The main British editorials happen to agree that Ahmadinejad has won points in this latest naval round. I find it rather disappointing.  With over 650,000 innocents dead in Iraq and a war against Iran on the horizon, it is about time British columnists stop telling us about tactical gains and losses. Instead they should once and for all endorse a humanist and ethical discourse grounded on genuine responsibility.

The battle between Ahmadinejad and Blair is not a political or diplomatic one, it is not about points. It is actually a clash between civilizations, a fight between humanism and cold pragmatism. As it emerges, in this battle, it is Ahmadinejad rather than Blair who reminds us where goodness rests.  Seemingly, a man who has been repeatedly presented by our deluded Western media as a 'radical’, ‘fundamentalist’ and  ‘Islamofascist’ has proved beyond doubt that it is actually him who knows what forgiveness and grace are all about, It was Ahmadinejad who has pardoned the enemy, it was Ahmadinejad that evoked some prospects of  a peaceful future.



Brits and Americans should ask themselves whether they can recall Bush or Blair meeting with any of the many illegally detained Guantanamo Bay inmates? Brits may also want to ask themselves when was the last time their Prime Minister was seen chatting with Abu Hamza or alike? My usual Ziocon critics would obviously blame me for equating here ‘innocent’ naval personnel to ‘murderous bloodthirsty terrorists’. I would suggest to them to bear in mind that it is ‘us’ who label others as ‘terrorist’ as much as it is ‘us’ who generously entitle ourselves as ‘innocent’. I may as well voluntarily suggest to my possible critics that within this  so called ‘cultural clash’, it is again ‘us’ who launched an illegal war, it is ‘us’ who are legally and morally responsible for the ongoing genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is ‘our’ democratically elected  governments that supports the Israelis' atrocities in Palestine. It is ‘our’ leaders who happen to be the terrorists who fail to talk to the so called enemy, it is ‘our’ leaders who fail to offer any hope for peace. Instead they just prepare us for many more conflicts to come. More importantly, I may suggest to my critics that in the eyes of an Iranian, the captured naval personnel are part of an invasion army that destroys Arab and Muslim states.

I wonder how the majority of British people would feel about a bunch of Iranian naval commandos operating in the English Channel stopping every Western vessel and searching its belly for some potential military goods. I wonder as well how would some Brits feel about the Iranian democratically elected government interfering with the British Parliament’s recent decision to spend dozens of billions on a new Trident, a weapon designed for indiscriminate killing of millions. Obviously there is no need to elaborate on these rhetorical questions, the answers are clear. The vast majority of Brits wouldn’t accept anyone interfering neither with British politics nor with the Kingdom’s territorial water. Yet, for the majority of Westerners constant intimidation and destruction of Muslim or Arab states seems to be nothing other than business as usual.




I better admit it; I do not know where exactly the fifteen British sailors were captured.  I am far from being qualified to say who tells the truth about this saga, whether the seamen were captured in Iranian sea or was it in an international water. Reading some expert commentators about the subject, I tend to believe that no one has a clear-cut answer to offer.  In fact, most British papers have now adopted the notion of ‘caught in disputed water’ just to disguise their premature judgment some days ago.

However, the issue here has nothing to do with truth. The question to be asked here is why is it so complicated for us Western people to accept the possibility that the truth of the other may be slightly or even very different to ours. I may admit that I find it rather concerning that the British press willingly and blindly bought the British government account of the naval dispute while dismissing the possibility that the Iranians may have had an adequate argument to offer.

At the end of the day, we may have to face it, Blair and his government’s record for telling the truth is not very impressive. In the last five years the British government has managed to lie more or less about everything; whether it was Iraqi WMD, 45 minutes of deployment of those imaginary weapons, whether it was a fantasmic pretext for an illegal war.

I find it mind boggling that any rational human, could find that ridiculous dissertation you copied as anything but laughable.
It has more holes than a sieve, but it is enough to merely state a preference for Islam, for you to switch off your critical thinking, and accept it.

Absolutely nobody who is not already deluded, will fall for this type of stuff, it is silly fanboy drivel.

Mozzaok like any opinion piece - there is some truth in it, whether it is biased or exaggerated.  There were some points that you could take into consideration.

Quote:


You can't dispute those comments.  It is also a reminder of the time an Iranian passenger plane carrying hundreds of civilians was shot down in Iranian waters.  The US investigated and found that their naval ship had "accidentally" encroached on an Iranian flight corridor, yet awarded Medals of Honour to the Captain who made the decision to shoot this plane down.  Did the Iranians ever get an apology or compensation?

A couple of years ago, Iran extended the hand of peace to the US and a female Minister (can't remember her name) begged the world on behalf of Iran that all they wanted was to live in peace without the threat of being bombed, but it was rejected by Bush who at the time refused to even engage with Iran.

If the US under Bush negotiated a peace treaty - where would that leave their political agenda?  Israel is being used as a pawn in this game with Iran obviously. 

Quote:


Many believe that statement to be true - even the true Jewish people themselves.  The Neturei-Karta, founded in Jerusalem, Palestine in 1938, for the purpose of fighting Zionism oppose the so-called "State of Israel" not because it operates secularly, but because the entire concept of a sovereign Jewish state is contrary to Jewish Law.

The true Jews are against dispossessing the Arabs of their land and homes. According to the Torah, the land should be returned to them.


Let's be realistic - the UK and UN made a huge mistake - not only to the safety of the Jewish people by plonking them down in the middle of Arab territory, but to the non-Jews already living there. What other religious group would want to live and raise their children surrounded by those who hate them?

Mantra,

That event you mentioned is actually the 7th. worst air disaster in the history of aviation, and in the eyes of all Iranians nothing but a callous act of terrorism. It occured during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iran was at war with then US ally, Iraq. If any other nation on earth was responsible for shooting down the airliner of their ally's enemy, there'd  be no doubt whatsoever about the circumstances, it would instantly be labeled an act of terrorism, but not for the epitome of international arrogance, the USA. Here is what the Vice President at the time had to say about it:

"I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are."

Quote:


I saw an American documentary where they presented the circumstances and even with their spiel - it was truly shocking.  The crew on the navy ship were gungho - that much was obvious.  The whole recounting of it appeared false.

I think it was the Medal of Bravery or Honour or whatever it was that was presented to the Captain after the investigation - even after the finding that they were "accidentally" in Iranian air space was the really galling aspect of the whole disaster.

Quote:




Ahmadinejad is not a peacemaker.


Watch these words come out of the lips of President Ahmadinejad, as he whips up an Iranian crowd into a frenzy of hatred against non-muslims [Israel]...

"The ocean of rage of the people of the region will surge and eradicate the Zionist regime."

YOUTUBE
Farewell Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-IwwfeLp4M







Ahmadinejad has two faces, depending upon which audience he is addressing....

Look at the dates on these next news reports, then look closely at their content!




1st story...

September 23, 2007

"Death to America," "Death to Israel" in Iranian parade as Thug-In-Chief watches

......Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad relaxes by watching a parade featuring banners that read al-mawt al-Amrika and al-mawt al-Israil,
Death to America and Death to Israel.
You can see, however, that they are rendered in English on the same banners as "Down with USA" and "Down with Esrail."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018222.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27159_The_Day_Before_Ahmadinejads_...





2nd story...

24 September 2007

Iran leader plays down 'US war'

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said that Iran is not heading for armed conflict with the United States.
In an American television interview, he said Iran was not on a path of war with the US and that Iran had no need of nuclear weapons.
He is due to address the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7009731.stm