebanon, but also because of changes in the US French relationship since 2003. Thanks to US-French cooperation, Syrian troops left Lebanon, a new govt came to power in Lebanon, and Lebanese troops are beseiging Pro-Syrian Pal terrorists as we speak. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-10-27 14:45 |
| #46 Why am I am reminded of this line? "God says he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked." |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-10-27 14:29 |
| #45 my crystal ball says nothing will be done - no sanctions cos of Russia and china, no military action cos of lefty media anti war campaigns, just a strongly worded letter signed by our goverments, infact this whole thing could and probably will split the western world even more eventually and that will really please the mullahs, after all Sammy nearly broke up the western worlds alliances and reshuffled the relation ships between nearly all western countries, and all that was done before the first bombs even hit Bagdad! Yeah i can see it now crystal clear. Unless we somehow plucked up the sense and courage to just overnight Atomise Tehran and a few other Iranian hellhole citys then were fcked. The Iranians will gleefully reel in the western media onto thier side as they are already doing, BDS will go into maximum overdrive and the mullahs will watch the internationl 'comuinity' squable for about 2 years before finally giving in to Iran cos by then theyve got their nukes. I think the chapter after that is fairly obvious and i just hope israel is ready to tackle a full blown atomic war with the iranians and also whoever or whatever Arab nations/groups they supply thier nukes too. they may only be kiloton yeild VBIND but sure would be nastier then a normal VBIED. Yeah basically we have a few years left or we lose the initiative and we are all fcked. |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2005-10-27 14:13 |
| #44 Ahmadinejad seeks nothing less than turning all of Iran's population into one vast suicide bomber. The Iranians have already stated that if Iran's total destruction is the cost of wiping away Israel, it will be worth it. What more does the outside world need to hear? Is this not enough to make all and sundry realize that these psychotics are hell bent upon sowing catastrophe on a massive scale? Decap Iran's unelected leadership, NOW. DO NOT USE NUKES, there is absolutely no need to stimulate or justifiy nuclear terrorism with such an incredibly stupid move. Merely wait for a general assembly of the mullahs and bring the roof down on their heads with a bevy of cruise missiles. Israel is hamstrung by distance. It only has defensive nukes which will not serve it well to pre-empt this threat. America must neuter these maniacal loons, and do it soon. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-27 14:11 |
| #43 LH as I stated somewhere else, I think that a people's uprising is the only chance to avoid a war, probably with nukes, in the next 10 years. I'm not so concerned about the difference in society between Iraq and Iran as I am about the sameness of the Europeans and Russians. Didn't France just make all kind of noise about being on board about Syria? Didn't they just cut our legs out on anything like real action in the SC on Syria? I'm afraid that all of the elites that were on Saddam's payroll would be on Iran's at the drop of a hat, and Israel is the chip their willing to gamble with. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-10-27 13:42 |
| #42 alan The iraq comparison is rightly brought up. I can only respond that Iran is a different society than Iraq. As nasty a place as Iran is, its not the ironclad totalitarian state that Iraq was. The mullahs rely on the support, or at least neutrality, of millions of poor Iranians. Sanctions that increase unemployment could well throw Iran into political turmoil. Will sanctions even be passed. I dont know. France is not where it was on this a year ago. I think France would support sanctions, if Iran keeps speaking and acting as it has in the last few months. China wont veto unless Russia does. Will Russia veto? I dont know. If they do though, that will harm Russian relations with the EU, and that alone is a victory for the US. When do we have to hit them? That depends alot on how hard it is to take the nukes out, and at what points in the process its militarily harder to do so. That involves military and technical questions i am not expert in. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-10-27 13:23 |
| #41 LH, I didn't mistake you. I did not figure that you meant patience should be infinite. What I tried to ask though is how long is long enough to wait? Your apparent faith in the UN sanctions route is charming, if hopelessly naive. Look at Iraq for the history of sanctions and THOSE sanctions started from a much more heavily supported base! Sanctions will NEVER be placed on Iran. Neither Russia, China nor France would ever agree. But, on the chance they were (I'll simultaneously win the lottery) how long before the Persian version of OFF? How much would Russia, Kofi, etc. be raking in? How much farther along the line to development of nukes would the MMs, be? Personally I would like to see Bush announce that we considered the statements of Iran's leaders to be the equivalent to a formal decleration or war. And he was going to consult with Congress for the appropriate response. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-10-27 12:52 |
| #40 ed, good point. I was thinking of that comment by a French diplomat that Israel is "a shitty little country." And I've always suspected that some Euros view Israel as (at best) a bargaining chip. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-10-27 12:11 |
| #39 Does the EU take the deal or not? You could have stopped at "Look, let us nuke Israel". No sense in giving Filet Mignon to the starving when bread will do. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-10-27 11:57 |
| #38 Suppose Iran offers the EU a backroom deal something like this: Look, let us nuke Israel in exchange for our promise to dismantle our nukes after that, and our promise to sell you oil at a price not to exceed X per barrel for the next twenty years. Does the EU take the deal or not? |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-10-27 11:52 |
| #37 No Sock Puppet my dear, it seems like everybody has now left the dirty job to us Joooos of Israel. I agree with you EoZ. There's only one country that can justify an attack on Iran's nuke facility and that's Israel. The result of it could very well be a direct attack on US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan since the Muslims would obviously believe that such an act couldn't happen without US approval and would be forced to react to back up their tough talk. The thing is it wouldn't be totally provable which would allow the US to defend itself without super major flack from the EU who's scared shitless of the Islamic facists or from Russia who's under attack from the same crowd and probably not China. From what I can see it's the best and maybe only way to make wiping Iran's present government off the map politically realistic at the moment. |
| Posted by: BillH 2005-10-27 11:37 |
| #36 You mistake me gentlemen. Israel or the US may have to attack Iran. I do not counsel indefinite patience in that regard. I am merely discussing whether the European reaction to this vile statement is worth anything. IMO it IS worth something. If and when Israel or the US takes direct action against nuclear capabilities, this will soften any negative reaction. In the short term - the IAEA passed a resolution, 23 yes, 12 abstentions, demanding Iranian compliance, and threatening referall to the UNSC. Now I doubt that Iran will comply. This makes the odds on the referal greater. And it will make it that much costlier for Russia to veto sanctions. Either Russia will abstain, and sanctions will go into effect, or Russia will veto and relations between the EU and Russia will further strained. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-10-27 11:23 |
| #35 "Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, Sounds like he is talking about a appendectomy, but asking for an enema. One of the differences that causes wars is westerners tend to mean what they say, easterners tend to say things to test boundaries. Best thing to do is assassinate the guy (and anyone near him) by airplane. |
| Posted by: flash91 2005-10-27 10:23 |
| #34 massive notifications by Sat TV that the mullahs are going down ASAP and civilians need to stay away from them? Should be fun watching the unwinding of all the black turbans among the brave MMs trying to disappear in a crowd :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-27 10:16 |
| #33 AllanC, Thanks for the clarifications. In my mind the real problem is how do you zap the theocracy without too much collateral damage for innocents. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way for doing this. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2005-10-27 10:04 |
| #32 Vlad - pureed again |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-27 10:00 |
| #31 Vlad, you must not be a Bible reader, as no where does it teach pacifism. God formed the earth to be inhabited and those that can't live with others are the ones that have to go. God even commands that those who advocated destruction be destroyed to keep evil from taking over. You don't take decisive action lightly, but prayerfully, but as the Prez has said "you are either with us or against us". He will protect his people and his nation but he certainly doesn't need more critics now. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-10-27 09:57 |
| #30 Sarcastic???? Me?????? Thanks ed and AHM for jumping in. Of course I was being sarcastic. I did not use former to describe Rafsanjani because "moderate" made the reference unique all by itself. The new tard is touted as hardline. My disgust is primarily aimed at the MSM et al who label MMs like Rafsanjani as moderate and talk about the RoP. I can, sort of, forgive Bush for his use of the term given that he has to try and work with the Turkeys, Egypts, SAs etc. Their is NO excuse for the Dhimmi Weasel, cowardly, Jew hating left and MSM (but I repeat myself) to ignore the proud proclamations of the Society of Tablecloth Headress. LH you said "Patience. He who endures, wins"; okay, but my one question is this: when a person states unequivocally that he is going to kill you and you cannot run away, when do you kill him in self-defense? When he buys the build a gun kit? When he starts putting the pieces together? When he starts loading the gun? When he is aiming the gun? When he starts squeezing the trigger? OR, do you wait till he fires first hoping he'll miss? Patience is fine, until it becomes suicidal, after that it's just too late. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-10-27 09:54 |
| #29 This guarantees that the Israelis WILL do something about Iranian nuclear facilities when the Iranians get close to bringing their bomb online, Insh'Allan! |
| Posted by: imoyaro 2005-10-27 09:53 |
| #28 Vlad, I'm a holy roller and fully support the Prez as he is between the Rock and a bunch of hard asses. I say we nuke not only Tehran, but Pakistan, Syria, and NK to fully hole them accountable for sharing their nuke technology. China can buy Russian oil and Israel can have all the Middle East as far as I'm concerned. Islamists....can't live with them so we gotta kill 'em. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-10-27 09:46 |
| #27 Iran has a death wish. As much as I like Bush, I don't believe he will grant it. I certainly hope that Bush will provide Israel the support it needs after Israel vaporizes the Qom thugocracy. Today won't be soon enough. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-27 09:46 |
| #26 LH have you ever considered the possibility that when they may reach nuke production capablity in a couple of years, patience may actually be a Vice ? |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2005-10-27 09:41 |
| #25 Let me say a few words in defense of the Euros. Even their words alone help - Iranians get the BBC, etc - and so this kind of thing is propaganda against the regime, making it clear to ordinary Iranians how the regime has isolated them. It adds to the embarrasment of Russia, in defending Iran (even Russia had to admit it was improper to call for the destruction of a UN member state) what will they do? As usual the most aggressive response so far is from Australia - John Howard has called for UN action - specifically about THIS speech, not just about the nuclear issue - although he wasnt specific - Shimon Peres has called for Iran to be suspended from the UN (and if you dont think that matters, ask the folks on Taiwan) The Euros havent gone that far, although they dont seem to rule it out. Now of course no one is saying - aha, he said this, now we're changing our vote on sanctions, or use of force, or whatever. But it changes the atmosphere. Both the speech, and the Euro response. All make it just a bit harder on anyone going soft on Iran, and just a bit easier on anyone going tough on Iran. Patience. He who endures, wins. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-10-27 09:36 |
| #24 AllaHateMe, a couple of nukes on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem will do us in for good. What happens afterwords is to all Israelis an academic question at best. Therefor, we will have to defang them before they get any capability. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2005-10-27 09:36 |
| #23 Rafsanjani, the former "moderate" president of Iran |
| Posted by: ed 2005-10-27 09:27 |
| #22 AlanC is right. Rafsanjani, the "moderate" president of Iran, said in December 2001: RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. ... "War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel. ... "Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-10-27 09:26 |
| #21 EoZ, I may be speaking out of turn but I do believe Alan C was being sarcastic. Due to the nature of our media extolling the RoP while their leaders say shit like 'destroy Israel'. I have no doubt that Israel will not let the mullah's get nukes. And I have no doubt that the USA will not let that happen either. You know what I would love to hear? A US president announce a tit-for-tat defense policy of Israel. Let Iran know, you nuke Israel, theirs aren't the only nukes coming your way. We've got plenty to spare. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2005-10-27 09:18 |
| #20 Alan C - Iran is effectively a theocracy. If Allan tells them to nuke Tel Aviv.. they will. Simple. They will do this by proxy to avoid the consequences. Al Q? Hezbollah? IJ? Take your choice. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2005-10-27 09:12 |
| #19 AlanC, I think the Iranian Prez isMahmoud Ahmadinejad and not Raphsanjani. Anyhow, do you or don't you want me to believe his words ?? |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2005-10-27 09:08 |
| #18 Paging Neville, Neville Chamberlain! Folks looking for another Peace in our Time opportunity. |
| Posted by: john 2005-10-27 08:56 |
| #17 Dear EoZ, You say "I also believe that once the turbaned shitheads at Qomm have access to nukes they would immediately nuke us at the first convenient opportunity. " Why on earth would you believe that? Is it because their "moderate" president, Rafsanjani(?), actually said just that? My goodness, how respectful of you to actually believe what those *&^%^&**^% say. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-10-27 08:05 |
| #16 Vlad: You need to read you own stuff. You sound like Byrd on stgenbara11@yahoo.comeroids. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2005-10-27 07:49 |
| #15 My panties are all in a bunch. I will remove them, and throw them at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad |
| Posted by: Jacques Chirac 2005-10-27 07:46 |
| #14 Sock Puppet, I am afraid that Bush is in a situation were he cannot (domestically speaking) do anything that would even look like opening a new front with Iran. The Europeans, while beginning to show faint signs of understanding, do not have the millitary means nor the political balls to do anything besides economical sanctions which would be toothless because the Russians and the Chinese would torpedo them by keeping buying Iranian oil just to spite the Americans. No Sock Puppet my dear, it seems like everybody has now left the dirty job to us Joooos of Israel. However, realizing that we only have a very narrow time window to actualy do something against the nuclearization of the Fundies of Iran and taking into account that an actual on the ground operation or conventional airstrikes would not work here, I am beginning to suspect that we may have to go nuclear on them. While this is not a very thrilling conclusion, I dont really think that we have any choice left. I also believe that once the turbaned shitheads at Qomm have access to nukes they would immediately nuke us at the first convenient opportunity. Therefore letting them have a nuke is by my book a suicidal act by Israel, which I truely hope is not going to happen, |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2005-10-27 07:26 |
| #13 Ahmadinejad may have "Saddam Syndrome", ie, he knows the UN and the EU won't do anything but issue "strongly worded letters" and he doesn't believe the US or Israel will act without their support. Saddam was cured the hard way. Looks like Ahmadine will have to take the hard cure himself. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-10-27 07:23 |
| #12 If this isn't an open statement that Iran intends to continue to attack and make war on the USA I don't know what is. The government of the US needs to act soon. Iran already has attacked us several times and we have done zip about it. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-10-27 05:33 |
| #11 Is Bush-Falwell an SI unit? |
| Posted by: Tholunter Clomble 2005-10-27 04:48 |
| #10 ROFL! I have a bad nym? LOL. You're easily among the most pretentious asstard morons we've ever had. You're merely another gutless pathetic dysfunctional fool who dreams up an idiot nym and comes here to disgorge bile for therapeutic release. If you weren't so pathetic, you'd be much funnier. Honest men give credit where due. They're not petty and foolish. They recognize that everyone does not have to be a clone of their preferences and thoughts to be worthwhile. They judge people based upon their actions and results. The only President who has ever done squat and you throw hissy fits cuz he's got a belief system that bothers you. Lol. What a fool. I'm an atheist, you windbag, and I don't care if he believes in Santa Claus - he's done 10 billion times more than you will ever do. No one but me will ever do everything on my wish list, but I'm sure as hell not the idiot you are - he's on the right track and I'm incredibly grateful we don't have alGore or alSkeery - secular dimwits who would've folded on Day One and gone running to the even dimmer dhimmis in Europe and the UN. That you can't acknowledge facts is why you have no credibility. It's also patently obvious you have nothing to offer. You're a poseur, a joke, a gasbag, a phoney, a wimp, a cheesedick, a coward, and a sick fuck. Fuck the fuck off, fuckwit. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-27 04:32 |
| #9 .com: clever name for a geeky, self-important gas-bag. I don't want to reinforce your dementia tremors, shorty, but I have to make the observation that only a bottom-scraper would point the proliferation finger at China and Russia, while billions of US dollars is burned in Shiite Iraq and Pakistan. Your analyses are nothing but Bush' kiss-ass, in varying forms. If Western Civilization is on the path to destruction, then it is anti-Secular ravers like you who led it on the path. Repeat after me: David Frum's account ("The Right Man") of Bush's quixotic campaign to unite Jews, Christians and Muslims, aptly describes the slavish anti-Secularism that produced the Central Asia wheel-spinning, and I repudiate my former regurgitation of surrenderist rhetoric of the man who will be remembered as one of the worst President's in US history. I apologise for not having the guts to defend the abu-Ghraib intel-prep troops, when Bush hung them out to dry in that al-Arabiya TV interview. By supporting policies that caused America to look like a beggar state, I helped create conditions where America is treated as such, notwithstanding the thousands of nukes that the country should be tossing at its mortal enemies. Bush blew it, and I bought his snake oil. Holy Rollers: if some visible star light was generated 3,000,000,000 light years ago, then how could the universe be only a few thousand Bush-Falwell years old? Duh! A boy needs his faith. |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-10-27 04:10 |
| #8 ROFL. Vlad The Poseur: 1) Mighty soldier of freedom. Um, huh? 2) Slayer of imagined foes. Okay, I guess so, check. 3) Master of Self Parody. Check. 4) Fuckwit on a BDS bender. BINGO. Go fuck yourself. With a chainsaw. Asstard. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-27 03:57 |
| #7 Therefore we nuke Iran, or at least their spiritual capitol: Qom. Hmmm, no we can't because Bush - the Jackass-in-Chief - has hands off alliances with the Ayatoilet's Iraq puppets. Remember, when he twice let al-Sadr pigs slip away in exchange for armed peace? What a genius. Until the US Presidency is occupied by a Secular - and not backwood's holy rollers like the current dork - you can kiss off victory in any counter terror war. Rhetoric-bombers: what do you think about the Islamofascist victories in the recent elections in the Afghan sewer? The same animal who commanded the destruction of the giant Buddhas, was overwhelmingly elected by Bush's cult-of-peace allies. Now that's oil-patch "freedom" for you. It's time to shelve the civil-policing role of US troops, and unleash the dogs of war on enemy-Muslims, at home and abroad. |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-10-27 03:46 |
| #6 "Israel" and "Zionists" also infers the destruction of the USA and Westernist supporters of Israel, so in reality MadMoud is also calling for the destruction of America and the West. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-10-27 03:00 |
| #5 Never too late for nasty. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2005-10-27 02:56 |
| #4 Amen. 3dc, not by half. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-27 02:51 |
| #3 We will write them a very sternly worded letter. |
| Posted by: Hans Blix 2005-10-27 02:51 |
| #2 We really did the wrong thing after 9/11. We were not nasty enough. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-10-27 02:49 |
| #1 And what would these leaders, excluding the US-UK-Oz, do about it? This is the newly elected and obviously internally powerful President of Iran. He and all the others wielding power in Iran are hell-bent upon acquiring nuclear weapons. None of these "leaders" doubts it, no matter what the public stance of their Govts. So what do these mewlings actually mean? Will they support action? Will they stand up to Puttyputz - whose actions endanger the entire world for a few pieces of silver - and force him to change his position? He's easy to control: money. If everyone who mutters some PR outrage actually packed a pair and decided to punish Puttyputz, it would begin to isolate the insane Iranians. And what of China? Wu will surely support Iran if they're forced to take a public stand. And they have the same vulnerabilities - economic vulnerabilities. They must have markets for their dime-store shit. If no one buys their shit, they can't buy Iranian oil, unless they trade nukes and missiles for it. And what of tomorrow, when China threatens everyone who gets in the way of their designs? And tomorrow will come and, indeed, they will have built up their collection of threats and favors - it's as clear as glass that they have a long-term agenda and will not be dissuaded. What of them? Do these same mewling morons have the stones to stand up to Wu and Da Boyz in Peking? The answer is as clear as Chinese intentions. They had to be embarrassed by the US into keeping the arms embargo. These same "leaders" are exactly like Puttyputz, in the end: whores. Worthless, toothless, spineless whores. Pfeh. The issue of Iran will eventually fall upon the US or Israel. It's hard to see exactly where the UK & Oz fit into that, since invasion is both unnecessary and beyond our combined resources at the moment - not to mention politically impossible for the UK. All the rest are playing to the crowd and pretending to have ethics and stones and honor. Double-Pfeh. They have none. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-27 02:47 |