Is Ahmadinejad insane or politically driven? Or both?

[ddt]

given that there are many hostile powers from the cold war, the US has very few allies outside of SA and Israel.

Has NATO ceased to exist retroactively?
And somehow, SA being an ally implies you can't criticize them?
Well, I guess your stance is consistent if you consider the US govt's statements about France.

Given that saddam was supporting Fatah, oh wait, they were fighitng Israel, which for the left today, would give saddam 100% approval, regardless of his atrocities.

The link you gave didn't mention Fatah. And I'm still waiting for a quote from Bush or Blair on which terrorists Saddam supported that was such a problem.

(and just waiting for a Brit to chime in on the US's attitude to IRA fund raising )

You seem to assume that Bush and Blair had a crystal ball and knew absolutely every single fact, whenever intelligvence is more like a looking glass darkly.

When your link knew which terrorist groups Saddam supported, why wouldn't the CIA and MI5 know it, with much more funding? I'm just asking for some evidence that your heroes used the right arguments, instead of only claiming that Saddam supported AQ, which everyone with half a brain and a bit of knowledge of world politics knew was very highly unlikely.

KJI and SH were the nastiest of the few remaining totalitarians in 2002, of course Bush would single them out.

Of course you're going to (re)define the term "nasty" to fit your outlook.

Did you move those goalposts again? man their stubs must be nonexistent.

I just gave you evidence that Blair's claim was about British soil (on Cyprus). What more do you want? You haven't given a shred of credibility for the claim.

for it to be a lie, they had to know it was.

no.

Blair admitted he should have corrected the 45-minutes claim when it hit the media. So he admitted he lied himself.

 

[funk de fino]

How is that proof of insanity?

Any other indications of raging lunacy in his speech?

For once I agree. Pure and utter stupidity but not necessarily insanity. People who believe in 7/7 conspiracies are even more stupid. Lets hope he doesnt go down that road.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Has NATO ceased to exist retroactively?
And somehow, SA being an ally implies you can't criticize them?
Well, I guess your stance is consistent if you consider the US govt's statements about France.

I should have clarified on it being the ME.

And yea, i am critical of US support for SA, given that their government is harbouring Wahhabists.

The link you gave didn't mention Fatah. And I'm still waiting for a quote from Bush or Blair on which terrorists Saddam supported that was such a problem.

his ultimatum to Saddam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2859269.stm

(and just waiting for a Brit to chime in on the US's attitude to IRA fund raising )

First off, the CIA/US govt NEVER approved IRA funding, which invalidates that argument. In fact, they tried to put a stop to it after a while.

When your link knew which terrorist groups Saddam supported, why wouldn't the CIA and MI5 know it, with much more funding? I'm just asking for some evidence that your heroes used the right arguments, instead of only claiming that Saddam supported AQ, which everyone with half a brain and a bit of knowledge of world politics knew was very highly unlikely.

Coz, like i said, intelligence isnt a crystal ball. And it had been established that saddam was supporting the toher groups for a very long time.

Of course you're going to (re)define the term "nasty" to fit your outlook.

How? i see Pinochet's Chile as nasty, as with numerous other nasty dictatorships like Suharto or Ceausescu.

I just gave you evidence that Blair's claim was about British soil (on Cyprus). What more do you want? You haven't given a shred of credibility for the claim.

Yeah, i agree it was about Cyprus, and Blair should have been clearer.

Blair admitted he should have corrected the 45-minutes claim when it hit the media. So he admitted he lied himself.

No, Blair admitted that he was too vague, which is a different kettle of fish from lying.

 

[Pardalis]

Do you bat an eyelid everytime a "terrorist" is killed by a computer-operated drone in Pakistan, along with their families and neighbors? If not, would you call yourself psychopathically insane?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/09/28/pakistan.militant.killed/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I'd say that's the most humane kind of warfare you can have. But you support suicide attacks against civilians...

 

[JihadJane]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/09/28/pakistan.militant.killed/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I'd say that's the most humane kind of warfare you can have. But you support suicide attacks against civilians...

Any other indications of raging lunacy in President Ahmadinejad's speech?

 

[Pardalis]

Boy, you really are taking this personally. You like him that much?

 

[Thunder]

Any other indications of raging lunacy in President Ahmadinejad's speech?

ehh...he supports a New World Order and one-world govt.

 

[Matt Giwer]

We've seen his latest 9/11 truth statement. After reading everything he's said for the last few years, I'm convinced that if I would have said such things, nobody would take me seriously. In fact, I'd probably be advised to see a psychiatrist.

So do you think Ahmadinejad is really insane? Or do you think he does everything for political posturing? Or both (not mutually exclusive)?

I know from the authority of senior members of the government of Israel that Hitler was no worse than Ahmadinejad. Nor was Hitler worse than Milosevic from the same source.

 

[JihadJane]

Boy, you really are taking this personally. You like him that much?

Is childish personalization easier than answering a simple question?

Have you found any other indications of raging lunacy in President Ahmadinejad's speech besides your unimpressive "just for starters"?

 

[Virus]

Have you ever read Churchill's memo on the use of poison gas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_gas_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920

The fact it most probably hasn't actually been used is irrelevant; Churchill authorized its use. The language of the memo is also very revealing: Iraqis (Kurds in this case) are "not civilized" so you may throw at them whatever you fancy.

From your article;

Alleged British use of gas in Mesopotamia in 1920.

It has been speculated that the British may have used toxic gas...

 

[ddt]

From your article;

So what? The point is that Churchill worked in favour of development of poison gas bombs, and authorized the use of poison gas. I *** wrote that in the very piece of text you quoted from me!

 

[ddt]

And yea, i am critical of US support for SA, given that their government is harbouring Wahhabists.

So we agree on that.

his ultimatum to Saddam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2859269.stm

Great. It only mentions AQ as terrorists, while experts agree Saddam didn't support AQ. It doesn't even mention Hamas, which would have been an easy one. Therefore, lies from Bush. So, you concede this point?

First off, the CIA/US govt NEVER approved IRA funding, which invalidates that argument. In fact, they tried to put a stop to it after a while.

The impression I get from our British posters here is that the US govt very much put a blind eye to IRA fund raising.

Coz, like i said, intelligence isnt a crystal ball. And it had been established that saddam was supporting the toher groups for a very long time.

Still no evidence that Bush/Blair argued about other terrorists than AQ (which was an obvious lie).

Yeah, i agree it was about Cyprus, and Blair should have been clearer.

No, Blair admitted that he was too vague, which is a different kettle of fish from lying.

OK. The aspect that the statement was about Cyprus and not mainland UK was a deception, not a lie. The aspect that the statement was only based on the rumour of a cabbie counts as a lie, as it doesn't hold up to any standards of credibility. From wiki:

To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth.

 

[Thunder]

Is childish personalization easier than answering a simple question?

Have you found any other indications of raging lunacy in President Ahmadinejad's speech besides your unimpressive "just for starters"?

i already gave u evidence of his insanity.

 

[Toontown]

Wow, I think you're right. Calling him insane would make it seem like he's some isolated, lone quack, when that clearly isn't the case. We still have those ayatollahs for one thing. Not to mention the population....

So do you see any plausible solutions to this? Is it education? Hoping they come to their senses eventually?

Let them have the nukes, and the problem will become more or less self-solving.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

He really said that Israel would be "erased from the pages of history". The issue of the "misquote" was that this was translated as "wiped off the map" since the latter is a more familiar idiom in the west than the former. The literal meaning is different but the figurative meaning is the same.

No it's not and he was talking about a regime.

Yes it is.

This is what Berlin looked like just after the nazi "regime" had been "wiped from the pages of history".

Calling for something whereby the destruction of Israel is an essential part of the process is functionally identical to calling for the destruction of Israel.

 

[ddt]

Yes it is.

This is what Berlin looked like just after the nazi "regime" had been "wiped from the pages of history".

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Reichstag_after_the_allied_bombing_of_Berlin.jpg[/qimg]

Calling for something whereby the destruction of Israel is an essential part of the process is functionally identical to calling for the destruction of Israel.

What's the relevance of posting that picture and making that analogy? If anything, it stresses JihadJane's point. The object of WW2 was not to wipe out the German people. It was to defeat the regime. The Germans of today are the children and grandchildren of those who lived during Hitler's regime. And the photo - the damaged Reichstag - is symbolic of the fall of the regime, the average Berliner couldn't care less about its state. If you'd wanted to stress the suffering of the German people in the process, you should have shown a photo like this one of Cologne.