Iran uses fabricated WikiLeaks cable to smear UN rights rapporteurWorld | 206765 hits | Aug 02 2:20 pm | Posted by: N_Fiddledog Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
|
Iran, the Fox News of the middle east. Anyway, the UN is a bullshit anti-Zionist organization, so any smearing of it is all to the good.
Fox News of the middle east??
More the Media Matters, I think.
Have you not been watching your own media lately?
Since the Kerry/Obama brainwave of "Let's get Iran a bomb" the podboys of media like Think Progress and Salon have decided maybe the rest of us were right about the dangers of the House of Saud. Although with them it seems to be more because those damn Saudis are opposed to a nuclear Iran - the party poopers.
So now the House of Prog has joined us in being worried about the Arabs (although for their own differing reasons). But what comes with this new wave of anti-Saud is a merging with the ol' anti-Israel chestnut. If you're brave enough to go deep into progworld these days you'll discover the Jews did 9/11 with the Arabs.
Who knew, right?
Oh, but here's the main point. The new meme from the land of Daily Kos and such is yeah Jews and Arabs suck, but lets not confuse them with those lovable old curmudgeonly Mullahs of Iran.
Maybe the British left hasn't got the memo yet.
With Iran it's "Four legs bad. Two legs better" now.
The Guardian had a couple stories that had me scratching my head today. They seemed to be going off the farm. ("Animal" that is)
The Saudis pretty much own both major American political parties.
I'm intrigued. "Influence," I get. (And it's not just them.) But, "Own"?
Show me where you get that from.
Another thing that interests me is why has it been just lately that you've decided the House of Saud is the New World Order?
Again, where did that come from?
It's rhetoric. I was hoping for something like evidence. Specifically evidence of this claim of ".
And if the Saudis, as you say, both parties, why would they allow Obama to make the deal with Iran? They're opposed to it.
Myself, I don't have a problem with thinking of Saudis as the bad guy, but why does it have to be to the exclusion of the Mullahs of Iran.
Why can't they both be something we need to be cautious of?
The menace of Iran, wildly overstated or not, doesn't automatically make their Sunni rivals in Saudi Arabia the good guys.
But again why would the Saudis have to seen as "good guys". Why are we not allowed to see both states as sponsors of terrorism and fundamentalist rage?
They are, after all.
Whew...thanks, cause I was worried.
I mean these Mullahs actually believe their Mahdi, child, warrior king is going to come out of a well where he's been hiding since the 10th century and obliterate the unbelievers if they (Iran) can get a big enough conflict going to draw him out.
Think I'm joking?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worl ... h-century/
So guys like that, responsible for the kind of terrorism and conflict, and open plans for further conflict...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_ ... _terrorism
we don't have to worry about guys like that getting their hands on a newly released 150 billion dollars they could finance more of the terror they're famous for with, right? In fact what the Hell, let's throw in a nuclear bomb. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing right? We know this cause...
is there something more than just cause you say so?
You'll probably get your way anyhow someday. The TeaBirchers will hold up the deal in Congress as long as they can and if they win the White House they'll rip it up altogether. I remain confident that the next US disaster overseas will be when they attack Iran on Israel and Saudi Arabia's behalf.
I've posted multiple links in the past where high ranking Israeli defence and intelligence officials have stated that fear of Iran is highly overblown, and being deliberately used by Likud to stoke up fear in the US.
Show me.