Middle East News
Mar 25, 2007, 15:11 GMT
Iran says all British detainees in good health (Roundup)
And Also
Similar articles
- Royal Navy resumes boarding operations in northern Gulf
- British defence secretary says "sorry" over sailors' debacle
- Captured British sailor's Iran diary banned by ministry: Times
- Blair says allowing sailors to speak to media was "not a good idea"
- Iran "to reveal truth about British captives in documentary" (Extra)
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Norway: Iran has Nobel laureate's deposit box with medal (3rd Roundup)
- 2. US: Iran will face "consequences" on nuclear activity (Roundup)
- 3. US: Iran will face "package of consequences" on nuclear activity
- 4. Norway: Iran has Nobel laureate's deposit box with medal (2nd Roundup)
- 5. Norway: Iran has Nobel laureate's deposit box with medal (Roundup)
Older Talkback
page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Intense heat and sand = glass.
Nuke em then turn the whole place into a solar panel, worlds energy needs solved and rag heads gone. What could be better than that?
Good luck with that!
(Good thing we have western rationality to protect us from those crazy, warlike Iranians...) lol
'The last actual war that Iran was involved in, less than 20 years ago, was imposed on it without provocation by Iraq, backed by the United States.'
Try about 20 minutes ago.. With the Quds force of Irans revolutionary guard helping to arm and train Shiite death squads in Iraq and amazingly enough, giving arms and material to Sunni death squads with the objective of causing as much trouble as they could figure out how to do? Or before that when their Hizbollah backed terrorists started a war between Lebanon and Israel last summer...
'The situation was virtually identical (in terms of international law) to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait'
Iran kidnapping British sailors is identical to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in terms of international law?
'only in those days, Saddam Hussein was an acceptable 'ally' of the U.S. (lol) '
Acceptable? or simply preferable to the terrorists who had taken our internationally recognized embassy and our internationally recognized diplomats hostage for 444 days?
'It doesn't matter how insane or corrupt the Iranian leader'
??? OK, whatever you say. It is OK, in your opinion for 'insane' leaders to have an atomic bomb. I guess that makes you insane too. Thanks for making excuses for the thug mullahs that hold Iran hostage.
'under the circumstances, with the world's only superpower possessing the world's largest nuclear arsenel[sic]'
Russia possesses the worlds largest arsenal. Next...
'and rapidly persuing[sic] first-strike doctrines and technologies'
Simply untrue... Next.
'generally doing whatever it wants regardless of international law or opinion..'
Haven't broken international law and too bad if you were not consulted 'blue lady'.
'AND camped in force next door spouting years of provocative anti-Iranian hyperbole.'
Like 'death to the great Satan' and we are going to 'wipe' another country 'off the map'? I guess that provocative hyperbole is just dandy.
'.it would be irresponsible for him as leader to leave Iran without a military deterrent.'
There it is... The country that is taking hostages again would be irresponsible in not having an atomic bomb to wipe the Zionist sons of pigs and apes off the map. Real clear thinking Blue lady.
'Besides, history proves that technological monopolies never remain for long, and it's completely futile to try to keep certain specific nations from developing technologies that others possess, and ridiculous to expect them not to try to acquire them.'
So just roll over and let the worlds #1 state sponsor of terrorism have a doomsday device.
'As for invading Iran 'by whatever means necessary': Good luck with that.'
You only invade when you want to do nation building afterwards.
'...and unlike Iraq, apparently, nuclear armed. lol'
Not yet... As you would say 'LOL'
Ah its Goosey Gander the Zionist Rabid Rabbi ..
I thought I recognized the turn of phrase behind the anonymous posts .. well I have something else for your pointy little head to feed upon.
What this latest incident is about is what happened in Israel since 1948 and has been escalating ever since ..
The excerpt that follows comes from a talk given by a distinguished Jewish Historian.
======================================
The History of Israel Reconsidered:
A Talk by Ilan Pappe
We found out that the Zionist leadership, the Israeli leadership, regardless of the peace plans of the United Nations, contemplated long before 1948 the dispossession of the Palestinians, the expulsion of the Palestinians. So it was not that as a result of the war that the Palestinians lost their homes. It was as a result of a Jewish, Zionist, Israeli ? call it what you want ? plan that Palestine was ethnically cleansed in 1948 of its original indigenous population.
informationclearinghouse.info/article17368.htm
======================================
M&C no longer allows one to post a link because they have been battered by spam.
If one adds the usual precursors for a URL to the above that should take you to the complete talk .. alternatively .. Google the above incomplete link.
The Zionist HQ are on record as saying .. that if the US will not attack Iran .. then Israel will .. these escalating incidents will lead us into WW3. Israel is a pip squeak illegal nuclear entity that has been unceasing in their efforts to annihilate the Palestinian peoples for a crazy dream of hegemony ..
As for this Jewish Holocaust .. its all coming apart ..
============================================
Richard Lynn
Professor Emeritus,
University of Ulster
12-5-5
I've checked out Churchill's Second World War and the statement is quite correct - not a single mention of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war.
This is astonishing. How can it be explained?
Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war.
Richard Lynn
Professor Emeritus,
University of Ulster
.rlynn.co.uk .. add the usual URL precursors.
=============================================
World Jewry has also spoken out loud and clear .. Israel does not speak for Torah Jews.
So whats it to be World War Three?? Because the real axis of evil US. UK and Israel are trying to drag us there with this silly stupid Iranian stunt. This on top of the Afghan and Iraqi debacles .. how much blood is enough? One would have thought that the blood of one million is sufficient to slake the monsters thirst.
And if I understand the ruling class mindset of my nation .. then those sailors and marines were set up to deliberately provoke an incident. Little pawns in a much larger game plan ..
The British people do not want war with Iran .. so the robber barons manipulate them via false flag etc to achieve their aims.
The attack on Afghanistan and Iraq was a cowards deed .. the attack we know was all based on false intelligence. Are we going to let the head bangers do it again?
No Sir!! The International Court awaits the monsters.
Actually Ivor I agree with you, I think we should immediately pull out of Iraq...seriously, we should begin to pull the bulk of our heavy armor and mech infantry out via Iran :)
”Try about 20 minutes ago.. With the Quds force of Irans revolutionary guard helping to arm and train Shiite death squads in Iraq and amazingly enough, giving arms and material to Sunni death squads with the objective of causing as much trouble as they could figure out how to do? Or before that when their Hizbollah backed terrorists started a war between Lebanon and Israel last summer...”
Nope. A war requires a declaration of war, between sovereign nations, when one nation invades another. Iran’s involvement in middle eastern politics has been roughly equivalent to Americas, Britains, Soviet Russias…etc: The usual meddling that constantly goes on behind the scenes between powers. Business as usual, as it has always been. Ergo, the last legal ‘war’ was with Iraq, in the ‘80s.
”Iran kidnapping British sailors is identical to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in terms of international law?”
(Lol) No, no, silly; Iraq’s American-backed attempted invasion of Iran for 8 years in the 1980s was an identical Please read my posts before responding to them.
”Acceptable? or simply preferable to the terrorists who had taken our internationally recognized embassy and our internationally recognized diplomats hostage for 444 days?”
Oh, I’m sorry – It’s confusing…When America wanted to invade Iraq, they called Iraq a terrorist regime as well…I Guess terrorism is a matter of dates. The bottom line is that America doesn’t really mind invasions, or foreign interference in regional affairs, or torture (etc) unless it’s useful to object to it. In the end, Iran has about as much legal or moral right to intervene in Iraq as America does (which is to say, not much! lol).
… “It is OK, in your opinion for 'insane' leaders to have an atomic bomb. I guess that makes you insane too. Thanks for making excuses for the thug mullahs that hold Iran hostage.”
I make no excuses for Iran’s repressive theocracy, the current regime’s brutality or the madness of their policy regarding Israel. And I don’t think it’s ‘Ok’ for them to be nuclear-armed. It is simply unrealistic to try to stop them from acquiring nukes, and understandable that they would want them. Above all, it’s hypocritical to pretend that America’s intentions in the middle east are any more altruistic than Iran’s.
“Russia possesses the worlds largest arsenal. Next... “
Nope. America’s nuclear arsenal is definitely the most advanced. Since the disbandment of the Soviet Union into separate states, Russia’s arsenal has been considerably reduced, whereas Americas has remained at par or better, and in technological terms, also superior.
''and rapidly persuing[sic] first-strike doctrines and technologies'
Simply untrue... Next.'
It’s a matter of record. There was a slew of resignations and threatened resignations among America’s General staff over the request for them to draw up planes for a potential strike on Iranian nuclear development facilities, using their famous ‘Bunker Busters’, a class of weapon specifically designed for use against a conventionally armed opponent (it would be useless against any opponent with a strategic, city-striking nuclear capability, for obvious reasons). That was the whole point in Bush scrapping SALT and other arms limitation treaties; he has been quite vocal about the potential for first strikes against potential enemies. They have made no secret about it.
'generally doing whatever it wants regardless of international law or opinion..'
Haven't broken international law and too bad if you were not consulted 'blue lady'.'
International law, according to the same U.N. regulations by which Iraq was defined as a ‘rogue state’, prohibit the invasion of one sovereign country by another except when attacked, or by the democratic concessus of a Security Council mandate. No such mandate existed during the current Iraq war, the international community was overwhelmingly against the invasion as presented (rightly or wrongly), and Bush was quite clear in his intentions to defy the U.N when he announced his plans. It’s all over his addresses, in the news, and in the minutes of the U.N’s many meetings on the subject. Sorry you weren’t consulted. The invasion (however justified it may have been) was illegal, period.
'AND camped in force next door spouting years of provocative anti-Iranian hyperbole.'
Like 'death to the great Satan' and we are going to 'wipe' another country 'off the map'? I guess that provocative hyperbole is just dandy'.
Not at all. “Great Satan” and “ Axis of Evil” are just about equally as childish, distortive and dangerously provocative. The only difference is that America has graduated from covert manipulation on to open invasion, whereas Iran is still in the early stages of superpower meddling.
”There it is... The country that is taking hostages again would be irresponsible in not having an atomic bomb to wipe the Zionist sons of pigs and apes off the map. Real clear thinking Blue lady. “
It would be irresponsible for ANY leader of any nation threatened with invasion by a nuclear-armed power to not also seek nukes. That was the basis of the cold-war on both sides (even though neither side ever really intended to invade the other). Now, if your suggesting a general move towards global nuclear disarmament, that’s something different…..
”So just roll over and let the worlds #1 state sponsor of terrorism have a doomsday device.”
Yes, it’s certainly a drag when the younger siblings get too big to dominate. But it always happens… Britain got too big for France to control, America got too big for Britain, and now the tables are turning again. It’s the way of things….
”'As for invading Iran 'by whatever means necessary': Good luck with that.'
You only invade when you want to do nation building afterwards. “
I repeat, good luck. (-:
”'...and unlike Iraq, apparently, nuclear armed. lol'
Not yet... As you would say 'LOL' “
LOL indeed. (...And yet they say they’re on the verge of nuclear armament. Guess the situation’s not so scary after all…). I wish they’d make up their mind who’s got nukes and who does not….
Oh, excuse me, I almost forgot - Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, as is Bin Laden and nearly the entire Sunni cadre at the core of Al Qaeda. They consider the Shia faith which is what Iran's theocracy is based on to be just short of herecy. Iran, for all their meddling, are quite far down on the list of terrorist sponsored regimes, given the absolutely constant skirmishing and violence elsewhere in the middle east, sponsored by everyone from Syria,Jordon, Libya and Morrocco right on through Egypt.
Moreover, while the Sunni Wahhabists (centered around Al Qaeda) are Pan-Islamic and therefore international in their terrorist agendas (hence their attacks on American soil), the main Shia conflict revolves around regional concerns and objectives, mostly in relation to the repressed Shia majority in Iraq by the remnant's of Saddam's sunni elite.
One word, Lake Iran. Take the whole country out with an atomic, and fill it up with water and make it a vacation spot. The women would not have to cover up there anymore and be put back five centuries...
Blue Lady, are you in a sanitarium right now? You are justifying facts with only half the information, the true upbringing of a radical person. 'I do not accept what you say, because it shows that I am wrong, therefore, I choose to ignore it and choose my warped thoughts as truth because my thought process is not here for happiness, it is here to show hate and contempt and conspiracy theories based on the half truths that I believe'... So, tell me, Ms. Blue Lady. What was the weight of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam had after the first Gulf War? Second, What was the weight of the weapons that he proved that were destroyed?. What happened with the rest? The rest was about 2/3rds of the weight, wasn't it. I got it, it was magic and disappeared? Is this the land of the Blue Lady? If you can please open your mind and check all of the facts before commenting like an expert, it would be great. Please stop polluting people's minds with half truths shown as full truths. You will hurt more mentally than you will help...
Keep it Sane
'Nope. A war requires a declaration of war, between sovereign nations, '
AAAh, so I guess all that was terrorism.
'. Iran’s involvement in middle eastern politics has been roughly equivalent to Americas, Britains, Soviet Russias…etc:'
Pretty pathetic attempt at moral equivalence. I cut and paste occasionally because you there are so many boneheads and so little time: Since 1979, in no particular order Iranians or Iranian funded and controlled terrorist groups have; invaded our embassy and held our diplomatic staff for 444 days, took American journalists and a British minister hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley, bombed the US embassy in Lebanon which killed 17 Americans, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 Americans on a peacekeeping mission, the Khobar Towers bombing killing 19 Americans…
They hijacked an aircraft and killed navy diver Robert Stethem and unceremoniously dumped his body on the tarmac, bombed a Jewish center in Argentina, killing 85, their proxy Hezbollah has started several conflicts with Israel, including the one last summer which left hundreds killed, they still have a bounty on the head of Salmon Rushdie for writing a book that they didn’t like… They have provided the Shiite death squads in Iraq with training and material as well as the Sunni death squads that go after the Shiites with the objective of creating as much bloodshed as passable. They have also been supplying shaped charges and shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles to kill coalition troops...
They Chant 'death to America' on a daily basis in their schools and Mosques,they continually threaten to wipe Israel off the map, they have mined the Strait of Hormuz, they publicly lynch girls for being 'disobedient', they publicly lynch boys for being homosexual, they publicly lash women for the crime of being raped, they stone women to death for infidelity, they censor their news, murder political dissidents, invented the suicide bomber...
They are now kidnapping British sailors and holding them hostage. There is so much that I have left out there, but what the hell... I suspect your mind has already been made up anyway. 'Iran good, USA bad' if you follow the typical idiot moonbat schematic.
'Business as usual, as it has always been. Ergo, the last legal ‘war’ was with Iraq, in the ‘80s.'
OOOh, I thought you used the word 'actual' So there terrorism is 'illegal'. At least you concede that.
'Iraq’s American-backed attempted invasion of Iran for 8 years in the 1980s was an identical Please read my posts before responding to them. '
Aaaah, well, sorry, I cant feed sanctimonious clown into babblefish and have it spit out an English translation.
'When America wanted to invade Iraq, they called Iraq a terrorist regime as well…I Guess terrorism is a matter of dates. '
Well you guessed right. Saddam hadn't put up Abu Nidal, al-Zarqawi, gassed the Kurds, ect at the start of the Iran/Iraq war.
'In the end, Iran has about as much legal or moral right to intervene in Iraq as America does (which is to say, not much! lol).'
We have helped the Iraqis establish a democratic government and write a constitution which has been voted on twice by the population. The Iranians have done their best to undermine it by subsidizing both sides of the sectarian conflict. They have also done their best to kill our soldiers and Marines, as they have done in Beirut (peacekeeping mission) and in Saudi Arabia (At the invitation of the Saudi government) I am not surprised that you cant see a difference here in the policies and motivations, It would appear that you only see what you wish to.
'I make no excuses for Iran’s repressive theocracy,'
ON THE CONTRARY, that is all you have done here to fore.
'. It is simply unrealistic to try to stop them from acquiring nukes, '
A 'nuke' isn't something you can pick up off the street on the way back from the playground. It is not an easy thing to develop. (I would have already had one if it were...pesky neighbors) What is unrealistic is the idea that this 'repressive theocracy'which often displays it's 'brutality' and 'madness' can be dealt with if they are welding an Atomic bomb.
'and understandable that they would want them.'
Google up 'hidden Imam' +Ahmadinejad...
'The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.
One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad's government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.
ll streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour - denied by the government but widely believed - is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a 'contract' pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.
Iran's dominant 'Twelver' sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.
He is said to have gone into 'occlusion' in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace....
Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.
Regardless of whether or not you think it is 'understandable' or not, is it a good idea for humanity for Iran to get an atomic bomb.
'Above all, it’s hypocritical to pretend that America’s intentions in the middle east are any more altruistic than Iran’s. '
Look at the list I posted above. Yes, the USA's intentions are more 'altruistic' toward the middle east then perpetuating suicide bombings and subjugation of other religions and women.
'Nope. America’s nuclear arsenal is definitely the most advanced. '
Boy you can turn on a dime can't you, Your original statement was that we posses the largest, I guess you looked it up and found that you are wrong. Now it is the most 'advanced'. Bit of a difference? No?
'ince the disbandment of the Soviet Union into separate states, Russia’s arsenal has been considerably reduced, whereas Americas has remained at par or better'
Wrong, the USA has reduced the size of its arsenal to late '60's size, You are just wrong on that.
'There was a slew of resignations and threatened resignations among America’s General staff over the request for them to draw up planes for a potential strike on Iranian nuclear development facilities, using their famous ‘Bunker Busters’,'
AAAh, I thought that was a reference to ABM. Fine, we can go with this. Who are these generals who have resigned in protest? There have been a slew of them, who are they who make up this slew? They were rather quiet, this slew, the whole idea of resigning was to create public pressure?
There are conventional (non nuclear) bunker buster bombs by the way.
'That was the whole point in Bush scrapping SALT and other arms limitation treaties;'
Salt hasn't been scrapped, try again. (Grasping at straws much)
'; he has been quite vocal about the potential for first strikes against potential enemies. They have made no secret about it.'
Well if he has been quite vocal about using nuclear weapons in first strikes against our enemies you should be able to come up with a few quotes to back that up. Right? Someone who is quite vocal might have what you could call a 'slew' of quotes threatening others with nuclear annihilation... Shouldn't be that much of a trick for you to come up with some verifiable quotes from Bush about nuking our enemies...
So, on your shopping list is:
1) Some names of the slew of General staff who resigned in protest due to over the request to draw up a nuclear first strike on Iran.
2) Quotes from Bush who has been quite vocal about nuking people.
I guess if you cant find these things you are full of crap.
'International law, according to the same U.N. regulations by which Iraq was defined as a ‘rogue state’, prohibit the invasion of one sovereign country by another except when attacked, ' and 'The invasion (however justified it may have been) was illegal, period.'
That is not quite true, now is it. Lets get back to this one tomorrow... I have an argument on my lap top and I am too lazy to type it all out again.
'the international community was overwhelmingly against the invasion '
The international community? What is this international community that you speak of? The same one that turned its back on Darfur? Rwanda? The Congo? Zimbabwe? Who are these international community? Who holds them accountable for their craven indifference?
'ran is still in the early stages of superpower meddling.'
Well they learn fast, terrorism from Argentina to Lebanon. All the more reason to nip them in the bud.
'That was the basis of the cold-war on both sides'
The basis for preventing the cold war turning hot was Mutual assured destruction which works on the assumption that one side doesn't see destruction as 'martyrdom', These lunatics send women and children to blow themselves up at check points. They sent human waves of 12 year old boys into mustard gas attacks in the Iraq war. The Iraqi generals (who were probably used to putting people in plastic shredders for the entertainment of Uday and Quasi) were physically ill at the sight of them sending their children to be mowed down. Do you think going to paradise to get your 72 black eyed virgins is going to be a deterrent to these nut jobs? Especially when they have the prospect of being saved by their hidden imam? (The cat who went into 'occlusion' in the ninth century, at the age of five.) Sure, give them a doomsday device...Doomsday devices for everyone! To not have a doomsday device is irresponsible!
'Yes, it’s certainly a drag when the younger siblings get too big to dominate.'
Not my siblings... Yours?
' Britain got too big for France to control,'
And look at the bloodshed.
'America got too big for Britain,'
2 wars later...
'and now the tables are turning again.'
Your analogy is completely false. Iran is not a 'colony' of the USA. (obviously) Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton were some of the most gifted thinkers of the enlightenment, not theocratic thugs who want to rule with an iron fist and use god and religion as a very effective control mechanism. The former 13 colonies were no threat to the UK and we were not engaged in murdering their population in periodic 'undeclared wars'. It is rather disgusting that you would even attempt to draw the comparison.
'I repeat, good luck. (-:'
I hope you mean it, but you are probably going to have to wish the IAF luck. Hope the new generation is even better then the ones that took out Osirak.
'Guess the situation’s not so scary after all'
Not when you have your head buried in the sand.
' Iran, for all their meddling, are quite far down on the list of terrorist sponsored regimes,'
They are the #1 state sponsor of international terrorism. (As you all but admitted at the start of this diatribe) Just because the Saudis are SOB's as well doesn't some how make them less..
'Shia conflict revolves around regional concerns and objectives, mostly in relation to the repressed Shia majority in Iraq by the remnant's of Saddam's sunni elite. '
Before bin laden Hizbollah killed more Americans then any other terrorist group.
'So there terrorism is 'illegal'.' Should read 'their'
It seems to me both sides of the conflict share a few things:liars on both sides?No use labeling Achmedijad a liar and trying to prove Bush is snowwhite .Best not to choose sides in this conflict .What is this north arabian gulf where this incident took place.I googled it and surprisingly enough it exists primarily in the terminology of US defense forces .Seems like THe Pentagon gratified themselves with the power to invent new denominations for the worlds regions.THose new denominations however are quickly picked up by the media .THey even might be in your next school atlas in a few years if you live in the US.
I consider such crude manipulation of geographical terminology ridiculous propaganda aimed only at installing a new world order in peoples minds .THe correct name of the place is the persian gulf.
I can easily imagine how this tendency to relabel the world will lead to further communication aznd navigation mistakes and cause incidents.
I'd like to wellcome blue lady who seems to be able to separate fact from fiction and is willing to weigh both sides of the story .It will help a lot of confused people to free themselves from the Bush simplistic doctrine of a war between the forces of good and evil; this is not a war versus evil ,this kind of justification is ok for babies and toddlers of course but I suppose most people reject that kind of assault on their intelligence.May I suggest to those who are interested in the stakes to read Robert Fisk ,a well informed veteran british journalist who is capable of giving acurate and balanced information,studied his historical sources and spoke with intellectuals and common people from all sides .It opened my eyes to the facts of the middle east but unfortunately didn't make me a more optimistic person .
BLUE LADY: Oh my! lol You just got totally hosed! It appears that you and your 'facts' just got blown away! HA HA HA HA
PART I WRONG: MORE MUSLIM LIES: One Muslim poster said that The US and Isreal have threathed to use nukes? Have they? If Iran had nukes you can be graunetted they would use them, and without hesitation. The war in Iraq and Afganaistan is NOW starting to go badly for the Iranian back insurgemts. This recent move is looking more like an act of desperation, in hopes to take this new pressure off.The news is repeating the same stories and one is hearing of bombers blowing up less and less stratigic targets. They are just trying to get headlines now. Look at the Iranian guards just recently captured in Iraq. Just goes to show you who is really behind all the inhuman acts. Another Muslim lie.. say the inhuman acts are that of the American's, while the suicide bombing of innocent people in hopes of staring a civil war is really the inhuman act. This is with the full support and funding of Iran.
PART II ALSO WRONG: I heard about mullahs preaching that their young should offer thier lives to stop the crusaders. I have yet to see these 'holy rollers' stand up infront and lead thier people. They blame all thier problems on others and are good in spilling other peoples blood in the name of their god/ What kind of god have these people created, what kind of religion preaches death? Holy sh*& is all I have to say. These mullahs preached that indivuals should huarry up and join Allah and have thier 12 virgins in heaven.
From this I have two questions to any pig stinking Muslim A-rab out there>
1) Where are all the 'moderates'/
2)Do you think there are enough virgins in heaven to accomadate all those willing to waste thier lives? I can't believe there are that many virgins/ no?
3) If A FEMALE BOMBER BLOWS HER SELF UP DOES SHE HAVE TO BE GAY AND GET A FEMALE VIRGIN OR DOES SHE GET A MALE VIRGIN?
What A BANKUPT RELIGION THAT SUPPORTS THESE TACTICS. VERY VERY SAD!!!!!
Very nicely said.
Yes. Very nicely said indeed.
Hey Guys,
I'm back. Great comments by all. I especially enjoyed Ivor's comments. Folks, comments coming from the folks that lived through oil wars carry the most weight. Great insights Ivor!
If anyone thinks the wars in the middle east are not about oil, then I think they're missing the key points.
As for the British sailors, let's hope for their safe return, and, let's hope for peace in the region. The Iranians have been through enough conflict due to the Super Powers fighting for the oil.
It seems to me that the more challenging road is one of self-perseverance. Bombing countries for their oil is the 'easy' route. How much more difficult would it be to conserve energy, develop energy alternatives, and balance one's own financial house? Clearly this is more challenging.
Keep an eye on the Dollar/Sterling/Euro versus gold. If war escalates in Iran, all currencies will fall relative to gold/silver.
In particular, the Dollar has been falling against the Euro. I think an escalation by the US will push the dollar into further decline. When that happens, inflation will rise in the US due to imports. At the same time, interest rates will rise. Then, paying off the immense national and personal debts will become unbearable. It will likely be a self-feeding cycle. Time to 'short' the US dollar.
Best to All,
Comical Ali
...oh, yeah. One more note.
Most people have completely overlooked the fact that Iran is now selling oil in Euros thanks to the US govt cutting off bank transactions in dollars. Thus, demand for dollars will begin to fall and push up interest rates in the US.
No other country currently sells oil in Euros. The last country to do so was Iraq. We saw what happened there.
One cant help but to wonder if the Iranian gov't isnt playing a master's game! They're playing it very very well. Look how many comments are sucked into the 'bomb them' approach. Ha.
In the end, both the US and Britain are kind of screwed. Financially, they are is check-mate. What can they do? If they bomb Iran, the dollar sinks. If they dont bomb then they lose credibility. Either way, oil prices rise. Ha ha ha ha!
It just goes to show what happens when nuts get elected to run the govt's! Just how bad can Bush and Company screw up the situation? Hmmm.
The US is doomed on this chess piece move! I love it. What a joke.
Comical Ali
Your Talkback on this Story