The Turbanator

I see the President of Iran (the man Lefties think is capable of being persuaded to abandoning his nuclear ambitions, which will inevitably lead to the acquisition of nuclear weapons) has warned states who supported Israel against the Palestinians of consequences.  He implied Muslims (presumably those who live in the countries they have earmarked for attack) will be taking revenge.  Mahmoud Scatadinejad once again questioned the validity of the Holocaust and said Palestinians were paying the price.  Sorry, Scat, Palestinians are paying the price for continuously supporting terrorists, for seeking the destruction of the legitimate Jewish State, and for the perpetual refusal to compromise.

Denying the Holocaust is a more extreme condition of the same mindset that states the IRA are not criminals/terrorists: it is so ridiculous in the face of insurmountable evidence that those who think contrary are instantly shown-up for what they are.  Is Scat telling us that Auschwitz, for example, was a Polish version of Joe Maplin's 'hi-de-hi' holiday camp (with Joseph Mengele cast in the role of Gladys Pugh)?  Still, when you rule a country where female nakedness can be viewed in a picture as long as the face is covered, and where the penalty for playing American pop music can be 6 months imprisonment, there is no degree of warped sickness that is off-limits.

Currently, the trend among certain liberals is to dismiss this man and his cesspit society as an eccentric society which makes big noises about future intentions but does not have the will to carry them out.  Poppycock!!  Iran is now the most influential player in the Middle East as far as the ROPs are concerned.  For how long will we continue to turn a blind-eye of convenience to what this man and his repressive Islamic secure unit is doing?

Comments

[daytripper]

Winning and not losing.

is the neo-con grand plan beginning to unravel?

[Colm]

But in all honesty given the pressures of the situation in Iraq does anyone seriously think the US will undertake any military action however limited with Iran.

[daytripper]

i sincerely hope not, but they have limitless quantities of boneheaded stupidity, wrapped around lashings of arrogance.

[Anonymous]

Youre being a bit harsh there Daytripper, the
liberal lunacies since Carter were hardly an unqualified success

[daytripper]

im talking about the administration, because its they who start these wars. not the american people.

[notme]

daytripper: President Bush serves at the pleasure of the American people who elected him twice. Demonizing the Bush Administration might serve your propoganda purposes but it doesn't square up with reality.

[daytripper]

what reality?

do you mean the continual, and deliberately confusing, mixed messages about whether the west might or might not attack iran?

or the 6 years of non-cooperation with any form of dialogue that resulted in the recent detonation of a N.Korean nuclear device?

please expand you empty words.

[notme]

daytripper, try to follow the plot.

First, you said "im talking about the administration, because its they who start these wars. not the american people."

and then I said: "President Bush serves at the pleasure of the American people who elected him twice. Demonizing the Bush Administration might serve your propoganda purposes but it doesn't square up with reality."

Your comment/question at 3:26 jumps to an entirely different subject, yet you ask me to "expand my empty words". I haven't had any words regarding the new topic which you just introduced.

[daytripper]

the original question, as posed by colm.

But in all honesty given the pressures of the situation in Iraq does anyone seriously think the US will undertake any military action however limited with Iran.

my replies

i sincerely hope not, but they have limitless quantities of boneheaded stupidity, wrapped around lashings of arrogance.

im talking about the administration, because its they who start these wars. not the american people.

your retort:

President Bush serves at the pleasure of the American people who elected him twice. Demonizing the Bush Administration might serve your propoganda purposes but it doesn't square up with reality.

my reply:

what reality?

do you mean the continual, and deliberately confusing, mixed messages about whether the west might or might not attack iran?

you maybe have a point on my dig about north korea, but i was merely firming up my position as to what the actual reality is. as opposed to the virtual one, which places like ATW seem to thrive on.
i call your words empty, because you attempt the draw the argument away from the topic, by one focusing on the personality, criticisimg my dissent and then accuse me of steering the topic in a different direction, when it is quite clear that it is you who has done just that. even my punctuation seems to be of considerably more importance to you than anything i have to say. which ill admit may come across as rather high and mighty or even arrogant. but then i am merely responding in kind, to the rabid sensationalism of the absolutly trivial that goes on here on ATW. i consider it my duty to break shine a light on the half truths and nazi-esque demonisations that go on in here. and if that means repeating myself, so be it. i will not allow an entire people be scapegoated by petty predjudice. it happened before, was allowed to ferment and millions died. fuck that. not on my watch.
while i may be poor at getting my salient points across, i usually do have a point, and it should be heeded. what is happening today is a product of the very people who claimed to be out there stopping it. and its no coincidence that this is the case. there are international solutions to these problems and mass murder is not one of them. of that im fairly convinced.

now back on topic, as you requested.
------------------------------------

if iran is attacked it is my belief that we will cross a threshold in world affairs. no longer will the crisis be regional. it will be global, and on a scale far far greater than even world war two. the two countries who are most likely to react are russia and china. russia because it will be the final straw in a continual race to destroy its influence in the middle east and the caucus, and also the obvious threat to business interests. and china simply because their supply of oil will be threatened. no oil means no economy, which means an end to the great experiment with capitalism. this is why the two countries have been conducting joint military exercises for several years now.

as you can see there is an underlying theme to all of this. and its not the carefully packaged and presented WMD fluff. its energy resources. and its all over the media if you read between the lines and look at seemingly innocuous articles from a different angle. europe is in a bad position when it comes to energy. all our production seems to have peaked which means importing is the only option. economic growth demands it. russia has us over a barrel. putin can literally turn a tap and large parts of europe will go without gas. Its old news if you choose not to ignore it.

so russia can ransome europe to a certain extent with its gas and oil exports. now, where to fill the gap. my my, where indeed. well a casual gaze to the south east of europe, either through turkey or over the causus you quickly come to that special little place called the middle east. and what a pickle it is in. almost soley run by despots and sitting on top the greatest concentration of oil known to man. further east again and we see the rich pickings of the central asian gas fields.
as an exercise, run a line from western europe to the middle east and look at all the countries with major conflict, civil unrest or border disputes. from the balkans to turkey, georgia, armenia, azerbijan, ukraine, iran, turkmenistan, uzbeqistan, iraq, russia, afghanistan, kazakstan, kurdish iraq, lebanon, syria.
everyone of them has domestic unrest of some sort, and everyone of them is required to allow the easy flow of energy to europe. LNG ships can be used, but nothing can ship gas like piplines. they provide a constant and stable source.

conflict and energy solutions.
ok the west to the rescue. lets put the two together.

western military in the region and the energy resources of this region

look at that last image again, and tell me honestly if youre still convinced that this is all about WMD or terrorism. Is the west going to attack iran? well judging by the map and basing conclusions soley on who doesnt have a US base, its not hard to figure it out. the answer is a resounding yes. i truely hope they dont. our only hope lies with the russians. can the exert enough power on the europeans to convince the US that attacking iran is going to be a costly affair. or will the americans just ignore everyone and go it alone. evidence supports the latter. the sideshow of lebanon and the ongoing buildup in the region, makes war almost inevitable.

[Harry]

Can somebody tell me what an 'ROP' is.Thanks,Harry.

[Colm]

daytripper

Whether readers agree with the above or not , you certainly deserve to be congratulated on the effort you have put in to the above posting and it deserves to be widely read.

[Colm]

Harry

ROP is a used here by David and some others tongue in cheek. It refers to Islam as "Religion of Peace".

[daytripper]

thank you colm, but as usual, when faced with the facts people tend to run a mile. then when ignored for a couple of days its back to square one and back to the same old crap.

[Colm]

daytripper

At least your detractors should respect the quality and effort you put into such impressive postings as above.

[daytripper]

i wont be holding out for much hope of that. i did expect at least one "youre delusional" though. so i really must have done a job, not to get that.

[aileen]

daytripper

you're delusional ;o)

[Colm]

Sorry aileen, you just don't manage to say it with the same screeching force as Monica would manage :)

[aileen]

daytripper

you're delusional and can kiss my non-american.........!

That better? The wink probably didn't help much.

[daytripper]

That better? The wink probably didn't help much.

lol, yes. women can wink at me all day though. its the closest im going to get to the real thing, until i get home. ;)

maybe even monica might be brought round if i tell her that my grouping has improved on the Beretta 92.

[Tom Tyler]

Daytripper, your above post is indeed worthy of merit for the time & effort taken to write it, and also worthy of a serious response to what it says. I might attempt a reply later tonight. But I did read it and I didn't just dismiss it.

[Colm]

I'm sure at this very moment Monica is half way through a momentous 1,000 word rebuttal... but then again she must just tell daytripper for the 67th time to place his lips on her posterior...

[aileen]

Colm

I know how mainstream that phrase is but I just can't get a way from what is literally being advocated.

[Colm]

aileen

I think we could all end up with the unshakeable image in our heads of daytrippers face moving ever closer to Monica's derriere...

[aileen]

Colm

I'm filling my brain with puppies and primroses, puppies and primroses, puppies and ...

Tom will get us back in topic later.

[daytripper]

we could all end up with the unshakeable image in our heads of daytrippers face moving ever closer to Monica's derriere...

i have to admit, in my current monk like state, even monicas behind is beginning to .........

no no, wheres that birch tree.