Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • The Iranian mad cow disease

    by Al-Hack
    29th October, 2005 at 12:12 am    

    So. The Iranian president has a foot in mouth problem. Not that he sees it that way obviously, or the hardline Iranians went on a spontaneous march, North Korea stylee, straight after.

    Understandably there has been a diplomatic orgy of condemnation and I will not even bother to defend him. Calling him idiotic might be too nice.

    Let’s be clear. The big hoo-haa is there because of the ongoing controversy over Iran’s possibile nuclear program. Note, it has not developed nukes yet, but may be starting that journey. There is a difference. Without this, most would have condemned him and dismissed him as a crackpot.

    Should it be allowed to develop nukes? India, Pakistan and Israel have been tacitly allowed to, why not Iran? They do have a democratic stucture, before anyone uses that argument. It’s just the country is run by nutcases and anti-semitics. Doesn’t help local peace let’s say.

    But the President is not stupid and there has to be a calculated reason he said it. Here at Pickled Politics we want to go behind the scenes, rather than simply throw out tired insults like some xenophobic blogs.

    1) He could be trying to deflect from problems at home and what better way than to take pot-shots at Israel?

    2) He might be indicating support for Hamas, the terrorist organisation Iran has always funded. Hamas has been severly weakened by a continuing peace process and targeted assassinations (which incidentally I don’t support).

    3) In the nuclear dance between Iran, the USA, India, Russia and others, Iran may be trying to create mischief so eyes are deflected from the nuclear installations it may have developed.

    To their credit, Egypt said the remarks showed “the weakness of the Iranian government”. A Palestinian official also rejected the remarks.

    Let’s not leave Israel out of the spotlight here though. They say the remark contravenes the UN charter and it should be chucked out of the Security Council. Funny that. Since when did Israel give a shit about the UN? And let’s not forget it hasn’t exactly been so kind to Palestinians either (much as I hate linking MPAC).

    Tit-for-tat aside, for a start Israel needs to stop pretending that Hamas represents the will of all Palestinians and that it can be controlled by the PA. The two are competing organisations. It has the upper hand and the superior firepower - it needs keep the peace process going, not constantly stall it by using Hamas as an excuse.

    Then only can Hamas be sidelined and Palestinians be convinced that Iran is not exactly helping them with its bravado.

                  Post to

    Filed in: Current affairs,Religion,The World

    38 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. harry008 — on 29th October, 2005 at 12:42 am  

      or alternatively he’s getting paid extra large sums of molah to say such things by the US govt, or does that have too much of a conspiracy theory feel to it?

    2. blue mountain — on 29th October, 2005 at 7:12 am  

      Ahmedinejad is a goat. Every muslim country wants to see itself as the leader of ummah and gain international respect and recognition and tend to outdo each other .Malaysia for its economy, Pakistan nuclear bomb, Turkey economy and Ottoman Empire, Saudis for Mecca and Medina and Egypt for most populous Arab country.
      No one will ever let Iran assume that role.Iran sees itself as the only muslim country that stands up against the vile West.Fools .They ignore the fact that every muslim country in the world hates them. They dont even know how to convert their natural resources into wealth.

    3. blue mountain — on 29th October, 2005 at 7:41 am  

      :Ah yes, those weapons. Of course, nuclear weapons in the hands of oppressive régimes is nothing new - witness India with its Hindu-fascist (until recently) ruling class, China, Russia, and a country which treated its black population like second-class citizens until well after they developed nukes. Still, I’m puzzled by people’s attitudes to Iranian nuclear weapons……

      And how do Muslim countries treat its minorities.

      Pakistan uses its infamous blasphemy laws to hang Hindus and Christians.and Saudis?

      From the Malayali Manorama:

      Riyadh: Saudi religious police have destroyed a clandestine makeshift Hindu temple in an old district of Riyadh and deported three worshippers found there, a newspaper reported.
      Members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or religious police, Thursday stumbled across a room converted into a temple as per pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.

      “They were surprised to find that one room had been converted into a Hindu temple,” it said.

      A caretaker who was found in the worshipping area ignored the religious police orders to stop performing his religious rituals, the paper added. He was deported along with two other men who arrived on the scene to worship. All forms of non-Muslim worship are banned in Saudi Arabia, which is home to Islam’s holiest shrines.

    4. blue mountain — on 29th October, 2005 at 7:44 am  

      ooops…wrong post !!!!!

      I was reading Indigo Jo blog and posted it here.


    5. Steve M — on 29th October, 2005 at 10:56 am  

      Since when did Israel give a shit about the UN?

      Since they can get something from the UN, silly. The same as every other country.

      The answer to the question of why the President of Iran made these statements is clear. Totalitarian regimes invariably use a scapegoat to keep the populous on-side. Anti-Semitism is commonly used for this purpose. The fact that it is used throughout the Arab world - Syria, Saudi, Jordan - and not just Iran should be noted and acknowledged by members of this forum.

      Let me add a couple of other points:

      Firstly, I was heartened by Russia’s public condemnation of Ahmadinejad’s speech - rare for such a significant trading partner to make such a mood. If Russia stopped providing Iran with its expertise and uranium, perhaps Western military action against Iran can still be averted - although the recent German revelations about the freedom of movement allowed to Al Qaeda within Iran gives less hope for this.

      Finally, let me put forward a suggestion for which I have no evidence whatsoever …

      Clearly, the Palestinian Authority has serious problems with Hamas. Also, it’s difficult for the PA to act decisively against Hamas, without provoking great public disquiet and perhaps escalating the current violence in Gaza into a civil war. Isn’t it then at least a possibility that Israel is carrying out these strikes and assassinations against Hamas leaders with the tacit approval of the PA?

    6. Sunny — on 29th October, 2005 at 2:27 pm  

      The fact that it is used throughout the Arab world - Syria, Saudi, Jordan - and not just Iran should be noted and acknowledged by members of this forum.

      Totally agree. It’s the old technique of deflecting problems at home by getting people riled up about outside dangers. the USA is a great example.

      If Russia stopped providing Iran with its expertise and uranium, perhaps Western military action against Iran can still be averted

      I think the Russians want money too much, so they won’t. Saying that it’s not like we have an ethical foreign policy, so the Russians certainly won’t take any guidance from the UK.

      Military action against Iran on what basis? It has no hope in hell of getting anywhere.

      Isn’t it then at least a possibility that Israel is carrying out these strikes and assassinations against Hamas leaders with the tacit approval of the PA?

      Hmmm.. could be, but each strike against Hamas brings more public sympathy towards them by the Palestinians, so that would mean that the PA would be allowing Hamas to get stronger. Hamas as an entity doesn’t care if its people get shot IMO… it gets stronger that way, and keeps attracting a steady supply of brainwashed kids willing to blow themselves up.

    7. Al-Hack — on 29th October, 2005 at 5:09 pm  

      Reiterating a point someone else made… we are not supposed to be revulsed at the flattening of Fallujah, at the “shock and awe” tactics of Rumsfeld, or the untold deaths of Iraqis, but when the Iranians repeat whatever they have been saying for donkeys years anyway, there is outrage.

    8. Mokum — on 29th October, 2005 at 5:53 pm  

      Yeah, it’s just fine to threaten to destroy a country, isn’t. Nothing to worry about. Pshaw!

      Fake quotes from a sick racist web site are really neat too, aren’t they.

    9. Leslie — on 29th October, 2005 at 9:08 pm  

      Good posting and some sound comments.

      Whenever a politician is having problems, they will always try and deflect attention by looking to attack something in the hope it gives them some more breathing space and win additional supporters.

    10. Mokum — on 29th October, 2005 at 9:38 pm  

      Yeah, that’s right. I mean, hey, Bush is in a spot of bother right now, so why doesn’t he call for a genocide of the Arab and Iranian peoples at a “World Without Islamism” conference? Then he could repeat the call at a million-strong march on the Mall in DC. At the march, as Bush beams, dozens of Arab and Iranian flags are burned and everyone chants “Death to Arabs! Death to Iranians!” while the kiddies play with toy M-16s, just so they’re brought up right and all.

      Why, then PP can say “the President is not stupid and there has to be a calculated reason he said it” and proceed to “go behind the scenes”. Fair’s fair, eh?

      Latest statement from the Iranian foreign ministry, earlier today:

      ”The statement by the president of the U.N. Security Council was proposed by the Zionist regime to close the eyes to its crimes and to change the facts, therefore it is not acceptable,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry said.

      Oh yeah, they’re smart alright, those Iranian officials. Who knew Israel controlled the UN? Has someone told poor old Mother Russia that her Security Council vote is worthless?

      Lord, I can’t wait for Eid. The crankiness is turned up to 11 right now.

    11. Al-Hack — on 29th October, 2005 at 10:05 pm  

      Grrr, that will teach me to link to Mpac again.

      Mokum, the Iranians have been going on about end of Zionism for decades now, what is exactly new in what he said?

      To most of the arab countries Israel is a standard punching-bag that they bring up to pretend they show solidarity for their brothers. I’d like to see how much money Saudi Arabia has donated to help Palestinian poverty.

      Like the rest of the media you got a case of mock horror too?

      Bush may not declare war on another country in so many words but he has used the terrorism threat plenty of times, his supporters have mud-slinged at opponents (Kerry) over issues, and there is of course the recent al-Zawahiri letter.

      And sorry, what reason did he have to attack Iraq again? Their friendship with al-Qaeda? Surely we don’t want to go down the road of debating a war on false pretences here do we pal?

    12. j0nz — on 29th October, 2005 at 10:46 pm  

      Al-Hack your outrage at the bombings of Fallujah are ‘niave’ (to be kind)..

      Just spend 3 minutes looking at a fact based slide show and then come back and express your ‘outrage’.


    13. j0nz — on 29th October, 2005 at 10:51 pm  

      Don’t even bother saying LGF is biased - that slide show is based on IMEF reporting. Can you give an example of Charle’s Johnson’s xenophobia?

      Xenophobia = an irrational fear of strangers.

    14. Al-Hack — on 29th October, 2005 at 11:13 pm  

      J0nz, that was quite funny.

      Lemme get this straight. Was this information compiled by the same army that shot a person in the head despite him being unarmed and surrendered? You know, the one caught on camera?

      Oh, about LGF, I think Anil Dash put it far better than me.

    15. j0nz — on 29th October, 2005 at 11:23 pm  

      Was this information compiled by the same army that shot a person in the head despite him being unarmed and surrendered? You know, the one caught on camera?

      Eh? Link?

    16. Kulvinder — on 29th October, 2005 at 11:26 pm  

      His comments are pretty despicable (and i would feel the same if an israeli pm said the same about Iran), ill assume its more to do with internal iranian politics than anything else.

      Oh and i believe any nation should be free to develop whatever weapons it sees fit.

    17. j0nz — on 29th October, 2005 at 11:27 pm  

      Jeez, you’re alluding to that jihadist who was shot? You pro-Saddam, pro-Baathist ‘liberals’ are so damn morally vacuous and utterly deluded its amazing!!!

      Democracy; Not In Your Name!

    18. Al-Hack — on 29th October, 2005 at 11:36 pm  

      Been trying to find the link but its bloody elusive. Eh? How exactly am I pro-Saddam and pro-Baathist? Does killing innocent Iraqis in the head mean becoming a Saddam lover? what planet you on mate?

    19. Al-Hack — on 29th October, 2005 at 11:38 pm  

      It was all over the TV. Bunch of Iraqis lying down injured because of a previous raid. American soldiers come in, see that there is nothing hidden in the place and decide to execute the remaining survivor. I think ABC news got the footage. I really should save all these links somewhere for use later.

    20. Mokum — on 30th October, 2005 at 12:29 am  

      al hack, as salaamu aleikum (forgive me if that is considered offensive{which would be crazy})

      what is exactly new in what he said

      Nothing. However, the rank of the source surprises, does it not? This crap hasn’t been heard from the top of Iran for a while now. Another “what the f*ck” moment for the world as it gets to grips with insane Islamism.

      To most of the arab countries Israel is a standard punching-bag that they bring up to pretend they show solidarity for their brothers. I’d like to see how much money Saudi Arabia has donated to help Palestinian poverty.

      You are so right. So when will the punching end?

      Nah, let’s not get into an argument about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war. Talk about boring internet programming :-)

      For what it’s worth (zero), I supported the liberation of Iraq, and I support a withdrawal of Western troops now.

      Now that’s unpopular! (tell the Iraqi people, who appear to agree with me on both counts)

    21. j0nz — on 30th October, 2005 at 12:38 am  

      U.S.Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.

      They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists.

      The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded insurgents would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again.

      Four of the insurgents appeared to have been shot again in Saturday’s fighting, and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the insurgents appeared to be breathing.

      A Marine approached one of the men in the mosque saying, “He’s [expletive] faking he’s dead. He’s faking he’s [expletive] dead.”

      The Marine raised his rifle and fired into the insurgents head, at which point a companion said, “Well, he’s dead now.”

      The camera then shows two Americans pointing weapons at another Iraqi insurgent lying motionless. But one of the Marines step back as the insurgent stretches out his hand, motioning that he is alive. The other Marine stands his ground, but neither of them fires.

      When told by the pool reporter that the men were among those wounded in Friday’s firefight, the Marine who fired the shot said, “I didn’t know, sir. I didn’t know.”

      “You can hear the tension in those Marines’ voices. One is saying, ‘He’s faking it. He’s faking it,’” Heyman said. “In a combat infantry soldier’s training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded.”

      A Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent.

      NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the Iraqi insurgent had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.

      Amnesty International has noted reports that insurgents have used mosques as fighting positions, and have used white flags to lure Marines into ambushes.

      The Marine who shot the insurgent has been withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of an investigation, the U.S. military said.

      These terrorists do not follow the rules of war. These terrorists kill innocent women by disemboweling them, cut of the heads of innocent truck drivers, detonate car bombs in crowds full of innocent people, and fly planes into buildings filled with innocent Americans.

      It is my opinion that NOTHING should happen to this American Marine. He should be returned to his unit or be given an honorable discharge. We don’t need our young men and women taking an extra second to decide if its right to shoot an enemy terrorist when that could mean that one of our soldiers could lose their life. The lives of our soldiers should be the single most important factor in this war against terrorism. The rights of terrorists can come second.

      From here. So WTF are you talking about ‘inncocent Iraqis’? Why do you have to lie/twist the truth everytime in order to vindicate your niave ‘liberal’ agenda?

    22. j0nz — on 30th October, 2005 at 12:44 am  

      Before you leap on me with some lame counter-attack ,the last paragraph IS NOT my opinion, in fact I did not mean to post that paragraph.

      I believe the innocent Iraqi’s lives come first. Then the soldiers, and aboslutley last of all the terrorists.

    23. Mokum — on 30th October, 2005 at 12:49 am  

      Anyone who uses a mosque as a firing position on US marines is likely to get hurt. This seems to me a fair rule of warfare.

      As for the aftermath, see Ken Bigley’s aftermath.

      Ramadan mubarak!

    24. Al-Hack — on 30th October, 2005 at 1:20 am  

      For what it’s worth (zero), I supported the liberation of Iraq, and I support a withdrawal of Western troops now.

      Other way around for me brotha!

      You are so right. So when will the punching end?
      I guess when Israel pulls its head out of the sand and sorts out a Palestinian state, no? Maybe I’m asking for too much.

      Anyone who uses a mosque as a firing position on US marines is likely to get hurt. This seems to me a fair rule of warfare.

      As for the aftermath, see Ken Bigley’s aftermath.

      Sure. Was there intelligence on how many people were hiding in which mosque as tight as the dots that highlighted where the WMD were hidden?

      Ken Bigley is a cheap shot. What about all the innocent Iraqis my man?

      I believe the innocent Iraqi’s lives come first. Then the soldiers, and aboslutley last of all the terrorists.

      Well at least we have something to agree on j0nz. Thanks for picking up that article, I was looking for that.

      That soldier might have been under stress, but my point was general. We saw one guy being innocently shot. How many other innocent people in Fallujah were killed when the US army was bombing the city before attack, or during “shock and awe”. And while we are at it, want to speculate on the number of dead Iraqis in general?

      Let’s not go round and round in circles. You supported “liberation”, I opposed a “pre-emptive invasion” that was based on largely discredited intelligence.

      I just ain’t willing to believe the US govt so easily like you.

      And what say you about LGF?

    25. j0nz — on 30th October, 2005 at 1:30 am  

      Well LGF is pretty much anti-fascist so for a ‘right wing’ site it’s pretty progressive. Charles Johnson’s posts are always good and with sharp analysis and wit… Comments are where LGF problem’s lie. I don’t like the way there are no dissenting voices allowed - a decent debate can’t be had. Only people who agree are allowed to post… And of course some of the comments are just plain trashy.

      Having said that there are many decent LGF commentors so it’s not all bad.

    26. Mokum — on 30th October, 2005 at 1:31 am  

      Ha ha! Other way around for me brotha! should be written on the walls of every Islamic seminary.

      A Palestinian state is not too much to ask for. I’d like to see one tomorrow morning. Can you arrange it?

      Innocent Iraqis: Ken Bigley is one of their representatives.

      Good night, bro, we’ll work this out, I promise you :-)

    27. Sunny — on 30th October, 2005 at 1:54 am  

      Given that the Iranian president has told off and fired most of his Ambassadors (hat tip Harry’s Place), I’d say this isn’t just about getting his locals riled up.

      He’s just gone plane bonkers I’d say and doing the time honoured think of taking a big gun, aiming it at his foot and firmly pulling the trigger.

      I think I’ve gone off the idea of letting Iran develop its nukes if it wants too… that guy is more of a nutcase than Musharraf, though not the N. Korean leader.

    28. j0nz — on 30th October, 2005 at 1:59 am  

      Eric the Unread has a great analogy on this one. Link

    29. Fe'reeha — on 31st October, 2005 at 2:26 am  

      It is important to look at Ahmadinehad’s comments in the background of Iranian foreign policy on the issue of Israel-Palestine.
      Iran has always supported Palestenian’s right of a separate state openly. After the Islamic revolution of 1979 brought about by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran always stood steadfast on its stance of declaring Israeli occupation of Palestinian state as illegal.
      After Khomeini’s deaths, the following era tried a “slight” thaw in the relationship but more or less Iran has been clear in its stance to an extent that it chose to have tension filled relationship with the US.
      But, there is a difference between being anti-Semitic and anti-oppression. And a President of a country should definitely be able to see it.

      And, I doubt there is “much method in Ahmadinejad’s madness” of present comments. Iran’s president, apparently, is naive about foreign diplomacy and can clearly not distinguish between not accepting a terrorist state from “wiping it off” the map of the world.
      Not only do his remarks negate Iranian history but also play havoc with Iran’s international relations.
      The timing of Ahmadinejad’s comment interestingly coincides with the new Washington-led
      campaign against Syria over the UN report on the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, yet, I doubt any timing could have been appropriate for such uncalled for comments.
      I think, we can safely assume that the president’s comments were far from an orchestrated approach towards a positive goal or direction for the country.
      Sunny, rightly calls him a bigger nut case than Musharraf, for President Musharraf, during his recent visit to the US, called oppressed women of his own country as fabrications of NGO’s in Islamabad.
      I remember when I had heard this comment from President Musharraf, it took me about half a day to register and actually believe that he had said it.
      As far as Iranian President’s comments are concerned, I am still not sure I can believe someone can actually think of“logic” behind them, no matter how hard PP or any other blogs try to establish it.
      The comments, far, far from following a carefully-planned approach are probably a personal statement of ideological preference. (I am so kind when I use the word ideological).

      Moreover, it is quite clear by the furore it has caused in the Western and the rest of the world, with our very own PM going ballistic, that the comments have not been particularly of any service to the Iranian interests.
      In a world, where everyone is already looking dubiously at Iran’s nuclear programme, Iran will not be winning their case by uttering such sentimental remarks by a President, no matter how accurately they point at double policies of US regarding the nuclear programme of Israel and other countries.
      No matter how confident Iran is about its support to the US in Basra (shi’ite majority), Iran should at least know by now, that Basra and beyond, the US loyalties could never accede Israel.

    30. blue mountain — on 31st October, 2005 at 6:25 am  

      Latest on Ahmadinejad.

      Tehran, Oct. 30 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the latest cabinet meeting in the Iranian capital that “if we were permitted to hang two or three persons, the problems with the stock exchange would be solved for ever”, according to a Tehran-based newspaper.

      Ahmadinejad was addressing a cabinet meeting held to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation at the Tehran Stock Exchange, the daily Ruznet reported on Sunday.

      Ministers and experts disagreed with all the different views and proposals raised at the meeting, which came to an end without any concrete results. Tempers flew high and participants shouted at each other during the discussion, according to the daily. Frustrated with the inability of his economic advisers and experts to come up with any solution, Ahmadinejad told them that the only way out of the current stock exchange and financial market problems was to “frighten” speculators by hanging two or three of them.

      Iran’s ultra-Islamist President first sent jitters through the country’s markets when he said on the eve of the presidential elections in June that “stock exchange activities are a kind of gambling and we are against them”. Gambling is banned in Islam.

      Nervous investors have been transferring their capital to other countries, and Dubai has benefited palpably from the flight of capital from Iran. The Tehran Stock Exchange has lost 20 percent of its value in the past four months.

      “At the moment there are no buyers in this market, only sellers”, the newspaper Ruznet wrote. “Economists believe the situation is becoming more difficult to handle day by day”.

      Incendiary statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian officials have contributed to the creation of an atmosphere of uncertainty and instability in the country’s financial markets, according to analysts.

    31. Steve M — on 31st October, 2005 at 11:36 am  

      So when will the punching end?
      I guess when Israel pulls its head out of the sand and sorts out a Palestinian state, no? - Al-Hack

      Doesn’t anyone else have any responsibility here?

      Are the Palestinians merely passive observers? Do the countries which sponsor Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah have no effect either?

    32. Steve M — on 31st October, 2005 at 12:25 pm  

      I’d like to add that I accept fully that Israel must work towards peace and be prepared to make considerable sacrifices to achieve it (although sacrificing its existence isn’t one of them).

      I just think it’s simplistic to imply that peace and the Palestinian State lie solely in the hands of the Israelis.

      …and when an independent Palestinian state is finally established through bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, does it end there? Will a settlement that is acceptable to the majority of Palestinians be acceptable to the countries that claim to be so concerned with Palestinian welfare - Jordan, Saudi, Syria and Iran? Please tell me that it will, Al-Hack.

    33. Vikrant — on 31st October, 2005 at 4:57 pm  

      Jihad Watch and Xenophobic? Not in my book dude.

      Robert justs posts news articles from leading world dalies. For whatever reason some Muslims are killing kaffirs. “Moderate” Muslims havent been able to address this problem in satisfactory way. Muslim world today is rife with anti-Semitism and Muslim fundamentalists hold sway in almost all Muslim countries. If a person merely tries to bring this to the attention of the people, then u cant call him xenophobic.

      Yes LGF can be described xenophobic in some ways but JW… No Way!

    34. j0nz — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:17 am  

      Vikrant you are absolutley right of course. When will “moderate” Muslims address the issue, so that kuffar doesn’t have to!


    35. Al-Hack — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:31 am  

      That argument does not fly. If you only present one side of the view, only one perspective, then there is inherent bias. I could start a website only covering paedophilia by white middle-aged men, and pretty soon my audience could be convinced that the world is full of white paedophiles and that the problem is getting worse and worse.

      Robert has a one-sided view that is feeds into a crowd of hungry baying xenophobes who are happy to believe that all Muslims are inherently evil.

      After the Pakistani earthquake and the Iranian president comment, many of his minions called for all Muslims to be wiped off the map, without any irony. If you are encouraging and abetting that sort of behaviour and reaction, there is something wrong dudio!

    36. Mokum — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:51 am  

      Al-Hack, :-)

    37. Tanvir — on 1st November, 2005 at 4:24 pm  

      At a time when you are trying to calm the west down and convince them not to destroy and take-over your country… you declare thier baby (Israel) should be wiped off the map.

      This guy is nuts.

      And his speech must have been music to Blair and Bush’s ears…what better way to forward the case to take-over Iran.

      The theory that he was trying to deflect attention from problems is rubbish though. As much as this guy is crazy, his sentiments are shared with just about the whole of the muslim word in some way or other. Some are smart and diplomatic and will say more western-firnedly things about it. But the bottom line is, everyone hates Israel. You’ve got the usual Israel apologist who will say ‘but its there now’ but I could invade France tomorrow morning, throw out most of the population, and if i sit there for long enough will it be mine?… anyway the debate about Israel could go on forever, if you want to be realistic, then it should be accepted as a state, but AT LEAST stick to its legal borders… I reckon most Muslims will settle for that, but Israel wont even do that…infact it continues to further occupation thought the wall, and build more settlements…where is the condemnation to that? Nowhere…not in the press…not on this website.

      Anyways, going back to the main point of the story, I reckon this new Iranian President is the dream leader of Iran for the western world, he should be able to make enough cock-ups to make the case for war against Iran as easy as possible.

      Considering the dodgy dossiers on Iraq, and even post-war admission that the reasons given were lies… and the western public still stand by their actions…this war should be a breeze for Bush.

    38. dilbert — on 22nd December, 2005 at 5:24 am  

      America proves once again it is still stupid enough to have another Iraq invasion based on fabricated evidence all over again. All it takes is a little hate and a lot of lazy minds.
      And don’t use the word insurgent- it’s stupid. It insinuates there is a valid government in place to have an insurgency against. These are simply men defending their homeland from invaders. To criticize them is ridiculous.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.