It's the slippery slope I tells ya...

Neglecting blogging today; next week, net-volunteers on moat cleaning duty; next month, pulling lobsters out of lord Mandelson's arse!

They might look like lobsters to you but they are in fact Mandelson-alien cross-breeds, the off-shoot of pool-side orgies @ Brizinsky's and Cheney's ranches. Gordon Brown's New World Order in the making so don't ask questions, just get on and do what we're asked.

A deafening silence from Craig Murray's site on the situation in Iran, where Islamic theocrats have stolen an election. Cat got your tongue?

Don't forget to allow us to proof read your election material Craig. What is it they say - you can never have enough opinions as long as they are all positive.

>A deafening silence from Craig Murray's site on the situation in Iran, where Islamic theocrats have stolen an election. Cat got your tongue?

>Posted by: eddie at June 13, 2009 10:12 PM

Umm.. Eddie, I presume you are actually able to read the main entry, which says that Craig is actually in Africa doing something else and so is unable to post. Exactly which bit of that was too difficult for you to understand?

Eddie's a bit slow. He has comprehension difficulties.

It would be kind of strange if Eddie hadn't read the main comment, since his denouncement of Mr. Murray's implied awkward silence on the subject was posted from that blog entry.

But the larger implication is supposed to be that Mr. Murray is somehow to be embarrassed at the declared result. Why, Eddie? Please explain.

eddie,

What's the difference between a blind theocracy, that puts god before the state; and a staunch party following, that puts the state before the people?

And before you answer that, remember that Blair has finally exposed himself to the world as a wannabe theocrat.

JimmyG.

Personally, I'd rather put God before the state anyway. To me, it goes without saying which would be better.

Putting the party before the state would be very different, but in eddies broken kaleidoscope eyes, who's can say.

Eddie also probably hasn't read Pilgers latest article for The New Statesman!

Eddie: I offer this in the spirit of good knockabout fun without four-letter words, logorrhea or gratuitous insults (generally Craig's contributors maintain these standards): cat got your tongue too?

The demonisation of Iran and Ahmadinejad continues apace on the BBC and Sky, some of it outrageous. The BBC's veteran Simpson, stooge for USUKIS, was calling it a 'strange' country. No stranger than the US and the UK who wage illegal wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and torture their citizens in grotesque ways nor stranger than Israel who kill, maim and torture thousands of Palestinians, even children.

And the policing of the street 'riots' in Tehran looks remarkably similar to some of the G20 policing.

Ah I thought that would bring out the moral equivalence brigade, the "yes, but" brigade, as in, "Iran may be run by horrid theocrats who deny equal rights for women and minorities, hang Gay people for being Gay, execute more people than any other country except China (including minors), where democracy is a sham, where the president is a Holocaust denying nutter... BUT we are just as bad". My response to that is BOLLOCKS.

Simpson is a fear monger verging on the edge of war mongerer. I first noticed this in the winter of 1996, His words "clearly they are preparing for something" in a report about Syrian military exerciss, spun to mean Syria is going to launch a military attack to reclaim the Golan, was a disgrace as was his Iraq war reporting and recently in Afghanistan, when he helped the British governer there parrot all the tardy lies so ingrained in the British foreign 'diplomat' psyche.

Keep the self overinlfated legend in his own mind bumbling old fool, on 'Have i got news for you. - the only news program he's worthy of.

If the Iranian election were faked, the fact would be a state secret, and so getting at the truth, in a repressive regime like Iran would be difficult and dangerous. But there are clues that this may have happened; civil servants asking not to be named reported in the New York Times as saying that the ministry was purged and prepared for weeks to give the required result.

PS. Link to NYT report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14memo.html

eddie,

Your bollocks may not be equal, but they are ambivalent.

When Tehran does bad things, it's bad; but when ZanuLabour does similar things, your testicles swing the other way.

For example, does Tehran drug minors when they differ from the political expectations of feminist education psychologists?

If Ahmadinejad had gone, the contract to supply the US forces in Afghanistan through Qatar and Iran would have had to be re-negotiated.

It's not only minors who are drugged if they do not conform to the political expectations of feminist psychologists. Many of us have undergone chemical bollock extraction in later life as well. Mercifully the effect wore off quite soon, except Eddie where some permanent imbalance may have been caused.

If Irans elections were fully open and fair and not exposed to administrative attempts at interfering with communications, cutting of voting sidtricts and lection offices for hours, then one could assume that the votes cast for Ahmadinedjad, some 10% higher than he received at the last election were fair and all is well in Iran.

But looking at the vast discontent and the expectancy of political pundits not aligned to our BBC vested interest mouthpiece, one can assume to say the least that electoral fraud has taken place. The younger generation wanted change en masse and voted for it, the urban masses votin for the opposition do not believe his popularity has shot up by 10%.

Finally, we in the west will have to live with it and talk to whoever is there to talk to, a limited nuclear attack on Iran is not an option, whatever netanyahu/Avigdor thinks or wants.

As for the squabbling about not picking up this issue, give the man a break, not only is he galumphing around Africa, he also has a very young baby and a family life.

"My response to that is BOLLOCKS."

Could you enlarge on that Eddie?

Google whataboutery and all will be revealed. Your moral compasses, as ever, are misaligned. Iran executes more people per capita than any other country. It is a wonderful country that has an evil regime. People on the streets of Tehran are chanting "We want freedom" - they understand its value, unlike some.

When was the last time Iran invaded anyone, Eddie?

Are the US and UK in compliance with the NPT Eddie?

Why does the USA block UN resolutions against Israel, Eddie, when they are a rogue nuclear state and commit war crimes in e.g. Gaza?

Google whataboutery and all will be revealed, Eddie. I don't like Governments and peoples that practise wholesale hypocrisy.

@ingo

I remember the pundits predicting a hung parliament in the 1992 General Election... the Conservatives were returned with an overall majority of 20+ seats.

Don't know what your source is for the young voting en masse for change. Could that be just in Tehran? But Ahmadinejad may have benefited from his actions in helping three million poor women carpet-makers and Azeris.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html

Drearylin - apart from being irrelevant, your posts make my point exactly. "What about Israel, what about gaza,what about the G20 policing ...ad nauseum" BORING. Re-read my posts and then tell me that we are morally equivalent to the nutballs who run Iran. And if you think that we are the same as a regime that hangs Gay people and stones women to death then you are WRONG.

That's the first time I've seen you alter someone's handle, Eddie. Was it supposed to be smart? Or just rude?
And how come you can't answer my questions? Putting "wrong" in capital letters is no answer. I never used the term "morally equivalent". So just answer my questions, if you can, and don't put words in my mouth.

"Was it supposed to be smart? Or just rude?"
Both.

Your questions are irrelevant so buzz off.

Your questions are inconvenient.

Fixed it for ya.

no just irrelevant.

@eddie

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the "debate" between yourself and dreoilin,i have say it's very rude and puerile to change someone's handle like that.

Grow up.

I am grown up, but where I receive ad hominem abuse I tend to respond in kind. I always aim to be polite in the first instance.

Well to paraphrase Gandhi,if you will...an eye for an eye renders the whole world blind...

Surely,if you believe in the points you're making in a discussion you ought stick to your line and rise above those who would abuse you? At end it dilutes your own position surely?

Which is not to say i agree with your posts- i rarely do-but surely you see my point here?

I do, but no one is perfect. As I say, I have been subject to a huge amount of abuse on here for expressing what I consider to be calm and reasonable views. In response I have been often been met not with counter arguments but abuse - I have been called a Zionist shit, troll, scumbag, evil turd etc etc. So it is often hard not to retaliate. But I take your point.